Salad-Bar Truth: When the Critic Commits the Crime

The LA Times recently ran an op-ed piece by Barry Goldman taking Americans to task for mixing and matching various belief systems. However, Goldman makes the same basic mistake that is at the root of his rebuke towards the public.

Goldman opens his op-ed piece by quoting from a recent Pew study that states:

Large numbers of Americans engage in multiple religious practices, mixing elements of diverse traditions. Many also blend Christianity with Eastern or New Age beliefs such as reincarnation, astrology and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects. And sizable minorities of all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

Goldman then sums up the findings by writing "What is striking about the Pew study is not the prevalence of superstition and hocus-pocus, alarming as that is. It is the feeling that we are free to choose from a broad, cafeteria-style menu of superstitious hocus-pocus. Charles Blow in the New York Times called it the construction of 'Mr. Potato Head-like spiritual identities.'"

It's true that Americans DO take a cafeteria-style approach to beliefs – often holding contradictory beliefs as both being true. This has been a big problem in our culture, primarily because people just don't think through the implications of their belief system. However, Goldman completely crumbles in his analysis. He tries to make a distinction that facts are not things based on preference by referring to the story of elementary class that couldn't tell whether their pet rabbit was a male or female, so they decided to vote about the rabbit's sex. He then opines:

We no longer trust the guys in the seminaries to determine which ideas are inside and outside the community of faith. We feel entitled to make our own decisions. Fair enough; the facts with respect to spiritual matters have always been somewhat elusive. But now many of us feel entitled to decide which scientific ideas to accept. Scientists have their ideas about, say, the age of the Earth or evolution by natural selection, and other people have other ideas. According to this new view, neither has any more claim to legitimacy than the other. There is no fact of the matter."

Goldman concludes his article by saying "We used to be a nation with a broad consensus. If you had a religious question, you asked a religious leader. If you had a scientific question, you asked a scientist. Today, if you have a question (about your enthusiasm for a belief) you ask another enthusiast." Here's where Goldman shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He seems to think that expert consensus is the determining factor whether or not we should believe something. That position is ridiculous. If an individual holding to a belief doesn't make the thing true or not, then an expert consensus doesn't make it true either.

There have been many times where "asking a scientist" has given a wrong answer just as asking a religious leader did. Two examples I can think of right away are the science of genetics – where Gregor Mendel's findings didn't achieve widespread acceptance for some 40 years, since Mendel's theory collided with the Darwinian view of blending inheritable traits from parents – and the age of the universe, where the desire for an infinitely old universe was so strong, it caused Einstein to add a fudge factor to his equations.

Goldman really stumbles here. What he should have said was that we hold to certain ideas because we believe them to be true. We have knowledge because we have justification for a certain belief. If a belief that we hold is contradictory – either internally (such as a Christian believing in reincarnation) or externally (such as calling a male rabbit a female), then that cannot be true – we must rethink our position. Experts can help, but that presupposes that they have also critically examined their field of study. However, it may very well be that the experts are wrong. It's quite possible the public could see this and choose to reject the belief.

Rational examination and holding to a belief because its true are the golden standard. Goldman may dismiss matters of faith as "the facts with respect to spiritual matters have always been somewhat elusive." This shows that Goldman has never investigated faith matters seriously. If there is a God, then dismissing the hard work of finding Him out is like the class who would rather choose the rabbit's sex than work to find the answer. Goldman is committing the same crime he's accused us of – choosing which beliefs fit his worldview and then running with them while he sanctimoniously rebukes everyone else.

Image courtesy "RELIGIONES" by ReligijneSymbole. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Three Essential Gifts for Christmas

In order to properly celebrate Christmas, there are three specific gifts that one must have. These have always been given since the very first Christmas and the wisest among men will continue to offer them, not only in this season, but all year long.

1. Gold
Gold is the first gift, a symbol and recognition of His kingship and divinity. Like the divine nature of Jesus, gold never tarnishes – it always maintains its purity. Because of this, gold is considered highly valuable. Also, gold endures where other elements would decompose when "attacked". No single acid can dissolve it. Silver can be dissolved by nitric acid, but not gold. Thus nitric acid was used as the original "acid test" for purity.

We offer our "gold"—the things we value the most in this world—for the untarnished and incorruptible gold of Jesus who is our divine mediator. He is our King and our God.

2. Frankincense
Frankincense is the second gift, a symbol of Christ's priestly work in atoning for sin. Incense was an important element of worship for Israel. Given the nature of animal sacrifice, the stench of death could be overpowering in the temple. The burning of frankincense would provide a pleasing aroma, covering the smell of sin and death. It is offered to God, symbolic of the prayers of repentance and requests of forgiveness. Frankincense only worked when it was burned – made nothing. We remember that Jesus made Himself nothing by humbling Himself to become man so that all men may live.

We offer up our sins – with their smell of death and corruption – to Him in exchange for His pleasing aroma before the Father. He is our high priest, consumed so that He may cover our sins with His blood.

3. Myrrh
Myrrh is our last gift, a symbol of Christ's death for us. The word myrrh derives from the Hebrew word for bitter. Used throughout the ancient world as an embalming fluid, myrrh was usually created by combining the resins of two different plants. Jesus had combined His divine nature with a human one for the express purpose of dying for humanity. As a fragrance, myrrh reacts differently than most resins in that "it expands and 'blooms' when burned instead of melting or liquefying."¹ Jesus' death allowed His salvation to expand across the entire world. Myrrh was also used as an antiseptic medicine (re: Smyrna) to promote healing.

In recognition of His offering of His life for us, we offer our lives in return. But we can never outgive God. In offering up our lives we receive life everlasting. Jesus said "he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matt 10:39)

I pray that you and yours will have a blessed Christmas this year – and that you won't forget to put the three most important gifts on your list. You see, these really aren't gifts from us. These are gifts to us, and a greater gift no man has known than the gift of Jesus.

---

(1) "Myrrh" Wikipedia article accessed 12/24/2009.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh

A Thanksgiving Proclamation - U.S. Congress 1782

For your Thanksgiving edification, I thought I'd reproduce one of the earliest Thanksgiving proclamations issues from the Continental Congress of the United States in 1782. Given that many today claim that the Christian roots of this country are in doubt, I offer up just one piece of evidence that Christianity was not merely deemed important, but the congress encouraged all individuals to "testify to their gratitude to God for his goodness" and made the even bolder declaration that this could be done "by promoting... the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."

This is taken from a full class I gave entitled "Thanksgiving and America's Christian Heritage." You may download this class at http://bit.ly/69hQ0P, but hurry - it won't be available for long!

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged----
Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness. 

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, AD 1782.

Why is the Church Hemorrhaging Adherents?

Fox News reported on their web site today that “Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.” Entitled “Where Have All the Christians Gone?”, the story summarizes some finding from the American Religious Identification Survey which includes the following:

• The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.
• The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.
• Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20’s profess no organized religion.

But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. These individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.

The article goes on to draw a couple of conclusions from the survey, namely that attention in churches needs to turn from older people to the youth, who are leaving in droves and America remains a spiritual country, but organized religious institutions are fading as the way to draw closer to God. These are probably valid insofar as they go, but I wanted to add a couple of thoughts myself.

1) We’re living in a society that’s become a post-Christian culture

This is becoming more and more evident. It used to be that even if one wasn’t a true believer in Jesus, you would accept things like the Bible was a source of authority and the general principles of Christian morality were applicable for all people of the society. However, that’ s no longer true today. Moral relativism is becoming more and more prevalent. Accepted cultural norms are being challenged all the time. Marriage is being redefined. These show that Christianity is no longer the de facto worldview for many people and this means that more people will no longer label themselves as Christians simply because they live in a “Christian nation”.

2) Many people no longer classify themselves as Christians simply because they were raised in a church.

In the past, many people when asked what their religious affiliation was would look back on their childhood church experiences and say “Christian” since the church of their youth was such. But our culture is changing to one that is post-Christian, and people no longer see these childhood experiences to be valid in their process of self-identification. It is as much a by-product of the modern generations’ desire to forge their own identity as anything else. We don’t want to be forced to follow the crowd, but have been taught that we can be anything we want. People are taking that view seriously.

3) Mainline Denominational Approach to Christianity is Dying

Declining attendance and membership at mainline protestant denominations is a fact that has been well-documented in recent years. Even as mainline groups become more and more liberal, those who continue to follow their teachings are becoming fewer and fewer. I personally believe that once you give up the concept of the Bible being the authoritative source of truth in spiritual matters, but try to shape Scripture to fit the moral framework of the existing culture, you’ve lost any need for church as a guide. Some people will continue with their affiliations because of the social services churches provide or the relationships the church fosters, but others can find those things in different types of institutions and therefore won’t need a church anymore.

4) The youth of today do not see value in traditional models of church

Of course, given the above, it’s no surprise that many young people today will not see value in church at all and will stop going when they are first given the chance. Their social network provides them with interactivity and relationships. Also, I think kids get it when they see someone just going through the motions as so many in mainline protestant denominations are. Kids want absolutes. They want to know what’s right and what’s wrong. If our churches aren’t providing that, then they will be viewed by the younger generation as mere facades of authority.

5) Theology is for “professionals”

A big problem I see is the general ignorance of Christians to the basics of their faith. We live in a culture where all the information we would ever want is at our fingertips, but we’ve never felt it necessary to develop a critical mind in weighing it all. Talk show pundits tell us how to think on political or cultural issues, and Wikipedia passes for research. This is no truer than in the church, where we rely on our pastor as the paid professionals to study the Bible for us and then tell us what it says. This is a sin as we are commanded to “always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is within you” (1 Pet 3:15). We should study and understand ideas like the nature of God, what the Trinity is, and what moral framework the Bible really does present. That means we will also need to understand proper ways to study the text – hermeneutics and exposition – so we can rightly divide the word of Truth. But that means work. Are we willing to study to show ourselves approved for Jesus?

I think as we continue to move to a post-Christian culture, we need to prepare ourselves to face some of the difficulties that the early church faced. We’re going to be challenged about our beliefs more. Our moral basis is going to be questioned. Ridicule and persecution will probably increase. And we’ll face more and more moral stances that deviate from what we saw as the norm. Lack of morality is what the world does – I’m not surprised at that. But just as the pre-Constantine church had to struggle to get their ideas across to a world that saw them as foreign, so we may also have to work harder at being better followers of Jesus - even if the opposition increases.

Image courtesy Sleeper141 at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons

Catchphrase Christianity - A Troubling Trend

This morning, a friend and I met to catch up at Starbucks. While we were talking a lady sat down at the table next to ours and was reading The Shack by William P. Young. Having read snippets myself as well as many reviews (one of the more balanced and substantive may be found here), I was interested in understanding how she was processing the story.

The lady told me she is enjoying the book and liked how it "focused on relationship. It doesn't over-complicate our approach to God and make it all about religion. I think that people try to make things too hard, when it's all about relationship. Just like any other relationship, it depends on how you view the other person; if you spend time with them. Religion is about all those things you have to do, the stuff you have to obey."

Now, this may sound pretty traditionally Christian, but I had a couple of red flags go up in that statement. Upon asking further, I found out she attends a "pretty laid back church", more contemporary than its denominational roots. She also said that the church was taking a purpose-driven model in its approach. None of that is a concern in and of itself. I know that there can be really strong churches that are purpose driven. However, it seemed that all I was getting in my conversation with her were these 21st century Christian catchphrases. So I wanted to dig a little deeper and see if she understood any of this.

"So, how do you understand what Christianity is?" I asked.

"Well, it's like I said at the beginning. It's about having a relationship. Like in this book where the character of the Holy Spirit says 'It seems you view your life as a pyramid with God at the top. I don't want to be at the top of the pyramid, I want to be in the center. I don't want you to focus on Me one or two days out of the week, then have all your other things, I want to be in the center of everything you do.' So, it’s a relationship where God it a part of everything, not just a side thing."

I pressed again, "But WHY do you need a relationship? Why is that important?"

"Well," she answered "I... I... I'm really not good at explaining things like this."
And that was my sneaking suspicion. You see, in all the talk of closeness and relationship, there was no mention of sin or a fallen nature. She didn't have a concept of someone who has been rescued from a destiny of judgment.

I think that as Christians, we need to have sound reasons for why we believe what we believe. That includes reasons for the necessity of this relationship with Jesus. If we're going to have a relationship with someone, we'd better get to know who they are and what they did as much as we can! Unfortunately, sound theology is being supplanted by quick taglines and Christianese.

We find the subject of sin and a destiny in hell an uncomfortable idea. A lot of churches today would rather just talk about having a relationship with God but leave out the sinner part of the equation, since it makes people uncomfortable and may drive "seekers" away. My position is that true seekers are looking for answers and not just feel-good platitudes.

Our relationship with God is not the same as any other relationship – it is unique. We are sinners saved by His payment on the cross. The message of the Gospel cannot be preached without this vital point of information, but it was wholly absent in my conversation with this woman.

The reason I point this out is because many people we run into through the course of our lives may look Christian and say all the right things, but they may be missing a big piece of the puzzle. I’m still not sure if this lady had a saving relationship with Jesus. She agreed with all I brought up on how Christianity is the only faith that effectively answers the sin problem and that Jesus did pay the penalty for sin, but how much she holds of that is still a bit of a mystery.

So the next time you meet someone who you think is a Christian, don’t be afraid to engage them further. They may very well understand that becoming a follower of Jesus is just that - pledging your life to Him because of what He did for us. Or they may just know the lingo, or be simply unclear on the whole matter. Whatever the case, being clear yourself and helping others see things clearly is a good start in correcting a church that increasing is infected with easy-believism.

Image courtesy Adam Fagen and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) License.