Out the Door

Religion and Politics

Every four years, the debate over the role of religion in the political arena flares up.  David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, and author of The Future of Faith in American Politics opined in USA Today about the connection between Evangelicals and the Republican Party.

He writes:  Conservative evangelicals are getting wrong both how they are bringing their faith to bear on politics and what they are saying when they do. 

The "how" problem, among other things, is that they are married to the Republican Party and have therefore compromised the political independence of Christianity and the church. This is a huge mistake, an error of biblical proportions, because it verges on idolatry — after all, "You shall have no other gods before me."

One obvious sign of this was the assumption in the Christian Right that its leaders would endorse a Republican presidential candidate — that it was just a matter of which of those GOP gentlemen was the best Christian choice. Endorsing a Democrat was and is inconceivable.  Read more.

While Gushee makes some valid points here, he fails to consider why these things are true.  The fact of the matter is that Evangelicals know that any Democrat presidential candidate who stands a chance of getting their party's nomination must be opposed to issues that most Evangelicals hold dear.  A Democrat candidate must be anti-pro-life, anti-traditional marriage, anti-school choice if he or she hopes to draw the party faithful.  It matters little what a Democrat candidate favors because few Evangelicals will abandon these core values.  Thus Evangelicals, in our two party system, are left with only one other choice, the Republicans.  These limited choices result in individuals voting against a candidate rather than in favor of one.   

If the day ever comes when a candidate can hold in balance the values of Evangelicals while looking for ways the government can solve the problems of poverty, education, global warming, and war that person would win in a landslide.

Atheist Evangelists

I saw this cartoon over on Allan Bevere's blog and had to pass it along.  While I find it incredibly funny, I don't think it accurately portrays what atheist's believe nor do I think it was intended to. 

In the words of Bob Dyan:

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Atheists pamphlet of beliefs isn't blank.  They simply choose not to believe in God.  The idea that atheists don't believe in anything just isnt' true.  They put their faith in science or in themselves.  They set themselves up as the supreme rulers of their lives.  They are serving someone.  It's not the Lord God, however.

Christians believe that God is the supreme ruler of the universe, and as such has the authority to tell us how to live and who to serve. 

Bad reputation

A friend of mine gave me a packet of materials that he is using to help people learn how to deal with conflict.  The first page was a long list of adjectives.  The assignment was to check the "People (behaviors) that sap my effectiveness."  Here's the list in part:

manipulative               know-it-alls
boring                         indecisive
always serious             "holier than thou" types
incompetent                stubborn
missionary-types          undisciplined
rigid                           wishy-washy
fanatics                      arrogant
That's about a third of the list.

What struck me was the use of adjectives that are often apply to religious people; "holier than thou" types, missionary-types, fanatics.  Now I have to admit I really don't like these kinds of people.  But it bothers me that there are enough of these kinds of people around so as to include them in this list.

Somewhere we Christians haven't gotten off the track.  If enough of us were living Christ-filled lives then these kinds of people would be an apparition and not what many in the world believe is the norm.

My wife's Sunday school class is working through Bill Hybels' book Becoming a Contagious Christian.  (She thinks it's absolutely terrific material.)  One of the first things that got her attention was the statement that in order to be contagious you first must have the disease.  There are a lot of people who have a touch of Christianity.  It is these people who often leave a bad taste in other's mouths.  What we need are more people who have a full-blown case.

Atmosphere and Worship

How much does atmosphere impact worship?  It's a question that I've been asking myself lately. 

On the one hand, I believe that the way a place looks has a profound impact on worship.  I think Protestants can learn something from our Catholic friends.  Josh, our son, spent the summer in Sicily.  He had the opportunity to visit a number of beautiful churches on the island.  The artwork and the architecture spoke profoundly of God's glory.  Having seen a few new world cathedrals, I know that it is when standing in such a space that it's impossible not for one's eyes to be drawn heavenward.  There is a sense of awe which comes just from being present.  Obviously, these builders and artists sought to demonstrate their believe in God's majesty by what they created.

As I look around our sanctuary, I ask myself, what does this space say about what we believe about God?  It might be interesting to survey the congregation and get their opinions.  It could be even more interesting to survey visitors.  The latter would likely give a more unbiased answer.  I doubt if in most Protestant churches the answer would be "the majesty of God," though every congregation would profess that the belief in the majesty of God would be among its core beliefs.

On the other hand, some of the most wonderful times of worship I've ever experienced have had nothing whatsoever to do with where I was.  I still remember after 25 years sitting on a friend's deck singing along with a guitar.  Or at a Cursillo held in a old school house where I gave my heart to Christ.  Or around a campfire.

I guess I need to keep on pondering the question.

Maundy Thursday

Many churches around the world will be hosting Maundy Thursday services today.  When I was a kid, I thought it was Monday Thursday.  Never did quite figure out why this day was called by two different names.

Though my extensive education (I double checked myself on Wikipedia) I've learned the true meaning of the word. 

The word Maundy is derived through Middle English, and Old French mandé, from the Latin mandatum, the first word of the phrase "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos" ( A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you), the statement by Jesus in the Gospel of John (13:34) by which Jesus explained to the Apostles the significance of his action of washing their feet.

Today is the day the Church has set aside to remember Jesus' commandment to love one another.  Each year during our Maundy Thursday service, we do a hand washing.  This is a less intimidating reenactment of Jesus' washing the disciples feet.  Though as one who has participated in an actual foot washing ceremony, I must say that it doesn't evoke the same emotions.

To have someone kneel before you and bath your feet in water is a humbling thing.  I can understand why Peter didn't want Jesus to wash his feet.  He had a profound sense of that this act was completely undeserved.  And so it was.  Yet it is a lesson on love that the disciples never forgot and Christians everywhere still remember 2,000 years later.  And though we remember this lesson, we often fail to act upon it in our own lives.  The other day, Greg Hazelrig asked, "What do you believe divides Christians more than anything else?"   

No one or two line paragraph can adequately answer that question, but here's mine.  We don't practice the lesson of Maundy Thursday.  We fail to love and serve as Jesus did.

Let's all pray that as Christians around the world gather to remember and celebrate Jesus' last supper, that we begin to live out his new commandment.

The Case for Christ

I just read the last five chapters of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.  Four of these deal with the evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection.  In the final chapter Strobel tells how his own quest for the truth about Jesus led him to believe and receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

Strobel's brings his book to a close by quoting C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  It is one of my favorite quotes from this great writer.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."  That is the one thing we must not say.  A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the Devil of Hell.  You must make your choice.  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.  You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.  But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher.  He has not left that open to us.  He did not intend to.

Each one of us must answer the question Jesus posed to His disicples "Who do you say I am?" (Matthew 16:15). 

Christianity without Easter?

Jesus' bodily resurrection has caused quite a ruckus among the Methoblogsphere.  John's had more that 50 comments as a result of his posting on it. Allan also had quite a bit to say on the subject and got a number of replies.

I was taught that every Sunday is a little Easter.  That's why Sundays aren't included in the 40 days of Lent, every Sunday is to be a celebration of Christ's victory over death. 

If Christ is not raised, there is no reason to worship for Christianity is simply religious superstition.  The entire New Testament rises or falls on Jesus' resurrection.  If Jesus is not raised, we are still locked in a losing battle to sin.  If Jesus is not raised, we have no hope beyond this world.  If Jesus is not raised, we cannot trust anything that the gospel accounts tell us.  If Jesus is not raised, then the moral teachings of Jesus are no different from the moral teachings of other religions and Christianity becomes just one more religion among many and offers nothing more than any other religion can.

Christianity without Easter?  There is no such thing!   

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

There's been a lot of hype about the Discovery Channel's upcoming "documentary" "The Lost Tomb of Jesus."  Some Christians are getting up in arms over it.  Personally, I think the issue should be re-framed and seen as an opportunity.

This show is an obvious attack upon the Christian faith and calls into question the validity of Christianity.  The resurrection of Jesus is the link pin that holds Christianity together.  Without it, everything else falls apart.  St. Paul recognized this, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."  (1 Corinthians 15:14)

Making up stories to disprove Jesus' resurrection is nothing new.  It has been happening for 2,000 years.  "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, 'You are to say, "His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." (Matthew 28:12-13) 

The thing is, I don't see the apostles throwing a tizzy fit over the chief priests' actions, like some Christians are doing with this TV program.  That Hollywood disses Christ should come as no more of a surprise to us than the fact that the chief priests did way back when.

For many years Christians had free reign over American culture.  We could have lax and lazy theologies because it was assumed that everyone bought into a Christian worldview.  "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" proves once again that this is no longer the case.  Christians have a couple of choices how they will deal with this program.

1.  They can holler and scream and call for letter-writing campaigns and boycotts.

2.  They can just ignore it, and act like it has no impact whatsoever.

3.  They can use this challenge to commitment themselves to building spiritual muscle. 

I choose option 3.  The first 300 years of Christianity was a time of incredible evangelistic growth within the Church.  It was also a time of great theological thinking.  Is there a Christian apologist alive today who can match the likes of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian or Origen?  Not to my knowledge, but there needs to be.  Personally, I know I'm not intelligent be that person. However, I, like every other Christian, have the responsibility to witness to what the living Christ has done in my life.

While it's important that the denial of Christ's resurrection not go unchallenged, most people aren't pursued to put their faith in Him through some well thought out theology.  Rather, the greatest witness to the truth of the resurrection is a life lived in love with Jesus and with others.

That being said, I believe Christians need to be able to say more than just "Jesus saved me," as true as that might be.  Faith is not solely a matter of the heart and a believer should have the ability to clearly state in a reasoned the evidence of Jesus' resurrection.  So briefly, here it is.

It's argued that the disciples stole the body.  The fact is the tomb was guarded by soldiers who knew full well that falling asleep on duty as punishable by death and even if they had, it is in no way possible that the disciples rolled away the large stone covering the tomb so quietly as not to awaken the guards.  Further, the disciples were depressed and disillusioned following Jesus' death.  Their despair and fear, as exemplified by their fleeing from the Garden of Gethsemane and Peter's denial would have made it highly improbable that they would attempt such a daring feat.

The second proof is the reported appearances to the disciples and their incredible change in behavior.  These mostly uneducated men didn't back down from an argument with the most highly educated people of their nation.  Further, many of them died a martyr's death.  Would they have undergone torture and death into order to maintain a lie?  Not likely.

Thirdly, is the growth of the Church.  In a mere 300 years, they revolutionized the world.  And wherever they went, their message was unchanging, "Jesus is alive."

I hope American Christians can take advantage of the opportunity presented by "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" to proclaim an alternative, one which has the power to transform the world, "Christ is risen."

Open Communion

One of the many things I think makes the United Methodist Church great is our long practice of open communion.  All who love Jesus, who earnestly repent of their sins and seek to live in peace with others are invited to our Lord's Table.  This three-fold invitation defines who is welcome.

First, all who love Jesus.  Those who have experienced the grace of God given through Christ Jesus and have responded to that in some way are invited.  Thus a Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or other idolater are not included in the invitation.  These individuals don't love Jesus nor have they earnestly repented of their sins.  They may be good people who do good deeds, but not accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a sin for which they have not repented. 

On the other hand, all those who have acknowledged Jesus as Savior or have had that done for them through baptism are welcome.  Holy Communion is the family meal for the family of God.  Thus all those who are a part of God's family regardless of their ability to understand are included.  The label by which one identifies oneself, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Pentecostal plays no role in determining who may receive the sacrament, for we affirm that there is only one body of Christ made up on many parts.  Holy Communion is offered to all who claim to be a part of the body.

Second, who earnestly repent of their sins.  Paul speaks about participating in communion in an unworthy manner. 

So if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, that person is guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord.  That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup.  For if you eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, not honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God's judgment upon yourself.  1 Cor. 11:27-29 (NLT)

Honest self-examination by a Christian results in repentance.  We are going on to perfection but none of us are there yet.  At least, no one I've ever met.  A lack of self-examination can lead to self-righteousness and pride, seeing the speck in another's eye while overlooking the log in our own.  Only those who are humble may receive the grace given through the sacrament.

Third, who seek to live in peace with others.  Jesus said, if you're bringing an offering to the altar  and remember something a brother or sister has against you, go and make things right with them and then come back and make your offering to God.  This part of the invitation recognizes that it's not about us, it's about the community of faith.  Certainly there is an individual aspect to the sacrament, but there is also a communal one.  Holy Communion is always shared within the context of the body of Christ, where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name.

Besides being a part of my theology, open communion is a personal matter to me.  My wife, and her  sisters were raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. In their home church, they were all baptized, went through three years of confirmation classes and joined the church, and were married.  Each of them happened to marry United Methodists and all are now active in the UMC where they live.  However, when they go back home and attend worship they are barred from the communion table.  I find that incredibly insulting.  It denies the validity of their faith and that of their families.

And perhaps it is because of my desire that people feel included and connected with God in worship that I'm thankful that in the church I serve, Holy Communion is open to all believers.

Do Beer & the Bible Mix?

The Journey, a 1,300 member congregation in St. Louis says "yes,"  St. Louis Post-Dispatch story.  Each week the church holds a gathering at Schlafly Bottleworks where very unspiritual topics are discussed, at least in the traditional understanding of spiritual.  Obviously, The Journey's approach is working since it's grown from 30 original members in 2002 to its present size, mostly made up of 20 & 30 somethings.  Still, there are some who question their methods.

Now I'm not advocating an unrestrained life, but why is it the church get so hung up on alcohol?  Of course, there are those who abuse alcohol and that must be adamantly condemned, which the scriptures do.  On the other hand, if alcohol is such a bad thing, why was Jesus first miracle changing water into wine?  Wine throughout the Old Testament was a symbol of God's blessings and of His abundance.

In a way, this debate reminds me of the present attitude toward touching in the church.  Because some touch is bad and again must be adamantly condemned, there are those who would have us think that all touch is bad.  Once again, the scriptures give us a broader point of view.  The Bible condemns taking advantage of another person physically, while at the same time, instructing us to greet one another with a holy kiss.  The operative word here is "holy."  Holy touch isn't a self-gratifying action.  It is a physical expression of Christ-like love.

I'm getting a little too far from my original thought.  In the end, the question that arises from the success of The Journey is this: How far from traditional church values should a congregation be willing to go to spread the good news of Jesus Christ?

HT: Steve Beard