bad theology

How Did We Get Here? One Word, Idolatry

How Did We Get Here? One Word, Idolatry

Frank

Following the Attorney General’s reference to Romans 13 as a defense for the Trump Administration’s current immigration policy, I was planning on writing a post regarding the poor interpretation of that passage and its historical misuse.  This was planned to have been an update to my previous post on the subject.  Others have covered that ground for me and you don’t have to look far, but I recommend these posts from Michael Gorman and Kurt Willems if you want to get deep.  Another good summary is provided by Get Religion that gives a survey of mainstream media coverage.

I felt like I had to quickly jump into the fray to defend scripture against those who would twist it for their own ends.  I felt like David facing down Goliath.  David didn’t care about the extensive crimes against humanity of the Philistines, rather he was motivated by the need to defend God’s honor against a foe who was mocking him.  Such an attitude, I realized after reading a post from a classmate of mine, gives the impression that I care more about the integrity of biblical interpretation than I do the injustice being perpetrated.  She wrote, “no one needs to know what Paul actually meant in order to see evil steadily at work.” I was convicted because she was exactly right.

“No one needs to know what Paul actually meant in order to see evil steadily at work.”

But I’m not here to debate policy, nor am I going to complain for the sake of complaining.  It has always been my goal with this space to apply scripture to current events to steer us towards a kingdom-attitude when it comes to politics, media, and life in the public square.  Another social media post noted (paraphrasing), “If you see what’s happening and your first reaction is, ‘but they broke the law!’ Then we don’t have a difference of opinion, we have a difference in morality.”  That nails it, and that’s what I want to address here.

A Difference in Morality

I am dismayed not only by the injustice being carried out by this Administration, but also the unashamedly-partisan support from many claiming to be Christian.  I’m not here to question their faith or their salvation, but I see support of this ongoing atrocity as merely a symptom of something more insidious: idolatry.  Idolatry is anything that we place in a position over and above God.  And that means anything: usually career, money, or fame is often invoked as examples, but anything that ‘gets our blood boiling’ to the degree that we think, speak, or act in an ungodly way is an idol.  We’re often not aware of when we do this, especially when we respond emotionally, but over time these things become more important to us than our relationship with God and the symptom is how it affects our relationships with other people.  That is why the Old Testament is full of warnings against idolatry in the backdrop of prosperity, religiosity, and nationalism.

Paul wrote that, “The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world.  Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.  We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)  Basically, these divine weapons tear down idols that prevent others from knowing God.  So what idols are driving the current debate?

The Idolatry of Ideology

This is the idolatry that brought President Trump to power in the first place. It is an idolatry that manifests itself as unwavering allegiance to partisanship.  As Christianity Today pointed out at the time, American Christians weren’t voting for Donald Trump as much as they were voting against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  Because of two decades worth of vilifying the other side- initially embodied by President Clinton and his wife Hillary.  This partisanship is an idol because by its very nature divides disciples of Jesus that should otherwise be united.

It’s not hard to see this all over on social media- when posts or comments refuse to consider things objectively, even when presented with contrary evidence.  I think it’s telling that with respect to the separation of children at the border, even Franklin Graham spoke out against it, as did many politicians and media representing the Right.  Yet I saw friends that refused to budge from their position with unequivocal support.  It’s not just on the Right either, when someone would remind us that President Obama was called “the Deporter-in-Chief” his defenders wouldn’t acknowledge his administration’s culpability in what is going on now.

Such strong allegiance leads us into ungodly debate (cf. 2 Timothy 2:23) and divides relationships.  This is where ideology steps over the line into idolatry.  It prevents civil discussion, refuses to agree to disagree, and gives the impression that one’s ideology is more important than anything else.

Is this idol a temptation for you? Ask yourself, based on your social media profile or in-person conversations, are people more likely to know about your political party or your Christian faith?

The Idolatry of Moral Absolutes

This idol seems counter-intuitive.  Christians hold to the Bible as their standard of morality, even though we may disagree on details or application.  So it would appear that moral absolutes are a good thing, right?  But the Bible offers very few absolutes relative to the real-life we experience every day.  That is why the author of Ecclesiastes expresses frustration that everything is “meaningless, meaningless!” (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11) and the Psalmist cries out, “how long, oh Lord, will the wicked prosper?” (Psalm 94:3)

For every reference to Leviticus in order to argue against homosexuality, there is the counter argument that we should therefore abstain from eating shellfish or wearing cotton-poly blended fabric.  For every sermon about biblical marriage, there’s a story about David and Bathsheba or about Abraham lying about his relationship with Sarah.

Holding to moral absolutes leads to self-righteousness.  We become convinced we are right and there is nothing that can change our view.  And if I am absolutely certain I am right, then any other perspective must be wrong.  Yet Jesus said that the entirety of the Law can be summarized by these two commands: love God and love others (Matthew 23:36-40).  If what I am convinced that is right cannot be expressed in love, then it is an idol.  If I cannot hold my convictions while at the same time loving my neighbor as myself, then that conviction is an idol.  This isn’t about policy, it is about the attitude when being right is more important than right-relationships (i.e. the definition of righteousness).

The Idolatry of White Privilege

Yes, I went there.  I could also call this the idol of circumstance.  It stems from a lack of empathy because we cannot conceive experiences different from our own.  The example I always think of when it comes to this is Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty’ recalling that before the Civil Rights movement when he picked cotton with African-Americans they were all happy as if they didn’t have a care in the world.

When it comes to the immigration debate, we forget that unless you are First Nation or descended from slaves, you are an immigrant that voluntarily left a place to come here in search of a better life.  It may be generations removed, but you’re non-native nonetheless.  So the theme throughout scripture to “be kind to the foreigner, because you too were foreigners in the land” (Leviticus 19:34) is apt because we are all foreigners in this land.  An inability to accept that puts your own point of view and your own experiences over all others and is, therefore, an idol.

We are also short-sighted when we prop our privilege up as an idol.  We weren’t there, so we don’t know just how much our ancestors were mistreated when they came to this country.  Look no further than how this country historically treated the Irish, Italian, and German.  You can even go back to the colonies with Ben Franklin who said of German immigrants, “are generally of the most Stupid Sort of their own Nation.”  Remember to treat the foreigner kindly, because you were mistreated as a foreigner in this land.

The Idolatry of American Exceptionalism

I’ve written about this before, but I’ll repeat it here- God owes the United States no particular favor.  We, as a nation, are not in a covenant relationship with God.  We are subconsciously biased towards territorialism- our news regularly reports the atrocities of others: Chinese currency manipulation and industrial espionage, Russian hacking and social media bots, and so on, as if we are completely innocent from participating in the same.

Sure, be ‘proud to be an American’, sing ‘God Bless America’, and stand for the National Anthem.  But when we react with venom and hatred if someone kneels at a football game or disrespects the President, are we responding in a Christ-like manner?  America is not perfect.  It is not Zion.  It is not the Promised Land.  And our government consists of fallen human beings representing the interests of fallen human beings.  There will be corruption, there will be deceit, double-standards, and backroom dealing.  There will be laws we don’t agree with and there will be miscarriages of justice.  For no other reason than because it’s human nature.

Going back to those most important commandments above, if your love of country prevents you from loving your neighbor, your patriotism is an idol.

The Idolatry of Government

This one is easy to slip into and I’m guilty of it myself.  Because of the nature of our representative democracy and a relative prosperity for most of our lives (that is, if you’re not a minority), we can idealize the government as being able to fix all our problems.  This is an issue for the Right and the Left.  On the Right, the government should legislate morality.  On the Left, the government should spend money to fix social issues.  Neither approach is inherently wrong in and of themselves.  But when we expect our government to be our savior (saving from whatever social ill of the moment), government replaces God.

In God We Trust is our national motto for a reason- it should be a constant reminder that God is bigger than government.  That was the heart behind the American Revolution and the fight for our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by an authority higher than a monarchy.

The Idolatry of Safety

This is the idol I see more and more in our political dialogue.  We instinctively look out for our own self-interest, even if it’s at the expense of others.  So politicians use this to their advantage to stoke fear to motivate us politically.  Communists, terrorists, immigrants… there’s always a boogieman.  This politician wants to take away your fill-in-the-blank (gun, social security, retirement, bible).  That politician is the anti-Christ.  So we vote in such a way to protect what is ours.

I can say I love my neighbor… so long as my neighbor is not a threat.  What is remarkable about the Good Samaritan wasn’t that the Samaritan stopped to help a stranger, but that the Samaritan was the social enemy of the stranger and still helped.  We become numb to that distinction when the news highlights a “good Samaritan” any time someone stops to help a stranger.  The Samaritan risked his personal safety, his social reputation, and denied his own feelings to do the right thing.  Even for an enemy.

If we are against doing the right thing because doing so risks comfort, peace, or security, then our personal security has become an idol.

****

I need to call this out- with respect to the immigration debate, it doesn’t matter who’s to blame, who passed what law, or who did what first.  I would hope that as Christians we can all agree that separating immigrant children from their parents, in the way it was being done (the literal devil is in the details because there are humane ways of handling this), was wrong.  Period.  Full stop.

But that’s not what is argued.  Instead people complain about immigrants being a drain on the system, while the Administration hyperbolically accuses everyone of being an MS-13 gang member, and strict legalism towards the law and order becomes the only thing that matters.  As a Christian seeing people suffer, for whatever reason and in whatever circumstance, what difference does any of that make?

As I said at the top, we could debate policy, but I’ve found that most people don’t sincerely want to.  You can oppose immigration of any kind.  You could favor amnesty and open borders.  I honestly don’t care.  When you hold to a position so strongly as to divide or when you vilify others, you are not representing Christ.  To be clear, both sides are guilty of this- I try very hard not to bad-mouth the President or make statements that are personal.  I’m not always successful.  Yet while I am interested in policy (I admit I’m a politics junkie), my larger concern is how we treat others and how we represent Jesus to the world around us.

Can we disagree?  Absolutely!  But we need to be very mindful of why we disagree.  Examine your heart.  Honestly search for those idols.  Because they stand in the way of God’s in-breaking kingdom.  A kingdom of justice and compassion.  Where we don’t need laws because God’s law will be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10).

Amen

Cakes Sacrificed to Idols

Frank

Last week the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake supporting a same-sex wedding (for the record, he didn’t refuse to bake them a cake, he simply declined decorating a cake specific for their wedding).  While on the surface, that announcement looks like a solid win in the over-hyped culture wars, the decision itself was intentionally narrow, focusing not on the action of the baker but on the state civil rights commission.  Reading between the lines, it could be taken as a win for both sides.  I recommend reading this take from Skye Jethani that sheds some light onto this issue that might be missed in the usual media reporting.

I want to approach this from a different angle however.  This past semester I took a course titled Paul and the Gentile Mission.  The class focused on Paul’s missionary journeys, his letters, and the specific cultural issues the early church faced in an otherwise pagan culture.  Early in the year the professor gave us the example of Pergamum, one of the Seven Churches in Asia addressed in Revelation.  Its architecture and city layout that was typical of the Greco-Roman cities Paul would have visited.  What was noteworthy was just how pervasive pagan religion would have been.  If you wanted to purchase food in the market, you would have done so in the shadow of an enormous statue to Zeus.  To come and go from the public square would require passing by temples, shrines, and altars dedicated to several different gods.  Education would have been in a lecture hall either devoted to a particular deity or philosophical/rhetorical school.  Receiving medical care would have been done in the name of Asclepius.  And that doesn’t even mention the public baths, theaters, or gymnasiums.

All that to say, identifying as a Christian in such a multicultural and multi-theistic environment would not have been easy.  Every public act would force an either/or decision that could potentially compromise one’s conviction.  That’s why Paul spent so much time talking about syncretism (cultural conformity) in his letters, especially to the church in Corinth.  And that includes eating meat sacrificed to idols.

It’s not an obvious link, but I think Paul’s message regarding what we eat is relevant today to the debate over homosexuality and gay-marriage.  A quick summary of Paul’s argument from 1 Corinthians 8: food sacrificed to idols aren’t any more ‘holy’ than food that is not because mature Christians know the idol is meaningless.  But not all Christians are mature in this sense, so we must be careful with the choices we make to not make weaker Christians struggle.

Applying that to this debate, my logic goes like this- if a devout Christian is so opposed to gay-marriage that he or she cannot be a vendor of services to the ceremony, then it follows that this person believes the marriage isn’t recognized in the eyes of God.  If that’s the case then the “sacrament” of marriage would be invalid, in other words it wouldn’t count.  So it’s just like meat sacrificed to a god we know isn’t real- if it doesn’t count, why should I be offended by it?  If, on the other hand, the Christian believes the marriage is still sacramental, just sinful, then they need to apply the same standard by not supporting any second (or third, or fourth…) marriages, weddings between believers of different denominations (for example, imagine an Evangelical wedding planner working with a Catholic and Mormon who are getting married, oy vey!), and all weddings involving non-believers or all non-religious ceremonies.  (Do you still get a cake if you’re married in a drive-through by Elvis in Las Vegas? Asking for a friend.) If that vendor cannot apply their objection so broadly, then maybe they shouldn’t be in the business in the first place.

The counter argument, going back to Paul, is that supporting something he doesn’t believe in, in this case a homosexual marriage, would cause weak Christians to struggle because it implies endorsement.  But in every one of these cases that I’ve read about (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), it seems to me that the conscious being violated is their own – the baker, the photographer, the florist – not the “weak Christian” whom they should be concerned about.  I don’t mean this lightly or pejoratively, but to me that makes them the weak Christian.  In this sense, the Supreme Court got it right, the government can’t compel the weak Christian to violate his or her conscience.  One solution obviously would be for the oppositional Christian to become “mature”, but I think that’s asking too much and the government cannot assume this will ever happen.  The alternative then, is to expect this Christian to continue to be “weak”, so he or she really needs to consider if they’re in the right line of work.

Participating in commerce is a choice.  In the 1st Century, it was a choice that put Christians right in the middle of idol worship, emperor cults, mystery religions, and philosophical schools.  Selling cakes would have placed one right in the marketplace under the shadow of Zeus.  Participating publicly in a trade would imply membership in trade guilds or voluntary associations that had their own religious ceremonies and rituals (think Kiwanis, or the Elks Lodge but where membership was expected depending on your trade; e.g. the silversmiths in Ephesus (Acts 19:24-29), or the group of tent-makers where Paul met Pricilla and Aquila(Acts 18:2-3)). 

I am a frequent critic of the modern evangelical persecution complex primarily because it so ignorant of history.  The same is true here.  Christians didn’t stop participating in the culture where they lived.  Rather they were given warnings to guard against allowing that culture to influence their own actions and values that are demonstrated within the church.  Much of what Paul wrote was about how believers were to behave when in fellowship with one another, not how to navigate the culture wars of their time.  Paul wasn’t concerned about a Christian’s participation in commerce out in the world, rather he was concerned about how that participation affected the Christian’s relationships within the church and their ability to practice hospitality.  As he wrote in Romans, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17)

I heard a quote on the radio from the baker in this case, Jack Phillips, basically asserting that if the state can force him to bake a cake it is forcing him to forsake his relationship with God.  I say baloney, and so would Paul.  God isn’t that petty, and the baker isn’t forsaking anything.  The history of the church demonstrates that the culture-warriors today are making an argument that just didn’t matter to the earliest Christians.  And it shouldn’t matter to us.  I don’t wish Jack Phillips ill.  I don’t even wish he’d get out of the baking business.  What I do pray is that he, and others like him, can become mature in Christ and recognize that a commercial enterprise is not a religious endorsement (ahem, Hobby Lobby) understanding that the kingdom of God isn’t about what you’re selling, but about your personal righteousness, your peace in Christ to navigate a culture contrary to your ideals, and taking joy that the Holy Spirit has matured your heart so that these disputes no longer matter (liberally paraphrasing Romans 14).

This Song is About Me!

Frank

I read this a week or so ago in my Facebook feed from the click-baity site Hello Christian: “Is the Song ‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ Heretical?”  As expected, commenters were quick to defend the ear-worm song specifically and Hillsong’s ministry in general while criticizing the author for picking at nits (or staining gnats, if you prefer).

The author, Sam Storms, a pastor in Oklahoma who was just recently elected vice president of the Evangelical Theological Society, tried to make the point that the line, “you didn’t want heaven without us” paints God/Jesus as being needy, as if his worth relies on our “acceptance”.  Responses to the effect of, “it’s a song, get over it!’ miss his point entirely and ignore stories like Esther, to whom Mordecai pointed out that God’s deliverance of Israel didn’t depend on her, or Paul’s words on Mars Hill in Athens that God “is not served… as if he needed anything.”

As authors N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and others have (I believe) rightfully pointed out, the terms “gospel” and “salvation” have been diluted in Western Christianity to satisfy our personal tastes, making God no different than Santa Claus.  We “accept” Christ in “our hearts”.  We lament how politicians “keep God out of our schools” as if that’s even possible.  We church shop based on worship, children’t ministry, or we don’t even front and base it on how much time it takes out of our Sundays.  I’ve often heard the phrase, “if you were the only person on earth, Jesus still would’ve died for you.”  So in other words, the gospel is all about me.

And we hear it in the songs we sing.

‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ isn’t the only one.  Another that always makes my skin crawl every time I hear it is ‘This is Amazing Grace’ by Phil Wickham.  I pointed this out to my pastor the other day and now he says he can’t not hear it.  The chorus goes like this:

This is Amazing Grace
This is unfailing love
That you would take my place,
That you would bear my cross

You laid down your life
So I might be set free
Oh, Jesus, I sing for
All that you’ve done for me

Do you see it?  No, I’m not talking about “all that you’ve done for me”.  Rather that Jesus took my place to “bear my cross”.  This runs counter to Jesus’ very words that following him is conditional upon us taking up our own cross.  It’s not like he said it just once either.  You can find the message to “take up your cross and follow me” in Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, and 14:27.  Yes, I know, synoptics.  But my point is, this isn’t some obscure teaching that you only find in the fine print.

Jesus puts this condition as a “must” in Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9.  You’re not “worthy” of following Jesus if you don’t in Matthew 10.  And perhaps most hard-hitting, you “cannot” even be his disciple unless you do so in Luke 14.

So it’s a pretty big deal.

Yet we sing the opposite because it makes us feel better.

I don’t think Phil Wickham or Brooke Ligertwood include such lyrics intentionally.  (Another example that I think makes it obvious this isn’t intentional is TobyMac’s ‘Until the Day I Day’ where he repeats that he’ll follow God until things stop going well (“til the spotlight fades”))  The phrases fit the rhythm of the song and rhyme just right.

But I think this individualized gospel is so ingrained that we don’t even realize it when lyrics like this slip into the songs we regularly listen to or when it permeates the language we use.  And that individualism drives our religious decisions, our convictions, and our evangelism.  So we perpetuate it and it gets worse.

Songs are meant to impact us emotionally, so obviously we like songs that make us feel good.  But our theology shouldn’t be the same way.

Flashback Friday: Sanctuary

Frank

Given current headlines I thought this repost was appropriate.  Although originally published way back in 2007, not a lot has changed in this debate. My stance has changed somewhat since then, however (and especially given the enormity of what’s presently dominating headlines). I’d now argue a less passive, and more aggressive, response that what I write below. We cannot ignore the Biblical mandate to love the “least of these”. And the theme of God’s people being refugees, sojourners, and strangers runs deeply throughout the whole Bible. So, as Christians, we cannot be silent in the face of this oppression.

****

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current headlines show the debate never went away.

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley, California sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since by their actions, allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in in the first place? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They are here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there is someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.

A Short Drive For Forgiveness

Frank

I remember when the news came out. It was the turn of the century, a new millennium, a jubilee year for the church. To celebrate, Pope John Paul II declared that Catholics could earn an indulgence by taking a pilgrimage to a [long] short list of churches or holy sites. Conveniently for me, one of those churches was the Diocese of Denver.

It was just a few years earlier that JP2 (as we affectionately called him) visited Denver for World Youth Day- the same event Pope Francis I is currently celebrating in Brazil. Yesterday’s headline was how his convoy made a wrong turn and got caught in a throng of pilgrims and revelers. If you’re not Catholic, it is hard to describe the celebrity status of the Pontiff- but seeing all those people crowding themselves closer to the non-popemobile is worth more than my words.

I was one of them nearly two decades ago. I remember being shooed away by Secret Service as my friends and I got a little too close to the helicopter landing site at Mile High Stadium and later allowing some nuns a better view (right next to a barricade) of the Pope’s convoy on his way to mass at Cherry Creek Park.

All that to say, I get it. But back to 2000 I was faced with a dilemma. I had stopped attending the Catholic church, so I wasn’t technically in the “good graces” required to receive the indulgence- a remission of the “temporal penalty” of my sin. At the same time, I had spent the previous two to three months studying the Bible and coming to my own convictions regarding the forgiveness of sins. So I had a choice to make, take a short convenient drive to downtown for a temporary fix to my sinful nature without changing my lifestyle, or actually repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of my sins (Acts 2:38).

I’ll leave you guessing which I chose.

At home I have an old Catholic Bible. In the inside cover are a list of indulgences from Pope Pius XII based on the frequency with which one read it. When I open that Bible and look at those I scratch my head, wondering how that doctrine survived the Protestant Reformation. I figure many others felt the same way when they saw last week’s headline “Pope forgives Twitter followers“. The news resonated, even if it got the theology all mixed up.

I’ll leave it to others to recap the subject and correct the doctrine. Meanwhile, maybe you should follow Pope Francis on Twitter to cover all your bases. (or just trust the atoning blood of Jesus instead)

 

Be Somebody

Frank

Last week I nit-picked some lyrics from Skillet’s song, ‘American Noise’. To stick with Christian hard rock, I’m going to pick on Thousand Foot Krutch this time. Just as I really like ‘American Noise’, I’m also a huge fan of ‘Be Somebody’. However, this one lyric always gets under my skin whenever I hear it.

In the song, TFK describes their redemptive relationship with God through the lens of their own insecurity and immaturity. It’s a great song as it speaks to a need we all have- to be somebody- and acknowledging that we can really only “be somebody” in Christ.

But there’s one lyric where I think they have the relationship between them and God backwards. They sing, “I’m just the words you are the sound.” Short line; like I said I’m nit-picking for the sake of discussion. But when we consider that “In the beginning was the Word…” (John 1:1) regarding Jesus and Paul writing that “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) it seems to me like a glaring mistake, especially since it wouldn’t change the flow of the song to simply switch roles: “You are the words, I’m just the sound.” I believe this is closer to the truth and is how I try to live my life- I’m just noise, but God gives my noise purpose through the Word.

That aside, this is a powerful song. A song of hope and encouragement. Consider these lines:

I’m just a boy inside a man…
 
I’m just a speck inside your hand,
You came and made me who I am…
 
So when they say they don’t believe,
I hope that they see you in me…
 
We all want to be somebody…

Now watch the video:

American Noise

Frank

This song has been stuck in my head for a couple of weeks since hearing it on Air1. After looking up the lyrics, I felt I had to point out some “bad theology” for this Christian hard-rock band.

The hook in the chorus is “drink deep in the morning… see what the day will bring.” It sounds like a Scripture reference, no? But the only scripture that could apply to is Proverbs 7:18 and is in reference to a prostitute. Proverbs 7 continues, “My husband is not at home… and will not be home till full moon.” In contrast, in this song the verse is sung in hope, a plea to be free from the distractions of “American noise”.

Or is it?

Instead could this lyric be ironic, alluring us like the prostitute of Proverbs 7 away from God? Another words, is the chorus the American noise and the verses the lament over its cacophony?

I seldom dissect a song so much, but the lyrics are so catchy and strike a chord with me. Our “American noise” keeps us from living like God intends, becoming lazy in a comfortable brand of Christianity. (If you read my blog very much, you recognize this is a consistent theme.)

Not to mention I’m not much of a Skillet fan, so this song stands out to me that much more.

What do you think of Skillet’s new release? What do the lyrics say to you?

Judging the Author by the Book

Frank

A while back I was blogging through a book and someone took offense because of the author’s lifestyle. The argument was that his call to discipleship was hypocritical because of the size of his house. I can’t cast any stones because I don’t personally know either the author nor the commenter. But it points out a fundamental challenge for any author- you become known by the words committed to the page even though there is much more to you than those words. That’s one reason why blogs are so great, because you are able to catch the author in the moment, not limited to a specific subject or committed to the title of a book.

If you follow the advice to not judge a book by its cover, then do not judge the author by the book.

I humbly and regrettably admit, I’m not going to get around to reviewing either Francis Chan’s Multiply or David Platt’s Follow Me (which are intentionally complimentary works). There are many great reviews out there already (BibleDude for Multiply and Tim Challies for Follow Me for just a couple). But there is one review, actually a couple reviews by a single reviewer, that I want to address.

I am a big fan of Frank Viola; his teaching on the Organic Church and the Centrality of Jesus I believe are must-reads to break out of the Americanized Church. So I don’t blame him for the stances he takes on both of these books. His review of Multiply is followed by a series of questions directed at Fancis Chan, warning against the legalism of the shepherding movement that is read between the lines. His review of Follow Me sounds some of the same alarms adding that the book misses the Eternal Purpose of God.

I’m not intending this to debate Frank, only to emphasize the point made above- a single book is only a limited snapshot of who the author is and just a sliver of his or her doctrine and theology.

If you read Multiply without reading Crazy Love, then you won’t get an accurate measure of Chan’s overwhelming love of the Almighty God. If you read Follow Me (or Radical for that matter) without listening to David Platt’s sermons online, then you miss how much he is motivated by his love of the resurrected Jesus.

I just spent the last two hours listening to both Platt and Chan at the Verge Conference. Platt spent most of his time on the centrality of Jesus, and I believe Chan’s Crazy Love addresses God’s eternal purpose to reconcile his creation back to him. (Chan’s talk expanded on Jesus’ command “by this all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another”- John 13:34, by noting that they saw firsthand a resurrected Jesus and how could they not have been changed by such an experience.)

If you listen to a song that you really like, you will likely check out the artist’s other work- maybe log onto iTunes to listen to other songs on that album. If you like enough of them, you might buy it. If you really like the album, you might go watch them live or buy another album. You might follow them on Twitter and sign up for their fanclub.

Why should we treat the books we read any differently? Just as there’s more to a band than a single song or album, there is more to an author than a single book.

Unconditional is not Cheap

Frank

The other night I was browsing books at my local Family Christian store when I struck up a conversation with a guy in the same aisle. He was eagerly hunting for a book by a particular author. “Man, you gotta check this guy out! He’s on channel 9 at 6:30 in the morning. I was washed out on being a Christian, man. But this guy, he opened my eyes to grace!” The conversation continued about the fine line between law and grace and the failure of organized religion. I told him I was happy for him and I’d check the author out.

I meant what I said. I was genuinely happy to see his joy in Christ. His face was like many I’ve seen before rising from the waters of baptism into a new life. The Holy Spirit was definitely doing something in his life.

But there’s a risk. We desire structure and order, so we invent religious traditions. Yet we have an inner conflict to rebel, so cheap grace is an easy temptation. Not all grace is cheap of course. But there is a risk to worshiping grace rather than the giver of that grace. We easily turn blessings into idols- our families, financial prosperity. If you don’t believe me, look no further than the story of Isaac and Abraham. Isaac wasn’t just a blessing, he was an answered prayer, a miracle announced by an angel! And God needed Abraham to prove that he hadn’t become an idol.

I thought of this as Brennan Manning was describing God’s unconditional love and how we have such a hard time grasping the concept. This comes on the heels of Manning discussing “union” with God as His ultimate desire, so unconditional love is the means to that end. Yet how easily we twist it such that God’s unconditional love becomes the means to unlimited, cheap, grace. Manning writes,

“Unconditional love as a concept has transported me to intellectual nirvana, motivated the reading of at least fifty books on related themes, and deluded me into believing that I was there. Until along came a day when I was appalled to discover that nothing had changed…
Until the love of God that knows no boundary, limit, or breaking point is internalized through personal decision; until the furious longing of God seizes the imagination; until the heart is conjoined to the mind through sheer grace, nothing happens.” (pgs 74-75)

Nothing changed. Nothing happened. Why? Because we confuse God’s unconditional love as Him showering blessing upon blessing on us rather than His desiring to be with us. How hard we try to ascend to the level of Jesus, forgetting that he forsook all to come down to our level.

As I was reading this chapter, I made this note: Unconditional love is not giving your child unlimited undeserved gifts on Christmas morning- that would be spoiling. No, unconditional love is even after your child misbehaves you get down on your knees to and play with those gifts together.

It is Jesus, loving us as we are where we are, that brings about change. That is unconditional love.

This post continues discussion on Brennan Manning’s book, The Furious Longing of God. Please check out Jason Sasyzsen’s and Sarah Salter’s blogs for more discussion. The “consider this” questions come straight from the book- use them as a springboard for your own thoughts and feel free to share them here.

The End

Frank

No time to write a new post. I have to get ready for the end of the world tomorrow.

Of course, this isn’t the first time to tackle the subject on this blog. In May 2011, we braced ourselves to be raptured according to Harold Camping’s predictions. Just a few months earlier, the Large Hadron Collider came on-line and some speculated it would create a black hole that would swallow the earth.

Two tries (three, if you count Camping’s second try that October) and I’m still here. I figure I’ll survive this one too. But just in case, I better get this post up early…

As a side note, an asteroid flew by the Earth last weekend and missed by only 5 million or so miles. I reasoned with my engineer coworkers that the Mayans did some pretty impressive math. 5 days and 5 million miles isn’t too bad if you propagate small errors five thousand years.

What are you doing tomorrow to celebrate the end of the world? Me, I’m taking my kids to Legoland!