Subscribe to Posts
dealing with religious hostility
Advice to young pastors: to be a pastor in the context of the evangelical landscape is a privilege. By all measures evangelical Christianity is the most vibrant form of faith in the United States. Evangelical Christians volunteer more, give more money to their churches and give more to non-church charities than any other group. Nothing says “I love you” like time and cash. Evangelicals get things done, so you could do worse than to be a pastor in an evangelical setting. But there’s also a cross to bear and your being truly evangelical requires that you bear it. You must be willing to face and confront religious hostility in the camp.
religious hostility like this
In my recent blog post on Darwin, I withheld only one post, and it was this one: “Is this why the head of the Episcopalian is now a woman oceanographer? Thank you Darwin for replacing Calvinist Creationism with Godless Materialism. How else could we justify Planned Parenthood, Euthanasia, Genocide and all kinds of freakonomics, gun, germs and steal. Maybe the Natural Man was actually Nietzsche’s Super Man. Think about all the good that has evolved from Darwin’s thought like the Third Reich. We are now fear(less)ly and wonderful(less)ly evolved by an absentee God that has fine tuned the world to the right settings and went on sabbatical. After all the world is self-tuning. Now we can stop worrying about the Fall, since we’ve only evolved upwards. No more of these religious ideas of abstinence, lets get on with sex education and spendulus bills supplying condoms to children. We can work on curbing our carbons so we can curb development of Africans.No wonder Darwin ended his life faithless and no enjoyment in creation, since creation, god and now man are all dead.”
Thankfully, you may not run into a rant like this every day in an evangelical church. But the thinking behind this rant is to be found.
I’m guessing that this particular form of religious hostility–and that’s what it is, hostility–is probably an inherited or culturally acquired hostility. Like racism. The person may not have come by it honestly.
It’s not likely that the ranter has ever read Origin of Species, Darwin’s seminal work. It’s not likely that the ranter has ever had an honest to goodness conversation with a biologist to try to understand what natural selection means and doesn’t mean. It’s not likely that the ranter has close family or friends who are ecologists or environmental scientists or evolutionary biologists.
I can’t imagine that he is the father of daughters, given the swipe he took at the new head of the Episcopal Church in the United States, who is a woman. She has a name. And she is an oceanographer–a person who studies oceans. Apparently neither of these things is honorable in the ranters world.
some of the nicest people harbor hostility
Yet if you were to meet this person, I suspect you’d meet someone who is faithful, riddled with goodness, and a blessing to many people. A lover of God. But for this hostility which has found a harbor in his soul because it’s found harbor in many evangelical churches.
Which leaves you in a pastoral pickle, young pastor. Do you allow this to go unchallenged? If you do, the hostility will grow. Other groups will become the object of similar hostility, cloaked in the garb of “purity.” Secular humanists, bleeding heart liberals, the list only grows. And before long you’ve got yourself a nice evangelical club. Non-evangelicals need not apply. (Don’t worry! They won’t.)
Then you will congratulate yourselves for not growing, because you don’t “compromise with the world.” Except that, these days, evangelical culture defines the mainstream American culture. Some evangelical “church” you will have become! Why do you think the evangelical movement is static these days? Mega churches are growing, bless God, but the market share of evangelicalism in the free market of ideas is not. And whole swaths of the population would not be caught dead in an evangelical church. Because they are not drawn to religious hostility.
Dealing with religious hostility won’t be easy. Porcupines have quills so that other critters give them their space. Crowd a porcupine at your peril. But you leave these particular porcupines alone at the peril of your evangelical mission. You decide which is more important to you.
are you a leader or not?
Besides, you’re a pastor, remember? You have an obligation before God to lead your people to greener pastures than this. To make them lie down beside quieter waters. In some cases, you may have to insist.
You may have to crack open your Bible and summon your nerve and say to such hostility: this must stop. Let go of this, it’s harmful to you and to those who are subject to it. It misrepresents Jesus. Repent now, while the repenting is good and before you have to answer for these words on the day of judgment. Something of that sort is what it calls for. Perhaps the hostility will melt like butter on your hot butter knife. Or not. But you will need to deal with this.
You will especially have to decide whether to be afraid of this. Whether to duck when it comes your way. Whether to cringe and ignore it. There’s a lot of cringing and ignoring going on among your peers. For fear of people leaving in a huff when confronted, when questioned, when invited to re-think their posture in the light of Christ. For fear of being thought to be soft on this that or the other thing by those who hold such views.
But it can be done. And it’s your job to do it.
yes, it can be done
And you will be surprised by the power of God. A few years ago I addressed this issue in our church. I spoke of it from the pulpit. A woman came to me, in tears. Ken, she said, I want to thank you for that sermon series you did on creation and science. I was convicted. I called all my adult children together and said, “I am so sorry for the way I pushed this stuff down your throat. I’m so sorry that I made you think that you had to see it my narrow way. I was wrong. I’m sorry. Will you forgive me?” I was stunned when she said all that. “I drove those kids away from church, that’s what I did” she said with tears, with a mother’s tears, with evangelical tears. With humility like that, I told her, they’ll be back. They’ll be back. We’ll keep the light on for them.
You’ll find when you scratch around at this religious hostility long enough, that it’s almost always fueled by fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the stranger. Fear of the things that go bump in the night.
And like most every emotion, it’s catchy. You will feel fear in the presence of fear, even when it’s well hidden. You will fear for your job, maybe. You will fear for a loss of income. You will fear for the still waters of the church. Even if it’s a stagnant stillness.
Well, nobody said it was going to be easy, this pastor business.
But nobody offered you this class in seminary did they? Dealing With Religious Hostility in the Church.
Tags: charles darwin, culture war, evangelical, evolution, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Origin of Species, porcupines, religious hostility, seminary
February 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read you can’t be both a Christian and Pro-choice. I wondered when I saw it what message is this sending to anyone that is pro-choice and is just starting to ask questions about Jesus? Does it say your aren’t welcome in this circle? If that is the case what other beliefs keep you out of His circle? I’m afraid we often want to judge others and decide whether they’re worthy to belong to a group that none of us is worthy of. Thank God for His grace.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Ken, ah I see you are reading Christian Smith. However, what is most interesting about his most current research (Notre Dame Congregational Study) is that is actually showing that Catholics are giving more proportionally compared to Evangelicals in overseas giving. I know this because I am the one who calls all the churches to complete the survey over the phone:) I have also noticed an interesting trend, when I speak to Evangelical churches they do tend to be more hostile towards me than Catholics. This always makes me think, since I’m evangelical am I perceived like this to others? On a related, but separate note the book “UnChristian” talks about how Christians have presented themselves to the world. How we have come across judgmental, uncaring, hostile, etc. I literally cried all the way through this book because it is true. You said it right on when you said we misrepresent Jesus.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Cassady, I’d be very interested in that data on overseas giving. It’s a a little counter-intuitive since catholics are generally low on per person giving to parishes.Talk about a classy readership of my blog though–to get a commment from a primary researcher regarding something I posted on! I’m impressed! You’re making me look good!
February 26th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I think some of the hostility from the ‘ranter’ is in reaction to hostility from the ‘other side’.
I myself have felt some of this hostility towards those who look at me and my faith as pathetic.
My faith has been compared with a belief in Peter Pan in the past. Especially in my field, engineering, there are those who look at people with faith as idiots.
So I can see how one would be angry. Now of course, this is not necessarily a very Christ like attitude…then again, I think even Jesus had his moments (the whip event in the temple) and Paul seems to also have his rants.
I am trying to say I agree with your points. I just feel for the ranter. I have been in his shoes.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Joao, as I read your comment the following thought came into my mind:
“The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see.”
Heb 11:1 (The Message)
February 27th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I just found your blog, Ken, and I’m so glad I did! It’s been a joy reading your most recent posts, and I’ve added you to my Google reader so I can be sure to catch your next one.
I grew up in one of the most conservative, fundamentalist towns in the country – Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 – and I desperately wish a pastor had come alongside me and told me that I did not have to be a young earth creationist to follow Jesus…or a Republican, or a religious exclusivist, or a global-warming denier, or a biblical literalist, or a submissive housewife.
…But no one did. And so when I started to question these specific assumptions, I was under the impression that I had to give up my faith entirely. I doubted God’s very existence because I was unaware that an old earth and a loving God could coexist. I thought I had to choose.
This, I think, is where the fear kicks in. I think people are afraid to budge because no one told them that budging is okay, that faith can adapt. I suspect that this is why the preachers on TV look so angry and frantic all the time – because they feel that the entire Christian faith sits perpetually on the precipice of doom, one scientific discovery or gay union away from falling apart altogether. It’s a scary place to be. I know, because I spent a lot of time there.
With the help of some good books, (including a few from your friend Brian McLaren), my faith is beginning to evolve into one that can better adapt to changing environments. I’ve written a book about it, actually. It’s called “Evolving in Monkey Town” right now, but my publisher will probably change the title…which is just about my favorite part! : )
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Mike, pardon my denseness, but I didn’t understand the relevance of Heb 11:1 to my post.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Hi Ken,
As a young Evangelical Pastor I appreciate your direction. I know that as my Lead pastor and I talk through things like this it is certainly always a consideration of how to deal with the things like this in an embedded church culture. Especially in a small church, it can be a difficult thing to confront. Many times these kinds of attitudes are lofted with a “holy purpose” by strong supporters of the church. This can be very frightening to deal with in these times as it could lead to a loss in significant income for the church.
However we do as you suggest and confront these hostile attitudes. Otherwise to let this fester will lead to even more hostile abuses (all in the name of our Lord). This of course has lead to people leaving the church, but through it all we have maintained our mission and our vision, which is to be inviting, not hostile.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
You quite neatly pigeon-hole the ranter above as an ignorant and unread drone who has not come by his views honestly. I hope you don’t think me “hostile” for suggesting your hubris is showing, as you are modeling in your comments above the same arrogance and stereotyping you claim to decry. It ain’t easy being human, as we are all prone to the same folly!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Kevin, Good point. I’m inferring from the nature of the rant that the commenter has not read Origin. I don’t think I’ve yet met anyone who is a Young Earth Creationist who has, but I know that some have. I know several Young Earth Creationist who have come by their views honestly. I respect their position though I disagree. I don’t know one of them who has actually read Origin of Species though. And I’m in a highly educated part of the world. Similarly, it’s rare that people have talked over natural selection with an honest to goodness evolutionary biologist. I could be giving the ranter less credit than he deserves. I could have been more generous, you’re quite right.
But Kevin, here’s the thing. When I look at Jesus, I see that his rants were almost exclusively reserved for the religious. They were “internal critiques.” Most evangelicals reserve their rants for outsiders and do less of the internal critique. Other than, of course, critiquing those who tend to be more sympathetic to the outsider for “compromise with the world” etc.
I do see a lot of the Pharisaical attitude alive and well in American evangelicalism.
I do get a lot of critique from fellow evangelicals when I raise these internal critiques. There are some comments that I don’ even post, they are so livid. It really seems to bother people. I get that.
So: granted that a couple of paragraphs regarding my assumptions about the ranter were less than generous, a question for you. Would you characterize the rant as an example of religious hostility? If not, if an evangelical were ranting against Darwin and evolution, etc. what would it take for the rant to be regarded as an example of religious hostility?
If it’s less than hostile, let’s say that you have a brother who is not a Christian but who is an evolutionary biologist, and you want him to come to faith in Jesus, would you want him to go to a church where the ranter attends, and where none of his fellow evangelicals think that his rant is an example of religious hostility? How valid is my concern for the impact of this attitude (characterize it as you will) on the gospel?
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
+
Today’s billboard wars in the hometown of the Scopes Monkey Trial!!
http://www.rachelheldevans.com/billboard
March 4th, 2009 at 2:44 am
so why exactly am i trying to become a pastor? hmm….
March 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I am not a pastor, nor a future pastor. So here are some notes from the sheepfold to the shepherds. We can possibly follow you into Darwin issues, global warming, poverty issues, etc. We cannot follow you into acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, sexual promiscuity, political alliances that are conservative or liberal, and the list continues to grow with each generation. This is not a culture war. These issues are in the church. The elephant standing in the middle of our churches is the lifestyle issues of those that claim to be Christian. We cannot follow if you are silent on these issues.
“When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people (1Cor 5:9-11 NLT).
There are some Christians that try to put Paul the apostle’s teaching into some “harsh” category that doesn’t flow with the gospels. This is kooky talk. Paul never told us to stay away from the world, or culture, he said to stay away from people that claim to be believers, but live impure, or immoral lives.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Kevin S …
Yes, it’s easy to point out Ken’s use of sarcasm in dealing with this ranter. And the problem may not be that the ranter is unread … but nonetheless, the ranter has fallen prey to the fallacy of guilt by association and creates false premises through this that evolution theory, sex education, condoms, female church leaders and environmentalism are all bad. Unread is just what it ends up looking like …
The ranter makes the claim that evolution theory was what made Hitler hate Jews, and what made the Episcopalian church appoint a women oceanographer. OK … But it’s well known that antisemitism (in one way or another) has been around since the Roman Empire and that Women are quite capable of leading (and in some cases are more qualified to do so than a man).
A female church leader needs the same thing a male leader needs – accountability and a body of loving, supportive brothers and sisters in Christ who pray for their leadership daily. And let’s say Hitler used evolution theory, specifically through the “master race” propaganda, to advance his political agenda and lust for power. I would analogize this by saying: “look at the extreme evil the church caused with the crusades and the inquisition ‘in the name’ of Jesus Christ and the bible”.
All I’m saying is that arguments like the Ranters are too easy to blow apart – they lack support,rely of fallacies to make a point and create confusion. It would be much better if ranters seriously considered their arguments, both for the sake of reason and for the sake of loving dialogue.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
gem, pastors are fallible. follow jesus. ken (i know you know that, just thought I’d say it)
March 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Gem, I don’t think that Ken is asking anyone to accept any sin as ok.
I have some of his past recorded sermons on abortion and homosexuality and I don’t see anything there that calls them ok.
I think he is merely asking us to separate the sin from the sinner and accept the people struggling with them the same way we have learned, to a large extent, to accept struggling alcoholics and drug addicts, remembering Jesus accepts us with all our pet sins and is working with us to help us shed them.
I am sure Jesus was not for prostitution, theft or adultery or drunkenness, but we do see Him attracting thieves, prostitutes, drunkards and adulterers by specific example in the Bible without ever condemning them. They just were drawn to Him and He hung around them long enough to be accused of their sins Himself by the religious set in power of the day (at least drunkenness, I can remember a specific accusation).
Like St. John said, it is God’s Kindness that leads to repentance, and I think when one walks the fine line Jesus walked, they leave themselves open for accusation from the more established ranks of the faith.
Joao
March 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Thanks Ken. You are right about following Jesus. My point about the shepherd/pastor leading us is just a fact. People follow pastors and teachers, and this is why they will receive greater rewards and stricter judgment. We have the Holy Spirit, which means we do not blindly follow where our conscience will not allow because we are also accountable. Most of us sheep are just trying lives for him and through him, in a very difficult world. What do we offer those in bondage, if we ourselves are not living free? I do not agree with the “ranter”, but I see a clear distinction between moral issues and cultural/science issues.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Joao, I agree with everything you said. Thanks for being an apologist for Ken, he needs one based on some of these harsh posts
. My comments are not directed at Ken. It is not unbelievers or people struggling to live free I was talking about, only those that claim Christ, live openly sinful lives as if it is ok, and lead others astray. And my comments are directed at leaders that do nothing to protect their flocks. What do we say to the clear teaching in 1 Cor.? Do we explain it away? Do we think it does not apply today?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Joao, I don’t have pet sins. My sins are more like a rabid pit bull chained to a post. They scare the hell out of me most of the time. And when the chain has broken, they have literally ruined my life. The only thing that has restored me has been people like Ken loving me with the love of Jesus.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Gem, I have also struggled with 1Cor. on the issue of ‘expelling the immoral brother.’
My difficulty with it is defining when to say when. I am an engineer and I like clear boundaries. At which point do we excommunicate someone?
I guess we can agree that excommunicating a brother for unrepentant sin would be pretty clear. I am sure there would be other sins, though, that may be debatable. I once was told Christians should not listen to Rock music and only read the King James version of the bible…I can say I commit thoses sins unrepentantly.
An issue I have is also that having a behaviour police in church does not sit well with me.
So basically, I see your point, understand and share your concern, but am unable to come up with a set solution beyond dealing with individuals on a case by case manner.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Gem and Joao, Note “greed” in Paul’s list of behavior that are grounds for expelling and shunning. As a pastor I have never been asked “my position” on greed. Hmmm….
March 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
So either we are choosing to ignore the totality of 1 Cor. because we accept some of the list and not others, (greed, yes, homosexuality, no) or we are reading scripture in an incorrect manner.
I am at a loss.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Ken- What’s your position on greed?
March 5th, 2009 at 2:27 am
To gem: just wanted to say some things on homosexuality and abortion. Are you saying that homosexuality itself is a sin? If so, I want to throw up a red flag. One’s orientation is rarely, if ever a choice – there are a million factors, both environmental and genetic that contribute to one’s sexuality. You’ll notice in the bible that in all cases where men and women were “given up to one another”, it was because they were already engaging in sex with the same gender in mass orgies (Corinthians) or mass rape (Soddom). God gave them up to their lustful desires completely because of their sinful context … not because of their orientation. So in my mind, it is the context of sex that is sinful, not the orientation of an individual or sex itself. As much as Homosexuality is not a choice, having sex is all the more a choice – so to that end, I disagree with homosexual sex in all cases on the same grounds that I disagree with heterosexual pre-marital sex.
Also – Joao – I don’t think we can categorize homosexual men and women or people struggling with the reality or decision of abortion with alcoholics and drug addicts. The reason I say this is because alcoholism and drug addiction are a substance based escape from the reality of life. Abortion, as a choice, is a decision based on fear and/or social pressures. I call abortion something of a Red Herring because of the fear and social outcastism that un-supportive families (and some churches) create, and the pressure to abort as a means of birth control associated with some secular sub-cultures.
Anyway, I’m not trying to start a flame war or anything … I just want to be clear on what it is exactly we agree or disagree with in terms of behavior as Christians.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Joao, I am not referencing the lifestyle sins critiqued by religious fundamentalists. I was raised with a Baptist fundamentalist background, and by those standards I would be burned at the stake today. It was the Holy Spirit that set me free to find Jesus outside of the dead religion I was raised in.
My best friend came out of the gay lifestyle many years ago. I have loved him since the earliest days of our friendship. Through our friendship I have had the opportunity to spend time with people that have struggled with these issues. I have the deepest compassion for the sexual issues because nothing touches us in the core of our humanity as much as our sexual identity. My friend still ministers to the sexually broken, but he has a strong voice of opposition to the cultural acceptance of homosexuality and also the silence on this issue within the body of Christ. His concern is not for more gay bashing in the church, but one of compassion to those that come to us for healing.
Ken makes a good point on greed. People won’t ask about greed, because our western culture (and people in church) lives by the “greed is good” philosophy of Wall Street. When Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, the disciples so transparently said, “Who then can be saved?” So, what do we do? Not talk about it? That cannot be the answer.
“But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows…so run from all these evil things. Pursue righteousness and a godly life, along with faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. ” (1 Tim 6:9-11 NLT).
We pursue the unsearchable riches that are found in Christ, and in the process we run from evil. When was the last time you were encouraged to run from evil?
March 5th, 2009 at 10:27 am
It is my belief that Paul was addressing behavior in 1 Corinthians. There wasn’t even a mindset for sexual orientation until the last 50 or so years. So to say Paul was addressing mass orgies or mass rape has no historical context, other than the poorly researched beliefs of pro-gay theologians. The truth is, every major world religion has seen homosexual behavior as wrong.
I grew up gay. I didn’t ask for the feelings. I didn’t choose the feelings. When I came to Christ in 1986 I read the bible. I didn’t hear a sermon, I didn’t hear from believers. I read 1 Corinthians 6:16-19 and my eyes were opened. I realized that most of the behaviors listed were things that I indulged in (not just homosexual behavior). But I also read “such were some of you”. I had hope! I stopped having sex with men and began to deal with the issues of my heart, as well as learn about my relationship with God my Father.
Six years later, after a great deal of hard emotional work, I met a woman and I fell in love. We have been married 20 years and have four beautiful children. We are still VERY much in love. Now I know many whose stories don’t have the fairy tale ending that mine does. But the common factor we do have is that we have forsaken behavior that the bible addresses. I continue to deal with issues of envy, selfishness and covetousness. I believe I will deal with those issues, on some level, for the rest of my life. Just as some will deal with their homosexual feelings the rest of their lives. But I will continue to strive against the sins that so easily beset me.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Ryan, agreed on 99.91% of what you said both to me and to Gem.
I never meant to infer someone’s orientation or leaning to act in one way or another is a sin. In fact, I don’t believe Evangelicals in general believe the actual orientation is a sin, just the act itself. Of course it is no worse or no better than heterosexual sin.
The concern is that very few people would want to celebrate adulterous relationships as perfectly normal and beautiful, but we have an increasing number of churches heading in that direction with homosexual relationships.
On the connection between homosexual sin and alcoholism, I think there is more of it than it looks. Did you know many people are predisposed to being alcoholics? That can be categorized the same way as homosexual attraction, in so far as there being a million environmental and genetic reasons for it, yet there also doesn’t seem to be groups that want to celebrate the alcoholic lifestyle.
I completely agree that the mainstream evengelical movement has been unduly harsh on homosexuals and has lots to repent from. But like any other sin, homosexual sin should not be embraced and celebrated.
One tidbit on abortion. I agree with the reasons you mentioned for its cause, and again, evangelicals have much to apologize for. But I think we should look at the inherent darkenss in the fallen human heart and realize that convenience and money are also drivers for abortions. There is a thriving business that depends of abortion to survive and also many people have abortion because they simply do not want more kids.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jao – yes absolutely. And yes, people having abortions because they simply don’t want kids was the cultural pressure I was trying to get at. I just didn’t have the words at the time. Convenience and Money. This is so true.
ah yes, predisposition to alcoholism … so the analogy is there. But to dig a little deeper, will attraction always lead to sex? Temptation for sex yes, but necessarily sex, not necessarily
It is, I think, a given that a gay Christian is called to a life of celibacy within the body … but not a life of being alone. I think that a gay Christian can have a life partner and this is not sinful. It does unravel a huge area of temptation, but with a strong support base, this is not an impossible scenario. I don’t deny that a homosexual relationship in a Christian context would be extremely difficult. But in the above context, it would not be sinful – because temptation is not sin. BUT, in order for it to work, the church and everyone involved must be deliberate in maturity, honesty, compassion, communication and accountability. Even then, there will be cases of failure and success. To go back to the alcoholic analogy – we surely don’t celebrate the alcoholic lifestyle, but we do celebrate moderation. The analogy is that moderation in alcohol consumption is a gay couple who abstain from sexual involvement with one another. This would be SO difficult at first, but it gets easier over time.
If we think wide-angle, failure in this handled wisely can lead to redemption, and successes handled wisely can lead to evangelism by gays within the gay community itself. It’s almost like cross-cultural missions … real change and transformation comes from within a culture and moves outward. To reach the lost, it is necessary to have a light on the inside.
anyway, my 2c
March 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Ryan, I have honestly never thought of the alternative you mentioned, a celibate gay life partnership.
Need to allow that to stew a bit. I am not sure how realistic that is. It’s like a male and female cohabiting and remaining celibate. Theoretically possible, but how likely?
But as I said, I need to think about that a bit. Not that my opinion is that important, but at least I want to form one.
Again, I want to stress that I never believed that the propensity to sin is in itself sin. Same sex attraction, lust for another’s wife or an unmarried woman who is not your wife, greed, are all, in my view, temptations, many of which I am sure Jesus himself had to deal with. The action or mental fantasy of action (like what Jesus said about lust) are what constitute sin.
Thanks for the back and forth! I have some homework to do now, digesting your 2 cents.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Pastor Ken,
I’m surprised that you are surprised that you get hostile reactions occasionally. I read your blog from time to time and I find that you ridicule fellow Evangelicals who don’t think the way you think.
Look at some of the recent words you’ve chosen to use with respect to them: “stupor”, they’re on an intellectual “reservation”. To me, you come off as smug and highbrowed, looking down on those intellectually inferior Evangelicals. (I know you use the word “we”, but you really aren’t included in the group you’re criticizing).
Examine some of the arguments you’ve made to criticize them, weak, strawmen arguments about Solo Scriptura, opposition to abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Your tone often makes traditional Evangelicals look like backwoods rednecks. So, its an easy argument to win, present a caricature of your opponent, create a strawman and lump them together. Instant victory in the winner’s bracket!
Really Pastor Ken, man up. If you’re going to get into the ring and denigrate fellow Christians, or denigrate aspects of their faith and actions that they hold dear, you should expect to get some back.
I know that if I spoke about people who I disagree with, the way you speak about Evangelicals, then I too would receive some hostile comments. And truthfully, it is troubling to me, that a leader of the Vineyard movement denigrates fellow Christians the way you do. You may deliver it oh so politely, but the poison still stings.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Ryan, I am trying to understand your well thought out position on homosexuality. Those that have to deal with same sex attraction are in a difficult situation as you point out, if they are to remain celibate. In the body of Christ, and the fellowship of Christians, would it not be possible to have loving committed friendships with the same gender and not be life partners? Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with sexual passion, with the clear implication that the marriage would allow a healthy context for that passion to be expressed. Are we asking too much of same sex life partners to expect them to remain celibate? Have we as Christians not expressed love for each other regardless of gender, and could this also point to the emotional/physical desires that are expressed within the same gender attraction?
March 6th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Gem – completely! No I don’t it’s too much to ask Christian same sex life partners to remain celibate. The problem we run into is that as a culture, we place far too high a value on sex – our media, and much of our mainstream literature creates worship of not only youth, but also of sex. It’s almost as if the media has taken a cultural trend in being open and honest about sex and twisted it into something to be sensationalized and worshiped.
It wouldn’t be easy at first for 20 something life partners to remain celibate … because as young men – their hormones are going crazy. So it would really take mature people to be able to make that work. There is this lie in our culture that if a man doesn’t release himself sexually, he will go crazy. It has to do with a certain part of the male anatomy turning “blue” … it’s been embedded into western culture in the form of “a man has needs” and it’s total garbage. The only need a man has is Jesus. Without Him, a man will ultimately give in to every desire in his heart.
I’m really appreciating the conversation here …
March 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I would have to agree and disagree with you Ryan. I guess a man “Should” only “need” Jesus, but honestly isn’t that idealism not reality. I don’t think we would go crazy with out our “needs” met, a little grouchy maybe. I personally feel that celibacy leads to larger problems. People were created with a sex drive. You can’t fight creation. You can pretend for a while, but it might start to mess with your inner thoughts.
On another note, I think I want to make a bumper sticker that says: “Don’t Judge Me, That’s Bob Dutko’s Job”
March 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Ryan – Flee immorality. You are asking for a level of self control that is unrealistic if you advocate couples of any sexual orientation to cohabit and stay out of the sack. That’s like having the alcoholic recovery group at the bar – the ability to take action to avoid temptation (even Jesus prayed “lead us not into temptation”)is a blessing and a power we are obligated to exercise in Scripture. The Bible says point blank in the area of immorality: FLEE! To suggest that people deliberately put themselves in direct contact with sexual temptation is misguided advice, and a recipe for a fall. I would not hesitate to tell an alcoholic he should stay out of bars. I do not hesitate to tell my teenage sons not to be alone late at night with their girlfriends. And as a traveling consultant, I scrupulously avoid situations where I might be alone with a client or colleague of the opposite sex. Part is avoiding temptation, but the other side of the coin is honoring the reputation of others, both the other person involved and Jesus.
And what about our witness? It is compromised in a cohabiting scenario. We are commanded to “avoid the appearance of evil” – unmarried couples of any sexual orientation that are cohabiting are sending a signal to the watching world who will assume they are having sex and plausibly presuming that its OK with the church they go to. It exposes the reputation of both the couple and the Church (BIG “C” church, the worldwide community supposedly following Jesus) to scorn. This is not a good idea.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Ken – regarding the ranter, keep in mind the context of his comment. He is ranting within the family of Jesus where views should be expressed, albeit, perhaps with a little less emotional heat, but hey, even Jesus brought the whip out. To your point that Jesus’ rants were against the religious, it seems to me that this fellow is viewing this as an internal critique, against Christians, particularly Christian leaders, that easliy accept Darwinism. Perhaps the emotional heat comes from feelings of betrayal because those he was expecting to defend the faith are capitulating to secular social pressure regarding “the kings new clothes” i.e. macroevolution. Macroevolution lacks scientific evidence, becuase as an unseen phenomena requiring billions of years, it simply is not open to direct observation and experimentation which are the foundations of hard science. I join him in his alarm that many who name the name of Jesus are preferring the religious view of macroevolution over the religious view of special creation. The foundational premises of both views require faith in unseen and non-directly verifiable information, either from the writer of Genesis or from the writers of Darwinian evolutionist texts.
I agree that I would not want this guy to go off on this particular rant to a nonbelieving microbiologist that visited the church, but I also suspect that he would not do so. I do question the premise that seems implied here that hostility or vehement disagreement is wrong in and of itself – I think it is healthy in a proper (redemptive) context. God is hostile against false gods and if we would be like him, some of that should rub off on us. The hostility to this modern Baal, this false god that seeks to supplant the true Creator God, is not necessarily misplaced. God is a jealous God.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Califonia Kid – I don’t agree that we need sex. we do need our sex to be subordinated to higher impulses. as humans, we have lower drives for food, sex, comfort, etc. just like dogs and pigs. however, Dallas Willard rightly observes in the first few chapters of his excellent book The Spirit of The Disciplines, the higher faculties that elevate man to be described as created “in the image of God” (morality, values,etc) regulate the lower drives, or at least were originally created to do so. A large part of what is broken on this earthly plane revolves around the brokenness (i.e. severance of God’s empowering of) the higher faculties through sin. We see this sin/brokenness reflected in practical terms by the lower drives dominating and overshadowing the higher. Hello modern hedonistic culture, and the modern myth that it is harmful to abstain from sex, it’s not going to kill you. Jesus knows what it’s like to wait, so he can help us bear that burden.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Kevin, I don’t think the Bible teaches that species are immutable (fixed forever.) If it’s so, then the very considerable evidence (DNA, etc) which is much greater now than in Darwin’s time would have to be understood as God trying to deceive us. That is, I have a different reading of science and the Bible on this point. I think it’s within the bounds of “debatable issues” I wouldn’t want to call you or the ranter as heretics for your view. But I do think the rant is an example of hostility that is bad for the gospel. If not that rant, what would quality as hostile? I don’t buy the premise that adaptation by natural selection (intra or inter species) supplants the creator God of the Bible.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Ken – thanks for your reply, i totally agree, that natural selection can make dramatic changes to species over time and i also agree that natural selection poses no challenge whatsoever to biblical creation as it is subractive i.e. does not add new genetic information but rather, ends up “dumping” some existing genetic info. also, natural selection is observable and verifiable, making it true science. it is the theory that new genetic info somehow “magically” appeared from no where (required for the molecules to man theory of macroevolution) that is unscientific and is a direct challenge to the Creator God of the bible. The philosophical and social implications of macroevolution are devastatingly harmful, and we are suffering the effects today in a myriad of ways.
Upon more reflection, I do see your point that expressing hostility on a personal level is almost always a hindrance to the gospel. We should probably NEVER do it. I would say our ranter would have been much better served (his hearers too) if he calmly invited discussion on his various points instead of using sarcasm and exaggeration in a “drive by shooting” fashion, though the pyrotechnics were spectacular. I am mindful of the passage that says the anger of man does not attain the righteousness of God – I have been married for 24 years and on a personal note, I know I must be ever so careful to rein in heated emotions for they can quickly get me into situations I am almost certain to regret later….
March 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Interesting comments California Kid and Kevin S … I have sit on that for a while.
Re: needing Jesus, I don’t think it’s idealism, I think it’s reality. We need Jesus every second of every day. And only though our willingness to allow Jesus to actively work in our hearts through every situation can we really hope to mature to our full potential as Christ followers.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Kevin, Thanks for the clarification, and my goodness, you granted a point in a blog comment. You must be a humble person. I would like to meet you sometime. Certainly the Origin of Species and Darwin himself made no conjecture on the origin of life per se. He was dealing with the question of the origin of the vast variety of species. It’s only been in later time that there has been considerable conjecture about how life got started in the first place. Personally, I don’t see a problem if evidence surfaces that inorganic molecules formed into increasingly complex structures which in turn formed into information bearing structures and there was a continuous thing going that led to life as we know it and as we embody it. I don’t think that a natural mechanism does anything but beg the deeper metaphysical questions of “why is there something rather than nothing” or “does the intelligibility of the universe infer an intelligence behind it?” Certainly a God as mysterious and personal and powerful and I might add subtle as we find in the Bible would not be constrained as to means, As the direct author of all matter (of all that is) his presence and power could be working in and through any mechanism. It’s the assumption that the discovery of a natural mechanism rules out divine involvement that I find unacceptable. I think that’s based on one very mechanical view of how God interacts with matter. I also think it highly unlikely that the scientific method could ever discern the connection of the divine with matter. This is after all a lens (science that is) that is a product of our limited space-time frame. And further limited by our own human limitations.
The thing about religious hostility is that it keeps people from conversing and learning from each other. It’s bad for the human learning curve. And we humans are pretty sensitized to hostility. Little traces of it, make us back off or flare up. (I’ve found
)
March 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Bravo!
March 6th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Kevin S, I was not comparing humans to dogs and pigs, my point was that celibacy seems to lead to other problems, or is related to other problems. I actually find it arrogant to believe someone can believe they have the self control to be celibate. Sure people can have self control, and yes we can pray for Jesus to tame our desires, but really, truly, who are we kidding. Most people SHOULD do many things. We can set high ideals and moral standards all we want, but I think that this sets people up for failure. I’m not saying that homosexuality should be accepted or rejected by the church. Nor do I think people should be having sex out of marriage. I do know however that I am thankful that I am married and that I’m heterosexual, how convenient, I don’t have to deal with either problem. I know that if I wasn’t, and wasn’t, that life would be a lot tougher, and that I would fail and you could then compare me to the dogs and pigs….or say sheep and goats. How about monkey….flying monkeys.
Ryan, Re: Needing Jesus “And only though our willingness to allow Jesus to actively work in our hearts through every situation can we really hope to mature to our full potential as Christ followers.” What does that mean anyway?
March 6th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Ken,
I guess the thing that leaves me saying “Huh” is the fact that if God is as powerful as we are all agreeing to in our posts, then why wouldn’t he be able to create man from the dust of the earth. The problem most evangelicals have with macro-evolution is that it disses the biblical narrative of Creation as found in the book of Genesis. If Genesis, which is believed to be inspired by God, is not true, then how do we trust any of the rest of it?
March 7th, 2009 at 1:32 am
happylad, anything is theoretically possible; the question is what squares with the evidence and with Scripture? Your reading of Genesis is not the only one. AS I’ve repeated ad nauseum many devout believers read it differently than you do; B.B. Warfield, for heaven’s sake, the father of Biblical inerrancy saw no conflict with Darwin and Genesis 1 & 2. Neither do I. If ever there were a story meant to be read figuratively it is one with a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in it–doesn’t that seem to be written in a figurative rather than literal way? (Is Scripture to be read literally or figuratively when it says the earth is founded on pillars? How do you determine that? It’s a judgement call. But if when orbiting the earth no pillars are found, it’s a hint that it’s not to be read literally.)
Many evangelicals read Genesis 1-3 as figurative, not literal.It was not attempting to speak in the language of science. Reading it literally, I think forces you to turn into a pretzel to make sense of it. The differences between Genesis 1 and 2 for example in the sequence of creation (vegetation precedes humanity in Gen 1 and comes after Adam in Genesis 2.) This is the text itself telling us not to read it that way, in my opinion. The earliest readers would have recognized this. We let the text help us to understand how it wants to be read. Who said Genesis wasn’t true? Not me. It’s my favorite OT book and it’s jam packed with truth, reliable, inspired, trustworthy, you name it. Good golly miss molly!
March 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Ken, please understand that I am trying to hear what you’re saying. I’m sincerely interested in your viewpoint. I’m just pondering this version of Genesis and wondering when we would begin to take the book of Genesis literally? When are the people spoken of Genesis actual, historical people (IE Abraham, Jacob, Joseph)?
March 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Happylad, I see that, and so appreciate it. I’m just such a lover of the Bible that when there’s an inference that I’m dissing it (not that you made that personally) I feel a little frustration. So thanks for the reassurance. Sometimes when your blogging you conflate the tone of different commenters too, so I have to watch that. And I usually respond in bit of a hurried way as I don’t want to neglect my other things.
All that said: It’s my understanding that many of the major evangelical seminaries (Fuller, Trinity, Gordon Conwell, for example) would teach that Genesis 1-11 (basically up to and including Babel) are a kind of “pre-history” having to do with humanity’s earliest founding, and are not to be read as the same kind of history that seems to begin with Abraham. I think there’s much to recommend that view. What’s going on in these chapters is not so much what happened once, but what always happens. Even if one reads Gen. 1-11 as strictly historical (which I think creates bigger problems, but that’s an opinion) the real punch of the truth is in the direction of what always happens. Tension between brothers (Cain and Abel), humanity making a bloody mess of things and filling God’s heart with pain (Noah and the flood), human technology being fueled by self-reliance and pride and thereby building a house of cards (tower of babel), etc. This is where the inspiration of the Spirit is aimed–to change our perspective on life, so that we can be changed. I think this reading is justified by the text itself, in other words, the way the text comes to us suggests there is something different going on here than we see with the advent of Abraham, which is more clearly historical. I think it makes sense that we have higher confidence in historicity as time moves on. And the key to my faith when it comes to history is Jesus, and the resurrection. There is no doubt historically that such a figure Jesus existed. And I think the best historical explanation for the spread of the Jesus movement is that real people really believed he was really risen from the dead (physicialy risen, his corpse gone)and that this faith can best be explained by the notion that it actually did happen.
I understand that people take that view all the way back to Genesis 1, so they read it as a literal 6 24 hr day creation that took place about 6,000 years ago. I just think this causes so many problems, including an inevitable twisting of the text itself. that it’s not my preferred reading. I think it makes it VERY difficult for many people to believe in Jesus, which I think is tragic. The burden of proof should be very high on insisting on that kind of reading as the only legitimate-faithful reading of Scripture. Because it is a very serious thing to put an obstacle in the way of faith that God himself is not insisting. (Different than the scandal of the gospel itself.)
My motive for all this is evangelical. The reason I care about these issues and speak up about them is that I experience what I beleive to be a convicting work of the Holy Spirit that we’ve gotten off track and it’s been a harmful thing to people being able to come to faith in Jesus. I for example could not have pursued a Jesus faith that insisted on this particular reading of the Bible. To me (I’m not saying everyone) it would lack all credibility. Still, I have very high regard for those who take this reading, because I think they are really in touch with the real Jesus and he’s the shared treasure buried in the field. Love, Love, Love! all we need is Love, properly understood, Jesus Brand Love that is.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Ken, the one thing I have NEVER questioned is your desire to see people coming to know Jesus and to love him as you love him.
I think you can love Jesus and share that love whether you believe in a “young earth” or “old earth”. Gallop polls since 1982 until today show that the majority of Americans believe that “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” The numbers have changed little in that time. So some of us can reach the larger majority that believe in the literal Creation account, and folks like you can reach the academia for whom the literal account would be a stumbling block.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ah, Happylad! A man after my own heart! Now let me ask: which of the two groups you mention from the Gallup poll reprents our version of the 10/40 window–the unreached people group in the United States? Not just academics, but younger people (including many chilren of boomer evangelicals) people in Blue states, people who like National Geographic and have no qualms with that magazine’s assumption that life evolved, etc.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
California Kid – ok, the scandals with priests molesting kids is the prime example that you could rightly use to support your conclusions about celibacy. But I will argue that it is not celibacy that causes the problem, rather it is people who have un-checked sin in their lives, and do not relying on Jesus to overcome it. The same thing applies to everyone else – un-checked sin, not celibacy will cause the big problems – whether it’s your un-checked sin, or someone elses un-checked sin.
I want to try to break down two (very) basic ways that I think Christians view Jesus. The first is: Jesus is in the bible and we can learn from him there, but right now He is at some place called “the right hand side of the Father”, and we have an obscure and subjective feelings-based connection with him. We feel this connection the most when we are at church singing songs we like, and this also seems to be when the holy spirit is most present. In this first view, we have a disconnected quasi-relationship between our feelings, the bible and occasionally Jesus (especially when things are not going well).
The second view is that we can see Jesus historically, and learn many things from him though the bible. One thing we learn is that we have a direct connection to Jesus through the Holy Spirit. This means than in any given situation at any given time, we can ask Him to literally be with us in the moment; whether to direct our actions, share in our joy or pain, or fend off evil we are perceiving. This is, I believe, the kind of relationship Paul talks about when he says “take every thought captive to Christ.” In this second view, we have an authentic relationship with the real, living Jesus.
Jesus didn’t rise from the dead to just float off to some obscure place and hang out, right? He died so that we would know he is the King of Kings, He alone deserves our trust as one who is fit to direct our lives, He alone has the power to forgive our sins, and He alone is the way to God and eternal life. Not the bible (the bible points to Jesus), but Jesus himself – IN YOU.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
One of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes, regarding sexual morality (From Mere Christianity): “If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual:the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”
So, how about we Christians focus for a while on the spiritual sins of pride, unforgiveness, hatred, bitterness, envy, and greed. Starting with ourselves. Then maybe we’ll have earned enough credibility to begin speaking about sexual morality. Because right now we have none, and rightly so.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Don, “But, of course, it is better to be neither.” So are you saying we can’t focus on both? If you focus on one you will in most cases lose sight of the other. I don’t think anyone here was ranking sins as better than the other, but the bible certainly puts sexual sins into a special category with respect to our bodies.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Ryan, thanks for the elaboration. Reading the two points of view I would have to agree with the following statement from the first example: “we have an obscure and subjective feelings-based connection with him” except that I personally feel the Holy spirit not in church(I go there to hear an intellectual way of connecting scriptures to life experiences), and not when reading the Bible. My closest connection to Christ are in silent moments. Late night walks under the stars, long lonely hikes in the wilderness, and those ephemeral moments of beauty like a red cardinal in a snow storm. The world is too busy, noisy, and distracting for me to have enough of those moments for me to feel a less “obscure and subjective connection”.
Jesus reveals himself to me through my life experiences and sometimes I fumble through the darkness of them to find the light. I know I know I should read the scriptures more and pray more and then the spirit will come. Bolderdash! I have tried that time and time again. Each time I feel discouraged and bad for feeling discouraged. I’m done feeling bad about my relationship with Christ. We might have a dysfunctional one, but at least it’s a relationship and that in my experience is a good thing. You know, sometimes he actually speaks to me through visions. Vivid ones so beautiful that I get tears thinking of them. But other times I hear nothing and there isn’t time for the quiet and wandering that I need to make my Jesus connection.
The problem with all this is that most people give up. They hear that they need to pray more, read more and when they don’t, they go to church and hear how much they aren’t doing right so eventually they stop going. That plus all the other “standards” the christian community requires of them. My parents stopped going, my sister doesn’t go anymore, my in laws are too stoned to care, my coworkers are too over worked to give up a Sunday or they are at home working, who is left but the faithful, and we aren’t perfect either. At least we show up right! Sorry Ken for rambling, but I have no where else to lay it out like this.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Cali Kid- Thanks for exposing your thoughts. Just this morning I was wondering if there are any other places where you can really dive into these issues and not feel like you need to come into the arena with brass knuckles.
Your comment: “Sorry Ken for rambling, but I have no where else to lay it out like this.” saddens my heart. Jesus seemed to initiate an assembly of broken people who were able to “lay it out” and not be thrown to the lions and banished from the religious circle.
Thanks again Ken for humbly baring this blog so folks can work out their thoughts on what I think are critical topics to freeing up the Church to fully love; no strings attached. -Michigander Kid
March 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
California Kid – So what I’m saying is that an obscure, feelings based connection really isn’t much of a connection when push comes to shove – I say this because I’ve experienced it. As soon as trials came, I would question God and stray from my faith in Him. I think we need and crave real relationship with God, and I think Jesus provides this on a couple of levels. 1) through him directly and 2) through the people who follow Him.
So if I’m understanding what you’re saying … the more Christians are pushed to perform in some religious capacity, and the more we are chastised for not performing, the harder we seem to fall? I would completely agree with that statement, and I have also been in that place of feeling the heavy burden of religion. For example, I think that prayer is suppose to be a relational connection between us and God. There is no formula, or principle … we forgive, we seek forgiveness and we talk about everything to God.
I am most upset by the trend in Christian literature in always searching for a principle to extract from everything in the bible. I think it leads to a sort of religiosity that tells us “we need to follow this set or that set of principles” in order to experience God. bah! We end up spending more time reading than we do experiencing.
I think that experiencing Jesus when we are alone is a really special part of having a relationship with Him. But a huge part of having a relationship with Him is experiencing Him through other people in the context of Christian community. There are multitudes of ways God chooses to reveal himself to us, and I think through other people is one important way. It kind of brings up a problem though, because relationship with other people is both what we crave and what can hurt us the most.
I have found in my own life that whether I feel the spirit or not is irrelevant (at least in relation to the reality of God). After all, when two or three people are gathered in Jesus’ name, he will be there regardless of how we might be perceiving. In fact when I don’t feel the spirit, my faith and trust in the Lord has been tested the most. So ultimately, I am slowly, slowly starting to come to grips with the idea that God is at work whether I feel his presence or not. I simply need to trust and believe that Jesus will carry me through any storm … his “burden is light”.
Anyway, I’m personally glad you feel comfortable spilling out your thoughts. They are good thoughts.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
oops sorry … I’m not in any way trying to invalidate how you experience God – all those things are beautiful. I just like to always keep it in the back of my mind that I should challenge myself to take my experience and relationship with God a step further.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I am a boomer evangelical (circa 1959) parent and I subscribe to National Geographic, so I pass the NatGeo litmus test. I have always loved the magazine from my earliest days when looking at the pictures brought me certain delights as a pubescent male.
I applaud the reaching out to those that accept and teach evolution. My children have experienced ridicule from those in academia who are in many cases hostile to the Christian viewpoint. I don’t accept that this is entirely our fault, because the world systems are driven by the spirit of the antichrist and what we need to model is not trying to get academia to like us, but turning the other cheek as we are mocked and ridiculed. Ken’s points are well taken with respect to Christians trying to use the bible as a science text. But at the end of the day, we believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and most of those in academia think we have a mental disease.
My children have been raised with the evolution/creationism controversy swirling around them. In our home we have always distinguished between the young earth teaching and evolution with our kids. We have raised them with an understanding that the universe is probably very, very, old and that the recorded history of humans on the earth is very, very, young. From the point that, “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person” humans became like God, a “living person.” This breath of life, I believe was the creation of the human spirit. From this point on, humans were accountable with freewill. No other animal or thing is ever referenced as a person, or given the “breath of life” kiss from God. It doesn’t matter what form humans were prior to this, dust, protoplasmic glop, or half ape-men running around picking bugs of each other’s backs.
So having said all of that, I have some questions and points.
In the genealogical records for Jesus in the book of Luke, the bloodline of Jesus is traced to Adam who is called the son of god. “…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” This leads me to believe that Adam was a literal person, not to be read figuratively in the Genesis account. The other aspect is at the core of the gospel. Jesus said you must be born again; he obviously did not mean the flesh, even though eventually the last stage of redemption will be our flesh. So with respect to the human family, I believe there was a first birth of our spirits from God. This allowed us to be in his image. So the fall happens, our spirits are defiled leading to the “diabolical self”, our flesh is corrupted by the fall, and obviously our world is turned upside down.
‘’The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit” (1Cor 15:45).
For the sake of the gospel, don’t we have to have a literal Adam? And since there is a second birth of our spirits, being born again, wasn’t there also a first birth somewhere in the human history? Is it possible that our spirits also evolved along with our carbon-based life form containers? Ken, please don’t read this in any way other than a sincere attempt to understand.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Hi Gem,
I appreciate reading your thoughts b/c I can tell you are really thinking this through and trying to make rational sense of the God/humanity story as presented in the Bible. There’s one thing you said that I think is something that is a misperception that many American evangelicals believe and that’s: [No other animal or thing is ever referenced as a person, or given the “breath of life” kiss from God.]
There are actually several reference in Genesis that I think more than imply that animals share that same breath of life as man (see: http://www.ibsstl.org/bible/word/index.php?word_request=%22breath+of+life%22&selected_version_word=niv&submit=Search+Word%28s%29&match_type=any&whole_word=yes&limit_select=span&limit_testament=0&start_book=0&end_book=0&limit=25&sortby=bookorder)
Ken- when do we get to move on to the topic of treating animals with dignity and respect? Where do they fit into the “Jesus Brand love, properly understood?” I still would rather hear your take on greed, but I think while we are making sense of Genesis we might as well take a painful stab at this topic
Sorry for the de-rail………back to dealing with religious hostility man vs. man.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:38 am
I have recently finished reading the following book, which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject of archeology and the Old Testament. Anyone can look inside and read it at Amazon.com.
Bondage of the Mind: How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit, by R. D. Gold
http://www.amazon.com/Bondage-Mind-Testament-Fundamentalism-Shackles/dp/0979640601
“The author quotes the leading arguments for literal interpretation of the Torah and then logically deconstructs them, using archeology and history as data points. His ongoing argument that many of the fundamentalist stands are immoral as well as illogical leads to the conclusion that they enslave the mind and damage the soul. A very important read, highly recommended.”
March 9th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Phil, I agree that the “breath of life” comment exists in other areas of scripture. But, nowhere else is it tied to the image of God, and the term person. Thanks for helping me clarify…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
gem – Couple ideas I had … just want to share in relation to two comments you made that got me thinking:
1) ““…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” This leads me to believe that Adam was a literal person, not to be read figuratively in the Genesis account.
And 2) (1Cor 15:45). “For the sake of the gospel, don’t we have to have a literal Adam?”
In the bible, Adam means “man” or “mankind”, but it is also used as a proper name when referring to the first person of humanity. Given this, I think that Adam is both literal (some person at some point) and figurative (a generality, or state of being in relation to the rest of humanity).
I think (personally) it’s a non-issue as far as the gospel is concerned, because I think the point of the creation story is about the supremacy of God in everything. Other creation myths make Baal or whoever supreme and do so in completely ludicrous ways that have no bearing on reality – like one god eats another god and random things like that … I’m just saying – most creation accounts are like some sort of bad acid trip and don’t offer much of an explanation for anything.
And the whole Jewish creation narrative is packed with truth and rife with symbolism, and I think the symbolism accents the truth. As an example, the devil is painted as a talking snake, but this doesn’t mean the devil doesn’t exist, isn’t cunning, or doesn’t tempt. It just means that for some reason, evil was personified as a snake for the creation writer.
So in the fall account, is this the story of how the talking snake tricked eve? That seems a bit silly to take literally, but then what is literal? We view words on a page and extract meaning – so the meaning, or significance of the account (to the human story, in relation to Jesus) is the truth of the account. I think that finding biblical truth has a lot to do with the direction in which we focus our interpretations.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Ryan, thanks for your considerate and thoughtful response.
I guess in a way, all three questions are related. As Adam became a living person with the first spiritual birth, the last Adam provided the capacity for humanity to be born again through his spirit. Had Adam not fallen, he would have also passed on his uncorrupted spirit to his descendants; instead we were born into this life with a fallen spirit. So, I am thinking that the first birth of Adam’s spirit was a significant event. I am implying it may have been when the breath of life kiss from God happened, our images mirrored his, and we became persons. This first birth provided us with self awareness, conscience, accountability, and the greatest gift of all—free will and the capacity to be loved and give love.
The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically. So where did the first birth happen? So how would we account for this event in the evolution story? Is it possible we could evolve into self awareness, conscience, love, and accountability that would lead to our fall with all of the associated ramifications? Did God at some point say, I guess they have evolved far enough to be accountable so let’s test them with the desire for the knowledge of good and evil? If our bodies have evolved over billions of years, I am thinking that our spirits were birthed at a specific time and this is when we began to bear the image and likeness of God.
No other living thing on this earth has the capacity, both good and evil, to do what we do. I am not challenging the evolutionary story. I am just thinking that it was our first spiritual birth that gave us these great and wonderful capacities. And it is our second birth that gives us the freedom to begin exploring and experiencing what was lost so long ago.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
re: Adam and evolution. I see what you’re saying – and it’s a really complex thing to consider ‘how’ we came to be in the image of God. But again, I think the truth of the creation account is in establishing the supremacy of God of every aspect in all things – including us.
“The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically.”
hmmm. I’m going out on a limb to disagree with you on that. Is it one important aspect of Jesus’ message? Yes definitely. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God is the subject of Jesus’ message to the Jews: “the kingdom of god is at hand”. Jesus essentially tells Nicodemus that he won’t find the kingdom through signs and wonders or as a physical place (ref – Luke 17:21), but rather through a spiritual transformation. If I remember correctly, the Jews believed that the kingdom was a real place that would be established through a military leader who would lead them to ultimate victory over their enemies.
From 1 Corinthians 15:1-33, I think Paul is chastising the Corinthians for not living out the gospel he brought to them. He reminds them of the first importance of the gospel in 1 cor 15:3-17 and re-iterates this in v15:13. This is that the whole gospel message hinges on Jesus being who he said he was. If Jesus was not the son of God, then everything is in vain – we labor for nothing, the kingdom is not at hand, there is no resurrection and no salvation, no spiritual re-birth, and no King to follow. What’s more, and what is most important is that if Jesus is not the son of God, then the entire bible is worthless.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ryan, I agree 100% with your comments.
It was assumed in my point “The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically,” that the person that is born again has received the message of the gospel (i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection). The message obviously stands on its own merit, Jesus in the Son of God, but whether or not it has any merit to the person requires acceptance of the gift provided. So for the mystery and benefit of the gospel to be revealed, requires one to be born again.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:17 am
ah ok I’m reading you clearly now, gem … Thanks for clearing that up
March 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
California Kid, I really appreciate your posting at #52. I, too, get frustrated by lack of ability in praying and connecting with God, but I too am done beating myself up about it and am just going to plug away like a turtle. Yes, that’s what I’ve been, a turtle…I’ve seen so many people much younger in the faith surpass me in depth of experience and spirituality. And Dallas Willard lays on the blame by quoting someone who says the only reason we haven’t achieved the deep level of spirituality of some of the great saints is because we haven’t set our mind to it. So yeah, I guess I haven’t decided with my whole heart to do everything possible to connect with God and be like one of those ancient saints. But until I do decide that, I’m not going to beat myself up for not deciding that. I’m going to plug away as a Turtle For God.
Ryan in #54 says, “I am most upset by the trend in Christian literature in always searching for a principle to extract from everything in the Bible.” Amen! I hate how many books there are about “principles for living the Christian life” or “seven steps to a more successful prayer life.” It reduces Christianity to a how-to methodology. I want to experience a relationship with God, not approach him as the object of principles.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Don Bromley #50, you said, “So, how about we Christians focus for a while on the spiritual sins of pride, unforgiveness, hatred, bitterness, envy, and greed. Starting with ourselves. Then maybe we’ll have earned enough credibility to begin speaking about sexual morality. Because right now we have none, and rightly so.” I would like to hear from you how you would suggest doing this in the public sphere, in a way that people would notice. The news media love a fight, and they’re going to pick the ones spice up the argument. For example, they’re always bringing on that hothead Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, to speak for the religious or conservative side. There are more reasonable and loving people to pick, but they don’t create the heat. Or when Kansas took away the requirement to test for macroevolution, originally on a particular news program, the producers had scheduled a representative from the Institute for Creation Research to speak, but at the last minute replaced him with Jerry Falwell.
It’s not that Christians themselves would not benefit from focusing on repenting from spiritual sins of pride, etc., but how would anyone know Christians are even doing it? It doesn’t make for exciting news. Bring on Bill Donahue, Tony Perkins, and Pat Robertson!
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Thank you, from a young evangelical pastor.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Ken,
Please help me understand more clearly. Creationist bad, Darwinism Good. Global Warming denier bad, Left Wing Environmentalist Good. Empowered Evangelical Bad, Secular Humanist Good..etc.
I guess I just don’t understand any of it. It seems we’ve allowed the definitions and group segmentation of our national politics to define us down to which “camp” of “christianity” we are in.
Isn’t it really much more simple than that. You are “hostile” towards those you deem to be “hostile”. Then all your fans rant and rave about you setting those “ranters” straight. Now you own the argument and your brand of “christianity” wins out – at least in your circle and sphere of influence.
I’m just a neophyte here – a guy who probably should have been dead or in jail by now – I just happened to meet Jesus and receive His amazing Grace and have never looked back. No hate here. But, my world view has changed. What I value now is not what I valued when I was “in the world.”
Love God, Love People, Live for Jesus, and keep the Kingdom my primary focus. That’s my “brand” of Christianity. However, I do believe that I have to change and become something that looks radically different than what I was. I have to display (with the direction and power of the Holy Spirit) character traits that aren’t naturally mine.
Holiness is a worthy pursuit. Wanting to help a pregnant woman perceive and understand that it’s not a tissue, but rather an amazing – miraculous – act of creation is a worthy pursuit.
Wanting to display the Love of a Heavenly Father to someone whose lifestyle of same sex relationships that is stealing the wholeness of the original divinely designed coupling of a man and women is a worthy pursuit.
Wanting to bring the truth that yes one has to change and must “conform” to something different than what they currently are is a worthy pursuit. Not conform to religion or doctrine. But conform to a pursuit – the pursuit of Jesus. The pursuit of becoming just like him and walking in His divine gifts to accomplish our single purpose – be salt and light and help bring people into relationship with Christ.
So to the “hostile” author going after the “hostile” ranter, I just don’t understand either one of you. Seems to me it should be much simpler than that.
In the meantime here is my plan – Just love Him. Walk with the Holy Spirit and listen to Him. Be led by the Word. And obey the Father when directed. Always stand for Truth. And finally Love People!
But, then again I’m just a neophyte. Thanks for listening.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Dave, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I don’t think creationism is bad. (If by that you mean young earth creationism.) I do think the form of it that claims any other view is wrong-bad is misinformed and damaging to the gospel. I don’t think empowered evangelical is bad and secular humanist is good. I think a Jesus approach is more sympathetic than antagonist, though. I don’t think global warming denier is bad–I do think the way many of the media outlets that rail against global warming science without being well informed about what it actually is, is misinformed. But these are issues that Christians do and can disagree about. Love God, love people, live for Jesus, keep your focus on the kingdom–now that I can say AMEN too! My aim too!