My article at InsideWork is up and also reposted below. Heads up since it has religious references.
What Motivates Your Heart?
Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation
Recently I watched Dan Pink’s TEDTalk where he sought to answer the question of what motivates people.
Pink talked about Karl Duncker’s candle problem and variations of his experiment that explored the science of motivation. One experiment asked a group to solve this problem and explained that it would be timed to established norms. A second group was offered financial incentives. If you were in the top 20% of the fastest times, you would receive five dollars. If you were the fastest of everyone, you would receive twenty dollars.
The results were obvious, right? The second group, motivated by financial incentives, took on average 3.5 minutes longer. Yes, longer. Would this work in third world countries and developing economies? Yes. This study has been replicated over 40 years across numerous cultures.
What is basic knowledge in the social sciences should have been an epiphany in the corporate world, but this hasn’t occurred yet. Dan Pink went on to explain how extrinsic motivators, such as carrots and money, work for simple tasks, but not for complicated tasks.
He stated, “If you want engagement, self-direction works better.”
As long as the task involved only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance. But once the task called for “even rudimentary cognitive skill,” a larger reward “led to poorer performance.
— D. Adriely, U. Gneezy, G. Lowenstein, & N. Mazar, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Pink’s talk sent me back to my high school years where I recalled listening to the common sermon on storing up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6: 19-14) and being turned off. I remember thinking as a young believer, “Why would the idea of storing up riches in heaven motivate me at all? If accumulating wealth didn’t interest me as a non-believer, why would it interest me as a believer?”
Reflecting back on all those sermons, I don’t remember a pastor ever analyzing this and bringing out God’s wisdom that was as insightful as Dan Pink’s talk. Maybe these pastors should have read what Pink discovered. Of course, part of my lack of recall could have been due to my own ignorance since I incorrectly assumed these pastors were discussing a similar monetary system would be established in heaven as on earth. Heavenly dollars? Who cares about storing up treasures in heaven?
Now since I’m a bit older and a little more informed, I realized after listening to Pink’s talk that God already knew this about us.
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Matthew 6:21
The treasure that motivates us in what’s in our hearts. Hopefully as believers it’s Christ and God’s words for us. It’s not a promise of material wealth that will motivate people to change and live a life to glorify God, but the relationship that God offers—the daily sanctuary, peace, joy, wisdom and love that he freely gives.
John MacArthur has a great story on this:
During the time of the Decian persecution in Rome, the Roman authorities broke into a certain church thinking they could loot their treasures. The Roman prefect who was in charge stepped up to one saint named Laurentius and said, “Show me your treasures at once.” Laurentius pointed to a group of widows and orphans who happened to be eating a meal and said, “There are the treasures of the church. We have invested all we have in them.” That is treasure in heaven. Beloved, remember that what we keep we lose, and what we invest with God we gain eternally.
So if pastors and Christian leaders would pierce into God’s wisdom on the question of what motivates people, how would this reflect on their sermons? Their actions?
As business executives and managers, how does this affect your approach in working with your colleagues? I assume, to understand people better, you would first have to learn more about them and try to see where their hearts lie. This sounds like a commitment of time to me. Some people are open books, but most take time to reveal their hearts. If you can’t find any widows and orphans, investing in the people around you is a good start to building up your treasures in heaven.
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
Monday, May 4, 2009
ChristianityToday and 'Joe the Plumber' Misrepresent the Christian Faith
This is embarrassing. ChristianityToday decides to post an interview with Samuel Wurzelbacher, or 'Joe the Plumber'. What transpired were idiotic statements by Joe that misrepresented the Christian faith to the general public.
First, what were the editors of ChristianityToday thinking? Maybe the question is, who are they? Are they holed up in the caves of Kentucky? Somewhere hidden in the Smokey Mountains? Have they ever lived outside the bubble of Christianity and the confined walls of a church? Maybe they are living in the catacombs of some large cathedral in NYC? Second, I don't really expect much of Joe but I have to point out his dense and narrow-minded thinking.
To clarify for some readers, I am politically moderate and conservative in my faith. I believe that the Bible is wholly inspired by God, in the deity of Christ, and in his death and resurrection. I became a "Christian" through an exercise of analysis and pretty much a cold, logical thinker in many situations. And I'm snarky like a badger :)
When I read Joe's interview, I initially thought about how ignorant he was, but my words were in reality harsher.
"What a tool. I don't believe he believes this... What a complete idiot! And what was the interviewer thinking when she included this part? That it would enhance Christianity's image? It would encourage more people to learn about Christ??"
The following is the question and answer that brought up this intense reaction from me...
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.
Joe, "queer" is a slur. Calling you an "idiot" isn't. And you have "friends" that are homosexual? How do you define "friends" since you won't let them near your children? I really want to be friends with you, dude. And are you concerned that they will become gay through osmosis? What are your reasons for not letting "those" people near your children?
Oh, "preach against the sins" and "accept people"? Just like those "Christians" that hold up signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Yeah, that's loving them dude. I want to be part of your family with all that love. I might make it through half a day during a Chicago winter with all that warmth and agape love.
Joe, loving people that you're really friends with is easy. Try loving those that you don't know, that you're enemies with, and those that make you feel uncomfortable. Come back in a few years and try this interview again.
First, what were the editors of ChristianityToday thinking? Maybe the question is, who are they? Are they holed up in the caves of Kentucky? Somewhere hidden in the Smokey Mountains? Have they ever lived outside the bubble of Christianity and the confined walls of a church? Maybe they are living in the catacombs of some large cathedral in NYC? Second, I don't really expect much of Joe but I have to point out his dense and narrow-minded thinking.
To clarify for some readers, I am politically moderate and conservative in my faith. I believe that the Bible is wholly inspired by God, in the deity of Christ, and in his death and resurrection. I became a "Christian" through an exercise of analysis and pretty much a cold, logical thinker in many situations. And I'm snarky like a badger :)
When I read Joe's interview, I initially thought about how ignorant he was, but my words were in reality harsher.
"What a tool. I don't believe he believes this... What a complete idiot! And what was the interviewer thinking when she included this part? That it would enhance Christianity's image? It would encourage more people to learn about Christ??"
The following is the question and answer that brought up this intense reaction from me...
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.
Joe, "queer" is a slur. Calling you an "idiot" isn't. And you have "friends" that are homosexual? How do you define "friends" since you won't let them near your children? I really want to be friends with you, dude. And are you concerned that they will become gay through osmosis? What are your reasons for not letting "those" people near your children?
Oh, "preach against the sins" and "accept people"? Just like those "Christians" that hold up signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Yeah, that's loving them dude. I want to be part of your family with all that love. I might make it through half a day during a Chicago winter with all that warmth and agape love.
Joe, loving people that you're really friends with is easy. Try loving those that you don't know, that you're enemies with, and those that make you feel uncomfortable. Come back in a few years and try this interview again.
Monday, March 16, 2009
At $347,000 Per Baptism Maybe It’s Time To Rethink Church
(heads up since this is a religious post... a snarky religious post)
The absence of trust today is palpable. We don’t need to hear leaders, pundits and ordinary Joes talking about the breakdown of trust as the reality of the financial meltdown touches our lives—so many stories, of credit denied, of honest families victimized in financial scandals, of hardworking people losing their nest eggs in the stock market, of faithful employees laid off by companies they devoted themselves to for years… We can feel the distrust growing—in our banking system, government, corporations, even religious organizations.
How do we stop this? What treatment can heal these deep wounds? Wide sweeping federal policy? Complete reform of our banking system? State and local initiatives? Independent corporate reform through industry associations? Spiritual reformation?
There is also denial in the air. Last week in a board meeting of a nonprofit I am committed to the executive director stated that their umbrella association told them that even during downturns giving remains consistent. I silently shook my head but didn’t get a chance to remind them this isn’t just any downturn. When some of their wealthiest donors lose 50% of their wealth and 18% of overall American wealth disappears, it will affect their giving.
While contemplating on these larger scale issues, I narrowed my thinking to Christendom because I wanted to revisit a number that kept bothering me after reading Al Lunsford’s piece, Business is Our Mission. Al referred to research that indicated a global cost of $347,000 per baptism. What?? I had to do a double take. Of course you cannot put price a soul, and no one knows what the Spirt of God is doing or how long that work will take in a person’s life (or how long it has gone on already), but that’s not what this is about. When Nike states their customer acquisition costs are $100 per person against a lifetime customer value of x, are they placing a value on human life? Of course not. They are using financial tools to pursue efficiency and improve their understanding and intelligently utilize resources. And that, we have to assume, is what that $347,000 per baptism number is all about as well.
As I’ve been thinking about this, it was interesting to learn from a friend that a large parachurch organization ran a similar analysis and found their cost of conversion to be approximately $300,000. Whether cost per baptism or cost per conversion, these financial exercises bring important questions to the forefront.
“$347,000” bothered me so much that I contacted the International Bulletin of Missionary Research who put together the insightful study that produced this number. I haven’t heard back after my initial inquiry, so I decided to do my own back-of-the-envelope calculations.
The International Bulletin of Missionary Research estimated $410 billion/year in giving to “Christian” causes worldwide over the recent years. This was broken down to $160 billion to churches and $250 billion to parachurch organizations every year. Let’s assume that $347,000 per baptism is simply the total giving of $410 billion divided by the number of baptisms tracked. If this simple method was used, then the cost per baptism is tremendously overstated since we would have to assume a large portion is allocated to the operations of those churches and parachurch organizations.
I am assuming the primary mission of these organizations has something to do with making followers of Christ. The question is how much is being spent on the core mission of these organizations and how effective are they? A comparable question in the business world is asking how much do we spend on marketing and how effective is our program? For many companies, the benchmark is approximately ten percent of budget. Ten percent of $410 billion is $41 billion, which would make the figure $34,700 per baptism.
I would assume though that a church and parachurch organizations should be more focused to their mission than a companies, and, one could argue, their core mission should be their only focus. If a church were a business, would it really only devote 10% of the budget to getting out their message? Eyeballing, 30% or higher seems more appropriate. If this really is the case, I think $104,000 per baptism—or higher—is flabbergasting. And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.
$347,000, $104,000, even $34,700…all seem ridiculously high. It screams waste to me. How much is being spent on non-core programs or questionable activities? There are easy targets like some mega-church pastors who have private jets and chauffeur-driven limousines. I wonder if some of them have Ferris wheels in their backyards, rent out Disneyland for their children, or bought gold plated driveway gates with God’s money…
Most systemic problems are hidden and not so overt as that, so I don’t believe the bling bling pastors should carry the whole burden of waste. Over the past decades I’ve heard or read about pastors of small and medium size churches retaining secret slush funds or making questionable purchases for their families. But does this add up to billions in waste? Probably not.
I’m guessing most of these non-core expenditures are for ethical but non-essential purposes, so how do you make a judgment call on such things and who is held accountable? There is pressure to grow, to buy bigger buildings, build bigger parking lots, or to have a summer retreat lodge. Nowadays churches have to provide social services as much as delivering God’s word. Golf groups, open gym, counseling and so on. Nothing is wrong with these services but what do they have to do with extending the kingdom of God—especially if they pull followers of Christ out of the world to the supposed safety of Christian ghettos?
If churches were to model themselves after a business organization, I would say an ideal example is the advertising firm. Think Crispin Porter + Bogusky—a lean and mean organization with a team obsessed on their client’s ad campaign. Their creatives are up day and night sweating to develop the best methods of reaching into their client’s customer base. As in any great firm, they are conscience of their client’s dollar and how best to spend it.
Reality is different. Most churches wouldn’t be compared to an advertising firm. Maybe an auto manufacturer? Steel company? I’m thinking country club. High operational costs, high touch, and high service. Also they might be characterized as insular, having rigid semantic biases, and of course a snotty attitude towards non-members.
Maybe today’s financial crisis is a blessing for “Christian” organizations across the globe, but especially in the most developed nations. The larger scale issues point to systemic deficiencies across a our society that is crying for change. What are some of these changes?
Openness!
There needs to be a willingness to open up and reassess where these organizations stand. Leaders needs to ask hard questions and then to create change. This process takes wisdom, courage and humility. I was encouraged when I saw Bill Hybels’ 2008 leadership presentation on “the wake-up call of his life” when he and the Willow Creek Community Church staff discovered their programs were not effective in creating sustainable growth for believers. He asked the hard question: “Do you ever wonder if we’re using God’s money and God’s resources in ways that are really achieving the mission of our church?” Every church and parachurch organization should ask this question every month.
Transparency!
There should be transparency of organizational budgets. Technology allows for this, so why not put up detailed budgets on Google docs or a wiki for everyone to see? This transparency creates accountability beyond the pastor or executive director and maybe a board made up of long-time friends.
Focus!
It’s time to rethink the assumption that, if we build it—church campuses, religious non-profits, alternative communities within communities—they will come. Does God dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands? Do we really expect religious professionals, who are outsiders in the places we work, to communicate the good news of the kingdom of God to our colleagues, while we—the insiders—stand passively by, wishing we could contribute more?
Action!
It’s easy to criticize organizations in their inefficiencies, but I believe at least half of the problem rests in the people who fill up pews and fellowship meetings. Believers have become old country club members who love to lounge on the greens and talk shop with their buddies. Maybe some of us have had too many manicures and hate to dirty our fingers. Believers need to step out of the comfort zone and engage the world —not be afraid, not separate from the world, not arrogantly defying, but engaging the world as it is, not as it is supposed to be.
The tail is wagging the dog. Proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor does not require a 501(C)(3) corporation. The kingdom of God is not infrastructure dependent. New converts shouldn’t cost a nickel as they have already been paid for. At $347,000 per baptism, maybe it’s time to rethink Church.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
(HatTip to Al, Sam, Hamon, and Jim for insights, info and edits)
The absence of trust today is palpable. We don’t need to hear leaders, pundits and ordinary Joes talking about the breakdown of trust as the reality of the financial meltdown touches our lives—so many stories, of credit denied, of honest families victimized in financial scandals, of hardworking people losing their nest eggs in the stock market, of faithful employees laid off by companies they devoted themselves to for years… We can feel the distrust growing—in our banking system, government, corporations, even religious organizations.
How do we stop this? What treatment can heal these deep wounds? Wide sweeping federal policy? Complete reform of our banking system? State and local initiatives? Independent corporate reform through industry associations? Spiritual reformation?
There is also denial in the air. Last week in a board meeting of a nonprofit I am committed to the executive director stated that their umbrella association told them that even during downturns giving remains consistent. I silently shook my head but didn’t get a chance to remind them this isn’t just any downturn. When some of their wealthiest donors lose 50% of their wealth and 18% of overall American wealth disappears, it will affect their giving.
While contemplating on these larger scale issues, I narrowed my thinking to Christendom because I wanted to revisit a number that kept bothering me after reading Al Lunsford’s piece, Business is Our Mission. Al referred to research that indicated a global cost of $347,000 per baptism. What?? I had to do a double take. Of course you cannot put price a soul, and no one knows what the Spirt of God is doing or how long that work will take in a person’s life (or how long it has gone on already), but that’s not what this is about. When Nike states their customer acquisition costs are $100 per person against a lifetime customer value of x, are they placing a value on human life? Of course not. They are using financial tools to pursue efficiency and improve their understanding and intelligently utilize resources. And that, we have to assume, is what that $347,000 per baptism number is all about as well.
As I’ve been thinking about this, it was interesting to learn from a friend that a large parachurch organization ran a similar analysis and found their cost of conversion to be approximately $300,000. Whether cost per baptism or cost per conversion, these financial exercises bring important questions to the forefront.
“$347,000” bothered me so much that I contacted the International Bulletin of Missionary Research who put together the insightful study that produced this number. I haven’t heard back after my initial inquiry, so I decided to do my own back-of-the-envelope calculations.
The International Bulletin of Missionary Research estimated $410 billion/year in giving to “Christian” causes worldwide over the recent years. This was broken down to $160 billion to churches and $250 billion to parachurch organizations every year. Let’s assume that $347,000 per baptism is simply the total giving of $410 billion divided by the number of baptisms tracked. If this simple method was used, then the cost per baptism is tremendously overstated since we would have to assume a large portion is allocated to the operations of those churches and parachurch organizations.
I am assuming the primary mission of these organizations has something to do with making followers of Christ. The question is how much is being spent on the core mission of these organizations and how effective are they? A comparable question in the business world is asking how much do we spend on marketing and how effective is our program? For many companies, the benchmark is approximately ten percent of budget. Ten percent of $410 billion is $41 billion, which would make the figure $34,700 per baptism.
I would assume though that a church and parachurch organizations should be more focused to their mission than a companies, and, one could argue, their core mission should be their only focus. If a church were a business, would it really only devote 10% of the budget to getting out their message? Eyeballing, 30% or higher seems more appropriate. If this really is the case, I think $104,000 per baptism—or higher—is flabbergasting. And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.
$347,000, $104,000, even $34,700…all seem ridiculously high. It screams waste to me. How much is being spent on non-core programs or questionable activities? There are easy targets like some mega-church pastors who have private jets and chauffeur-driven limousines. I wonder if some of them have Ferris wheels in their backyards, rent out Disneyland for their children, or bought gold plated driveway gates with God’s money…
Most systemic problems are hidden and not so overt as that, so I don’t believe the bling bling pastors should carry the whole burden of waste. Over the past decades I’ve heard or read about pastors of small and medium size churches retaining secret slush funds or making questionable purchases for their families. But does this add up to billions in waste? Probably not.
I’m guessing most of these non-core expenditures are for ethical but non-essential purposes, so how do you make a judgment call on such things and who is held accountable? There is pressure to grow, to buy bigger buildings, build bigger parking lots, or to have a summer retreat lodge. Nowadays churches have to provide social services as much as delivering God’s word. Golf groups, open gym, counseling and so on. Nothing is wrong with these services but what do they have to do with extending the kingdom of God—especially if they pull followers of Christ out of the world to the supposed safety of Christian ghettos?
If churches were to model themselves after a business organization, I would say an ideal example is the advertising firm. Think Crispin Porter + Bogusky—a lean and mean organization with a team obsessed on their client’s ad campaign. Their creatives are up day and night sweating to develop the best methods of reaching into their client’s customer base. As in any great firm, they are conscience of their client’s dollar and how best to spend it.
Reality is different. Most churches wouldn’t be compared to an advertising firm. Maybe an auto manufacturer? Steel company? I’m thinking country club. High operational costs, high touch, and high service. Also they might be characterized as insular, having rigid semantic biases, and of course a snotty attitude towards non-members.
Maybe today’s financial crisis is a blessing for “Christian” organizations across the globe, but especially in the most developed nations. The larger scale issues point to systemic deficiencies across a our society that is crying for change. What are some of these changes?
Openness!
There needs to be a willingness to open up and reassess where these organizations stand. Leaders needs to ask hard questions and then to create change. This process takes wisdom, courage and humility. I was encouraged when I saw Bill Hybels’ 2008 leadership presentation on “the wake-up call of his life” when he and the Willow Creek Community Church staff discovered their programs were not effective in creating sustainable growth for believers. He asked the hard question: “Do you ever wonder if we’re using God’s money and God’s resources in ways that are really achieving the mission of our church?” Every church and parachurch organization should ask this question every month.
Transparency!
There should be transparency of organizational budgets. Technology allows for this, so why not put up detailed budgets on Google docs or a wiki for everyone to see? This transparency creates accountability beyond the pastor or executive director and maybe a board made up of long-time friends.
Focus!
It’s time to rethink the assumption that, if we build it—church campuses, religious non-profits, alternative communities within communities—they will come. Does God dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands? Do we really expect religious professionals, who are outsiders in the places we work, to communicate the good news of the kingdom of God to our colleagues, while we—the insiders—stand passively by, wishing we could contribute more?
Action!
It’s easy to criticize organizations in their inefficiencies, but I believe at least half of the problem rests in the people who fill up pews and fellowship meetings. Believers have become old country club members who love to lounge on the greens and talk shop with their buddies. Maybe some of us have had too many manicures and hate to dirty our fingers. Believers need to step out of the comfort zone and engage the world —not be afraid, not separate from the world, not arrogantly defying, but engaging the world as it is, not as it is supposed to be.
The tail is wagging the dog. Proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor does not require a 501(C)(3) corporation. The kingdom of God is not infrastructure dependent. New converts shouldn’t cost a nickel as they have already been paid for. At $347,000 per baptism, maybe it’s time to rethink Church.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
(HatTip to Al, Sam, Hamon, and Jim for insights, info and edits)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Dustin Lance Black Get Your Religion Right
Last night while we were watching the Oscars off and on while taking care of the girls, I saw Dustin Lance Black, writer of Milk, accept his award for best original screenplay. During his acceptance speech, he said:
"...No matter what everyone tells you, God does love you..."
I was annoyed at his ignorance or purposeful misinformation. I'm guessing it was the former.
As a Christian, I've encountered such ignorance many times throughout my life. During junior high, when my good Jewish friend found out I went to church, he asked me if all Christians hate Jews. I was baffled. I explained that it wouldn't make sense because it's clear through the Bible that Jesus, Paul and others were Jews and Christians or Catholics held them in the highest esteem. If our savior and role models were Jews, why would any believer in our faith hate Jews? Sure if you're an idiot member of some fringe hate group or simply illiterate and can't read the Bible, then I could see how it was possible. My friend was happy to hear his misconception, which I learned to be more common than I believed, cleared up.
During my twenties, my good gay friend also had a misconception that Christians hated gays and lesbians. I agreed that there were backwater, ignorant Christians that spout hate against gays and lesbians, but I explained that mainstream Christians don't hate gays and lesbians. I continued to discuss how it's seen as a sin like any other sin from hate to pride to adultery, and a gay "sinner" isn't weighed more than a heterosexual "sinner." We are all sinners before God and all loved by God, so no person is better than any other. My friend appreciated the discussion though he didn't believe in the Bible or the concept of sin.
So where does Dustin Lance Black get this view of religion (probably Christianity) that its followers would say or hold such a belief that God doesn't love gay and lesbians? It's incorrect and false. God loves everyone period, even in the Christian faith.
"...No matter what everyone tells you, God does love you..."
I was annoyed at his ignorance or purposeful misinformation. I'm guessing it was the former.
As a Christian, I've encountered such ignorance many times throughout my life. During junior high, when my good Jewish friend found out I went to church, he asked me if all Christians hate Jews. I was baffled. I explained that it wouldn't make sense because it's clear through the Bible that Jesus, Paul and others were Jews and Christians or Catholics held them in the highest esteem. If our savior and role models were Jews, why would any believer in our faith hate Jews? Sure if you're an idiot member of some fringe hate group or simply illiterate and can't read the Bible, then I could see how it was possible. My friend was happy to hear his misconception, which I learned to be more common than I believed, cleared up.
During my twenties, my good gay friend also had a misconception that Christians hated gays and lesbians. I agreed that there were backwater, ignorant Christians that spout hate against gays and lesbians, but I explained that mainstream Christians don't hate gays and lesbians. I continued to discuss how it's seen as a sin like any other sin from hate to pride to adultery, and a gay "sinner" isn't weighed more than a heterosexual "sinner." We are all sinners before God and all loved by God, so no person is better than any other. My friend appreciated the discussion though he didn't believe in the Bible or the concept of sin.
So where does Dustin Lance Black get this view of religion (probably Christianity) that its followers would say or hold such a belief that God doesn't love gay and lesbians? It's incorrect and false. God loves everyone period, even in the Christian faith.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Cultural Cocktails: Biblical Faith and Work with a Splash of Eastern and Western Philosophies
Rereading an earlier post (Is Your Work Less Valuable), I deliberated on how much of our faith is influenced by past cultures and other worldviews. I looked into my own upbringing that straddled Eastern and Western cultures. My parents immigrated to the U.S. from Korea when I was one year old and I grew up in suburban Chicago where Asian Americans where the second largest minority (approximately 5%) after the Jewish community (approximately 40%), and I attended a Korean American church from my junior high years through college.
The influences of Confucian and Buddhist philosophies led to subtle differences between mainstream U.S. and Korean American churches. One amusing feature was that morning prayer time in Korean American churches was flooded once each year with mothers praying for their children’s SAT exams (the same phenomenon occurs in South Korea during the national college entrance exams). I don’t suppose it was amusing to those mothers, some of whom would pray for hours the same repetitive prayer (which seemed to me to confuse the notion of grace and work). This fervent style of praying might leave outsiders thinking all Koreans are Pentecostal, but this style was distributed across the board, even within more subdued denominations like Korean Lutherans or Methodists. (Not that I’m anyone to talk. I’m a practical person and not very righteous, so when it comes to praying, I think it would be far more effective to ask one of my upright, godly friends to pray for me for a few minutes than for me to pray for 10 hours straight. But I digress.)
One influence of Confucianism in Korean culture was evident in the careers that first generation Korean American parents emphasized to their children. I call them the three P’s: physician, professor and pastor. The honored class in Confucianism is the “scholar” and all three P’s are generally considered scholarly. Physician was always number one and what parents obsessed about. Sandra Oh’s character in Grey’s Anatomy is not the only Korean American you’ll see at a hospital. I can think of at least 10 “Cristina Yangs” I know off the bat. The second tier of acceptable professions would be in academia and a reason why South Korea was typically number one or two in the number of PhDs per capita. The last of the top three was entering the ministry. While not universally welcomed by parents, it was an acceptable option in many families.
The Western influence — and the primary foundation of my thinking — expressed the ideals held by most Americans. One aspect of this is the foundational philosophy of dualism, which traces its roots to Plato through René Descartes. Without going into the complexities, a basic influence of dualism is the separation of the spiritual or mental substances and physical substances, with no relationship between the two. You could picture a higher plane of life containing the spiritual substances and a lower plane housing the physical.
Dualism enabled many of us to grow up compartmentalizing our lives. This eased us into the role of “Sunday believers” since there is a “natural” separation between church and the rest of the week. This may be a reason why some “Christian” businessmen can be the most unscrupulous professionals you’ve met, since they can subdivide their conscience employing the “this is business” rationale.
Outside the church, dualism became evident to me through my involvement in two post-graduate programs at the intersection of the public and private sectors: the Public Policy program at Columbia University and the Coro Fellowship. The Coro Fellowship, a leadership development program for those interested in public service, sent about two-thirds of participants into the government and nonprofit sectors and one-third into the for-profit world. I saw a similar distribution in the Public Policy program at Columbia: 2/3 to government and nonprofit, 1/3 to business. What surprised me in these two programs at the confluence of human ideals and professional development was finding a measure of disdain for those of us who entered private industry. As if our choice repudiated of what we’d just experienced together by choosing to work on the lower plane.
I am no longer surprised to find evidence of this dualism in the world of believers. There is separation of church and work; Sunday and the rest of the week; faith and execution. Ambition for work is bad and sacrificing work is good. What happened to the stewardship of ALL that God gives us? Did Joseph choose to leave his day job as second in command only to the Pharaoh of Egypt and look for a less demanding “9 to 5″ job so he could volunteer more at church?
Joseph took his work to heart and glorified God in the best manner possible. The difference lay in his worldview which did not separate between his spiritual and physical worlds. Each was connected and united with the other. Even the word lev — the Hebrew word for heart — encompasses not only the heart and emotion but our intellect and mind. This biblical perspective doesn’t compartmentalize our worlds; it creates a holistic understanding of our lives.
I will acknowledge that taking such an approach might make life more complex and highlights tensions between the various circles of ours lives. But isn’t life about tension? Doesn’t this make things more exciting? To think about actually implementing our faith in our business decisions and professional relationships? To actually be salt and light outside of the salt mines and sunlit mountaintops?
Originally posted at InsideWork (no longer an active site).
The influences of Confucian and Buddhist philosophies led to subtle differences between mainstream U.S. and Korean American churches. One amusing feature was that morning prayer time in Korean American churches was flooded once each year with mothers praying for their children’s SAT exams (the same phenomenon occurs in South Korea during the national college entrance exams). I don’t suppose it was amusing to those mothers, some of whom would pray for hours the same repetitive prayer (which seemed to me to confuse the notion of grace and work). This fervent style of praying might leave outsiders thinking all Koreans are Pentecostal, but this style was distributed across the board, even within more subdued denominations like Korean Lutherans or Methodists. (Not that I’m anyone to talk. I’m a practical person and not very righteous, so when it comes to praying, I think it would be far more effective to ask one of my upright, godly friends to pray for me for a few minutes than for me to pray for 10 hours straight. But I digress.)
One influence of Confucianism in Korean culture was evident in the careers that first generation Korean American parents emphasized to their children. I call them the three P’s: physician, professor and pastor. The honored class in Confucianism is the “scholar” and all three P’s are generally considered scholarly. Physician was always number one and what parents obsessed about. Sandra Oh’s character in Grey’s Anatomy is not the only Korean American you’ll see at a hospital. I can think of at least 10 “Cristina Yangs” I know off the bat. The second tier of acceptable professions would be in academia and a reason why South Korea was typically number one or two in the number of PhDs per capita. The last of the top three was entering the ministry. While not universally welcomed by parents, it was an acceptable option in many families.
The Western influence — and the primary foundation of my thinking — expressed the ideals held by most Americans. One aspect of this is the foundational philosophy of dualism, which traces its roots to Plato through René Descartes. Without going into the complexities, a basic influence of dualism is the separation of the spiritual or mental substances and physical substances, with no relationship between the two. You could picture a higher plane of life containing the spiritual substances and a lower plane housing the physical.
Dualism enabled many of us to grow up compartmentalizing our lives. This eased us into the role of “Sunday believers” since there is a “natural” separation between church and the rest of the week. This may be a reason why some “Christian” businessmen can be the most unscrupulous professionals you’ve met, since they can subdivide their conscience employing the “this is business” rationale.
Outside the church, dualism became evident to me through my involvement in two post-graduate programs at the intersection of the public and private sectors: the Public Policy program at Columbia University and the Coro Fellowship. The Coro Fellowship, a leadership development program for those interested in public service, sent about two-thirds of participants into the government and nonprofit sectors and one-third into the for-profit world. I saw a similar distribution in the Public Policy program at Columbia: 2/3 to government and nonprofit, 1/3 to business. What surprised me in these two programs at the confluence of human ideals and professional development was finding a measure of disdain for those of us who entered private industry. As if our choice repudiated of what we’d just experienced together by choosing to work on the lower plane.
I am no longer surprised to find evidence of this dualism in the world of believers. There is separation of church and work; Sunday and the rest of the week; faith and execution. Ambition for work is bad and sacrificing work is good. What happened to the stewardship of ALL that God gives us? Did Joseph choose to leave his day job as second in command only to the Pharaoh of Egypt and look for a less demanding “9 to 5″ job so he could volunteer more at church?
Joseph took his work to heart and glorified God in the best manner possible. The difference lay in his worldview which did not separate between his spiritual and physical worlds. Each was connected and united with the other. Even the word lev — the Hebrew word for heart — encompasses not only the heart and emotion but our intellect and mind. This biblical perspective doesn’t compartmentalize our worlds; it creates a holistic understanding of our lives.
I will acknowledge that taking such an approach might make life more complex and highlights tensions between the various circles of ours lives. But isn’t life about tension? Doesn’t this make things more exciting? To think about actually implementing our faith in our business decisions and professional relationships? To actually be salt and light outside of the salt mines and sunlit mountaintops?
Originally posted at InsideWork (no longer an active site).
Monday, December 1, 2008
Perseverance and Pain
(heads up since this light post has religious references)
I was not home when my best friend, Peter, had a bonding moment with my father during winter vacation our sophomore year in college. Peter’s parents lived in South Korea and he was a welcome guest in our home at every break. Peter attended Northwestern University, which was on a quarter system, and I went to Wisconsin, so I returned to school two weeks before his classes started and he stayed on with my folks. One evening, as Peter watched TV, my father came and sat next to him.
“Peter, give me your hand,” his deep voice commanded.
“Uh… Why, Mr. Moon?” Peter’s hesitant voice hinted at fear and flashbacks of prior experiences.
My dad sternly repeated, “Peter, give. Me. Your. Hand.”
“Ok, Mr. Moon…”
Taking Peter’s outstretched hand my father slowed placed acupuncture burn pads across his palm and every finger. These were metal discs, less than a centimeter wide, with a piece of incense on top of each.
My father lit the discs one at a time and Peter began to feel the burn. If you ever held your hand a few inches above a cigarette lighter, imagine that intense heat multiplied by eight. Dad had a firm grip on Peter’s wrist to arrest any sudden movements or second thoughts about going through this exercise that supposedly improves the blood circulation and something else I can’t remember.
“Mr. Moon, my hand is getting hotter… It’s really hot!”
Some charring might have occurred at this stage. Silence from my dad. Just a firm grip on Peter’s wrist to stifle any movement.
“Ahhhh!”
“It’s okay, Peter, this is good for you.”
Soon the incense burnt out and the pain went away. I know Peter wasn’t sure if the result was beneficial for him, but I think he took some pride in knowing he persevered. Maybe, in that way at least, my father’s little endurance test was good for Peter. As for improved blood circulation, I remain agnostic.
Overcoming pain is oddly satisfying. But does an exercise like this really build character? Is pain, in and of itself, good for us? Imagine, for example, that Peter was of a mind to believe it was God’s divine intervention that led my father to burn his hand in order to strengthen his character. Foolish if you ask me.
Silly analogy, but not all situations of pain and suffering are invested with inherent purpose. Not every twist and turn in life has some divine meaning. I believe God is able to make something useful out of any circumstance, but that doesn’t mean “everything happens for a reason” and it doesn’t mean God sets out to cause people pain “for their own good.” I believe God is foreknowing but not fore-causing. God grants us free will and does not limit us to a hapless deterministic world. This free will allows for variety and makes life interesting. God is not like a micro-managing CEO or the sadistic controller who made you ride coach on a third-tier airline from San Francisco to Johannesburg.
I’m hearing the word perseverance a lot lately, as apprehension about this horrible economic downturn — possibly a seven year recession — grows. People are bracing themselves for the worst. Common counsel will advise us to persevere during difficult times, but this isn’t a pleasant thought because the word and feeling that always precedes perseverance is pain. Pain sucks. Just ask my old friend Peter.
Remember running those endless sprints in youth soccer? Two-a-days in the summer heat if you played football (I never played football). Basic training if you were in the military? Enduring your first heartbreak? Twenty years of marital strife? Climbing out of a financial black hole? Working with the worst boss for several years?
“Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” — Romans 5:3-4
Life throws so many curves at people. So many headaches. So many trials. It turns out life is a marathon, which calls for discernment about which races are worth running or battles worth fighting. It turns out, contrary to popular opinion, not every situation is a blessing (or a curse) from above. So you can choose to persevere or walk away; you don’t always have to push through…sometimes you can go around.
When these situations arise, I’m asking for wisdom and guidance. I’m praying and thinking about the choices, especially the difficult ones. I’m learning to welcome the uncertainty and the pain, but still asking for mercy.
Perseverance does build character and hope, and I’m convinced it’s worth it to seek out opportunities to stretch your limits and grow. Maybe be brave and ask God to challenge you. To strengthen your weaknesses. But remember this doesn’t mean looking for opportunities to be a martyr. If you want to be a martyr, I can introduce you to my dad.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
I was not home when my best friend, Peter, had a bonding moment with my father during winter vacation our sophomore year in college. Peter’s parents lived in South Korea and he was a welcome guest in our home at every break. Peter attended Northwestern University, which was on a quarter system, and I went to Wisconsin, so I returned to school two weeks before his classes started and he stayed on with my folks. One evening, as Peter watched TV, my father came and sat next to him.
“Peter, give me your hand,” his deep voice commanded.
“Uh… Why, Mr. Moon?” Peter’s hesitant voice hinted at fear and flashbacks of prior experiences.
My dad sternly repeated, “Peter, give. Me. Your. Hand.”
“Ok, Mr. Moon…”
Taking Peter’s outstretched hand my father slowed placed acupuncture burn pads across his palm and every finger. These were metal discs, less than a centimeter wide, with a piece of incense on top of each.
My father lit the discs one at a time and Peter began to feel the burn. If you ever held your hand a few inches above a cigarette lighter, imagine that intense heat multiplied by eight. Dad had a firm grip on Peter’s wrist to arrest any sudden movements or second thoughts about going through this exercise that supposedly improves the blood circulation and something else I can’t remember.
“Mr. Moon, my hand is getting hotter… It’s really hot!”
Some charring might have occurred at this stage. Silence from my dad. Just a firm grip on Peter’s wrist to stifle any movement.
“Ahhhh!”
“It’s okay, Peter, this is good for you.”
Soon the incense burnt out and the pain went away. I know Peter wasn’t sure if the result was beneficial for him, but I think he took some pride in knowing he persevered. Maybe, in that way at least, my father’s little endurance test was good for Peter. As for improved blood circulation, I remain agnostic.
Overcoming pain is oddly satisfying. But does an exercise like this really build character? Is pain, in and of itself, good for us? Imagine, for example, that Peter was of a mind to believe it was God’s divine intervention that led my father to burn his hand in order to strengthen his character. Foolish if you ask me.
Silly analogy, but not all situations of pain and suffering are invested with inherent purpose. Not every twist and turn in life has some divine meaning. I believe God is able to make something useful out of any circumstance, but that doesn’t mean “everything happens for a reason” and it doesn’t mean God sets out to cause people pain “for their own good.” I believe God is foreknowing but not fore-causing. God grants us free will and does not limit us to a hapless deterministic world. This free will allows for variety and makes life interesting. God is not like a micro-managing CEO or the sadistic controller who made you ride coach on a third-tier airline from San Francisco to Johannesburg.
I’m hearing the word perseverance a lot lately, as apprehension about this horrible economic downturn — possibly a seven year recession — grows. People are bracing themselves for the worst. Common counsel will advise us to persevere during difficult times, but this isn’t a pleasant thought because the word and feeling that always precedes perseverance is pain. Pain sucks. Just ask my old friend Peter.
Remember running those endless sprints in youth soccer? Two-a-days in the summer heat if you played football (I never played football). Basic training if you were in the military? Enduring your first heartbreak? Twenty years of marital strife? Climbing out of a financial black hole? Working with the worst boss for several years?
“Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” — Romans 5:3-4
Life throws so many curves at people. So many headaches. So many trials. It turns out life is a marathon, which calls for discernment about which races are worth running or battles worth fighting. It turns out, contrary to popular opinion, not every situation is a blessing (or a curse) from above. So you can choose to persevere or walk away; you don’t always have to push through…sometimes you can go around.
When these situations arise, I’m asking for wisdom and guidance. I’m praying and thinking about the choices, especially the difficult ones. I’m learning to welcome the uncertainty and the pain, but still asking for mercy.
Perseverance does build character and hope, and I’m convinced it’s worth it to seek out opportunities to stretch your limits and grow. Maybe be brave and ask God to challenge you. To strengthen your weaknesses. But remember this doesn’t mean looking for opportunities to be a martyr. If you want to be a martyr, I can introduce you to my dad.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Value of Solitude
(heads up since this post has religious references)
My colleague, Dan, recently posted his reflections on a conference we attended ("The Value of a Timeout") which prompted me to appraise my own experience. The strongest personal takeaway from Time Out for me was Dr. Ken Boa’s point on intimacy versus activity — that believers need time for solitude and engagement with Christ and how we should be cautious about blurring the lines between “spiritual activity” and intimacy with Christ.
This was a timely presentation for me since for a couple weeks I’ve been doing a personal inventory of my professional and personal commitments. Many energetic people, such as myself, find it can be difficult to say “no.” Whether it’s coaching your child’s sports team, committing to nonprofit causes, or giving time to people in need, it’s hard to decline opportunities, especially if you’re both energetic and extroverted.
I remember a discussion I had with my father during college as if it was were yesterday. Since high school, our home was a gathering place for many weekends because my parents were generous — and deep sleepers (I kept telling myself this). It was during summer break, and I had friends over at our home for three consecutive evenings. Each evening it was ten to twenty friends who came to eat BBQ, watch sports, play cards, or just hang out. The third evening, after everyone left, my father asked me to sit down and have a talk.
“Bernard, when I was young, I was like you. I had so many people over and our family treated them well; but after so many years I realized that I lost time with myself. It was time that could have gone to my studies or other things to improve my mind. Some of these people appreciated our generosity but many quickly forgot.”
“Sure, Dad, but you turned out well,” I said, and I was thinking, Well I am your son, so it sounds like I’m a lot like you during your youth.
“That’s not my point,” he replied. “You need your own time or everyone will pass you by. People won’t remember these evenings; but it will be about who you are and what you’ve accomplished.”
I’d like to believe that I took at least half of my father’s advice to heart. I have to admit it did not sink in for years because I was so extroverted when I was in college and enjoyed meeting new people and hanging out with my friends endlessly.
After college, my first job was working for the Governor of Illinois in Springfield. I thought Springfield, a town of 100,000 people, was terribly isolated. I believed God was causing me to live in forced solitude, since he knew my nature. It was in Springfield that I began my struggle to seek time to myself. I’m not talking about “quiet time,” but substantial times of solitude and reflection.
I found that Jesus knew how to balance his hectic schedule with such grace and rhythm:
Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, — Matthew 14:22-23
It’s interesting to note that after feeding five thousand here (or healing many in Luke 4), Jesus sought out solitude and prayer. Maybe it was a way to recharge and reflect upon his work while giving glory to God. Whatever the reasons, this time alone was intentional. I’m convinced it is important for us to learn from his example.
In our modern life of busyness, I assume it’s difficult, even for introverts to set aside time for solitude. Life has become a blur for too many of us. People are always running behind and playing catch up. Extroverts have coffee meetings and introverts have errands to do. In doing my personal inventory I’ve realized I have to start cutting things out and seek more solitude or the quality of my work, relationships, family life, and love for God would diminish. This hasn’t been an easy task; it’s a work in progress that I hope to complete in November.
But it has to be done, doesn’t it… Eventually, people like us have to stop and set aside time for solitude, or life really will pass us by.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
My colleague, Dan, recently posted his reflections on a conference we attended ("The Value of a Timeout") which prompted me to appraise my own experience. The strongest personal takeaway from Time Out for me was Dr. Ken Boa’s point on intimacy versus activity — that believers need time for solitude and engagement with Christ and how we should be cautious about blurring the lines between “spiritual activity” and intimacy with Christ.
This was a timely presentation for me since for a couple weeks I’ve been doing a personal inventory of my professional and personal commitments. Many energetic people, such as myself, find it can be difficult to say “no.” Whether it’s coaching your child’s sports team, committing to nonprofit causes, or giving time to people in need, it’s hard to decline opportunities, especially if you’re both energetic and extroverted.
I remember a discussion I had with my father during college as if it was were yesterday. Since high school, our home was a gathering place for many weekends because my parents were generous — and deep sleepers (I kept telling myself this). It was during summer break, and I had friends over at our home for three consecutive evenings. Each evening it was ten to twenty friends who came to eat BBQ, watch sports, play cards, or just hang out. The third evening, after everyone left, my father asked me to sit down and have a talk.
“Bernard, when I was young, I was like you. I had so many people over and our family treated them well; but after so many years I realized that I lost time with myself. It was time that could have gone to my studies or other things to improve my mind. Some of these people appreciated our generosity but many quickly forgot.”
“Sure, Dad, but you turned out well,” I said, and I was thinking, Well I am your son, so it sounds like I’m a lot like you during your youth.
“That’s not my point,” he replied. “You need your own time or everyone will pass you by. People won’t remember these evenings; but it will be about who you are and what you’ve accomplished.”
I’d like to believe that I took at least half of my father’s advice to heart. I have to admit it did not sink in for years because I was so extroverted when I was in college and enjoyed meeting new people and hanging out with my friends endlessly.
After college, my first job was working for the Governor of Illinois in Springfield. I thought Springfield, a town of 100,000 people, was terribly isolated. I believed God was causing me to live in forced solitude, since he knew my nature. It was in Springfield that I began my struggle to seek time to myself. I’m not talking about “quiet time,” but substantial times of solitude and reflection.
I found that Jesus knew how to balance his hectic schedule with such grace and rhythm:
Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, — Matthew 14:22-23
It’s interesting to note that after feeding five thousand here (or healing many in Luke 4), Jesus sought out solitude and prayer. Maybe it was a way to recharge and reflect upon his work while giving glory to God. Whatever the reasons, this time alone was intentional. I’m convinced it is important for us to learn from his example.
In our modern life of busyness, I assume it’s difficult, even for introverts to set aside time for solitude. Life has become a blur for too many of us. People are always running behind and playing catch up. Extroverts have coffee meetings and introverts have errands to do. In doing my personal inventory I’ve realized I have to start cutting things out and seek more solitude or the quality of my work, relationships, family life, and love for God would diminish. This hasn’t been an easy task; it’s a work in progress that I hope to complete in November.
But it has to be done, doesn’t it… Eventually, people like us have to stop and set aside time for solitude, or life really will pass us by.
Originally posted at InsideWork.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Bubble Generation... A View on Christian Faith
(this is a post on my religious views. just a heads up since most of my blog readers come here for thoughts on tech and entrepreneurship)
Several weeks ago at my church, John Ortberg talked about how the Christian faith spreads. He said the number one problem is that so few of us have friends who are not also self-described Christians and the number one reason people give for not propagating the faith is that they are too busy. He went on to explain one reason they are too busy is because of church commitments. To this Ortberg declared, "If you find yourself too busy doing church stuff to make friendships outside of church, quit doing so much church stuff and form friendships with people who are far from God."
These words were refreshing and took me back almost twenty years to my freshman year in college when I decided to reject the Christianity of my youth and take a different course. The witnessing I was taught back then was tactical and not practical. I realized that I wasn't truly friends with some of the people I referred to as my non-Christian friends. They were friendships with a purpose so it wasn't sincere, no matter how great the cause I had in mind. I also became aware of how much I lived in a bubble. My life revolved around my church and fellowship groups. Eventually I asked myself, "How can I share my faith and the impact that Christ has made in my life if I'm around Christians all the time?" I realized not just the witnessing I was taught but the whole Christian life I was exposed to was neither practical nor effective.
Living in Silicon Valley and working in the technology space, I hear a lot of chatter about whether we are living in another tech bubble -- meaning overvalued companies and hyped technologies. In Christian circles, I believe there needs to be more discussion about another type of bubble. The bubble that we surround ourselves with is that which isolates us from the world, and weakens the foundation of our faith and immune system to the temptations of the world.
Over the past few years, various research studies have found more than 75% of Christians leave their faith after high school and of the remaining ones, more than 60% of those abandon their faith after college. Whether the real numbers are far less or greater, these studies are of grave concern to me, and I have anecdotally seen this drop-off since my college years. Some have suggested this is due to the recent growth of the new atheism led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. Some have pointed to poor parenting and the lack of Biblical teaching in the home. While these are factors and personal reasons for many people, I believe the problem is deeper and has gone on for at least for a couple of decades since my youth if not longer. The problem is that we are a Bubble Generation.
This generation lives in a bubble that attempts to separate the good air from the bad air. It seeks protection from a world of unknowns – unknowns that oddly enough were created by the great unknown, our God. The consequences are numerous, and I think, ominous.
The social underdevelopment of Christians. Many Christians grow up socially inept and cannot function outside of a Friday fellowship or church picnic. Some organizations create an atmosphere of exclusivity or arrogance that furthers the isolation between them and the people they are supposedly trying to reach. In my involvement with Asian American ministries during college, I saw many campuses divided between the churches and non-church organizations fueled by Pharisee-like behavior from the Christians.
The social ineptness is most pronounced after college and is, I believe, why more than 60% of Christians leave their faith after college. I remember various campus ministries in the Midwest and East Coast that made this problem worse by coddling graduates and creating new programs so they could continue to be involved in their college groups instead of adequately preparing them for transition to the real world. This is a failure of leadership within these campus ministries and churches. I have seen some of these campus ministry post-graduate programs, and observed that fear of what was outside of the bubble was a driver for many of their members to join.
Several years ago, I was speaking with a staff member of Youth With A Mission (YWAM) who discussed how a fair amount of their participants were having difficult transitioning into the real world and their current programs were just transferring people from one bubble to another.
Lack of a solid foundation of faith. Whether during high school or college, Christians fail to build a solid base for their faith. Whether it is Biblical knowledge, apologetics, or a general inquisitiveness about their faith, various factors create a shaky ground for many. Again, this is a failure of leadership within the church. Some pastors are too busy trying to convert people instead of building a solid foundation for their congregation. It is not surprising that the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008) found that the top reason (32%) 13-17 year-olds moved from identifying themselves as religious to non-religious was intellectual skepticism and disbelief. I remember being surprised during college and afterwards at how so many people could not adequately answer the question, "Why do you believe?"
It is almost comical, but I know many sad stories of college graduates losing their faith after getting drunk at a work party or with friends. I know of others that lost their faith after one discussion with an atheist friend. How weak was their foundation to lose their faith so easily? This also gets back to John Ortberg's point about having non-Christian friends. Real friends. Close friends. We need foundations of faith that can not only weather challenges but also enable us to embrace everyone in our lives with the love of Christ.
Lack of leadership within the church. The bubble culture perpetuates because leaders in our churches have failed - whether they have arrogantly avoided significant engagement with sinners, fearfully avoided the intellectual strength and logic of the Bible, or created an environment of guilt instead of triumph within the souls of believers. Many churches have developed cultures where church activities consume all the free time of members, and build a bubble of separation. Some of these churches I have seen I would almost classify as a cult. Chastising their members for hanging out with non-Christians, enforcing certain church activities, and making their life decisions dependent on the words of a pastor or leadership team. I know of a fair amount of people bitter about their church experiences from their college days or in their twenties, and most of it points to the leaders of their churches.
This failure goes beyond those who have rejected the faith of their youth, to people who have slipped away from their churches but still hold strong to their faith. There are an estimated 13 million Americans who say they are "born again" and are unchurched, and an estimated 112 million churchless Christians worldwide. Alan Jamieson, author of "A Churchless Faith," found that 94 percent of these people were previously leaders within their churches. 32 percent had been full-time pastors.
This past Sunday at Menlo Park Presbyterian was "Senior Weekend" to recognize the graduating high school seniors at my church. One young woman had a story I hear often from short-term missions, generally to the effect of how she found it much harder to live the Christ-centered life when she got back home. It is easy to live in the bubble of a short-term mission trip, campus fellowship or home groups at church. All these environments are spiritually beneficial, but they should not be enclosed and isolated. We were meant to interact in the world, actively work in the world and affect people through visible actions and not behind closed doors.
So what can be done? I believe most of the problems start at the top, so I believe there needs to be an examination of how pastors are trained. Pastors need to learn how to connect on numerous levels with their members and the world. As with the top MBA schools, seminaries should require a minimum numbers of years that students should work before entering. How much more important is ministering souls than managing consumer products and accounting systems? Pastors themselves need to live out of the bubble before they can effectively engage the world as God's shepherds.
Parents need to take their children out of the greenhouse. Some plants nurtured within a greenhouse environment quickly shrivel in the wild. It is no surprise when children enter college or beyond that the world consumes them. There is a balance between nurture and control that can be sought out.
Last, I would revisit Ortberg's practical advice, and just stop doing church stuff if you are not building friendships with those who do not believe in Christ. Your faith is not only active within church walls, but at work, home and your local Starbucks. Christians need to engage the world in all aspects of life and start popping the bubble that permeates throughout our culture.
Several weeks ago at my church, John Ortberg talked about how the Christian faith spreads. He said the number one problem is that so few of us have friends who are not also self-described Christians and the number one reason people give for not propagating the faith is that they are too busy. He went on to explain one reason they are too busy is because of church commitments. To this Ortberg declared, "If you find yourself too busy doing church stuff to make friendships outside of church, quit doing so much church stuff and form friendships with people who are far from God."
These words were refreshing and took me back almost twenty years to my freshman year in college when I decided to reject the Christianity of my youth and take a different course. The witnessing I was taught back then was tactical and not practical. I realized that I wasn't truly friends with some of the people I referred to as my non-Christian friends. They were friendships with a purpose so it wasn't sincere, no matter how great the cause I had in mind. I also became aware of how much I lived in a bubble. My life revolved around my church and fellowship groups. Eventually I asked myself, "How can I share my faith and the impact that Christ has made in my life if I'm around Christians all the time?" I realized not just the witnessing I was taught but the whole Christian life I was exposed to was neither practical nor effective.
Living in Silicon Valley and working in the technology space, I hear a lot of chatter about whether we are living in another tech bubble -- meaning overvalued companies and hyped technologies. In Christian circles, I believe there needs to be more discussion about another type of bubble. The bubble that we surround ourselves with is that which isolates us from the world, and weakens the foundation of our faith and immune system to the temptations of the world.
Over the past few years, various research studies have found more than 75% of Christians leave their faith after high school and of the remaining ones, more than 60% of those abandon their faith after college. Whether the real numbers are far less or greater, these studies are of grave concern to me, and I have anecdotally seen this drop-off since my college years. Some have suggested this is due to the recent growth of the new atheism led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. Some have pointed to poor parenting and the lack of Biblical teaching in the home. While these are factors and personal reasons for many people, I believe the problem is deeper and has gone on for at least for a couple of decades since my youth if not longer. The problem is that we are a Bubble Generation.
This generation lives in a bubble that attempts to separate the good air from the bad air. It seeks protection from a world of unknowns – unknowns that oddly enough were created by the great unknown, our God. The consequences are numerous, and I think, ominous.
The social underdevelopment of Christians. Many Christians grow up socially inept and cannot function outside of a Friday fellowship or church picnic. Some organizations create an atmosphere of exclusivity or arrogance that furthers the isolation between them and the people they are supposedly trying to reach. In my involvement with Asian American ministries during college, I saw many campuses divided between the churches and non-church organizations fueled by Pharisee-like behavior from the Christians.
The social ineptness is most pronounced after college and is, I believe, why more than 60% of Christians leave their faith after college. I remember various campus ministries in the Midwest and East Coast that made this problem worse by coddling graduates and creating new programs so they could continue to be involved in their college groups instead of adequately preparing them for transition to the real world. This is a failure of leadership within these campus ministries and churches. I have seen some of these campus ministry post-graduate programs, and observed that fear of what was outside of the bubble was a driver for many of their members to join.
Several years ago, I was speaking with a staff member of Youth With A Mission (YWAM) who discussed how a fair amount of their participants were having difficult transitioning into the real world and their current programs were just transferring people from one bubble to another.
Lack of a solid foundation of faith. Whether during high school or college, Christians fail to build a solid base for their faith. Whether it is Biblical knowledge, apologetics, or a general inquisitiveness about their faith, various factors create a shaky ground for many. Again, this is a failure of leadership within the church. Some pastors are too busy trying to convert people instead of building a solid foundation for their congregation. It is not surprising that the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008) found that the top reason (32%) 13-17 year-olds moved from identifying themselves as religious to non-religious was intellectual skepticism and disbelief. I remember being surprised during college and afterwards at how so many people could not adequately answer the question, "Why do you believe?"
It is almost comical, but I know many sad stories of college graduates losing their faith after getting drunk at a work party or with friends. I know of others that lost their faith after one discussion with an atheist friend. How weak was their foundation to lose their faith so easily? This also gets back to John Ortberg's point about having non-Christian friends. Real friends. Close friends. We need foundations of faith that can not only weather challenges but also enable us to embrace everyone in our lives with the love of Christ.
Lack of leadership within the church. The bubble culture perpetuates because leaders in our churches have failed - whether they have arrogantly avoided significant engagement with sinners, fearfully avoided the intellectual strength and logic of the Bible, or created an environment of guilt instead of triumph within the souls of believers. Many churches have developed cultures where church activities consume all the free time of members, and build a bubble of separation. Some of these churches I have seen I would almost classify as a cult. Chastising their members for hanging out with non-Christians, enforcing certain church activities, and making their life decisions dependent on the words of a pastor or leadership team. I know of a fair amount of people bitter about their church experiences from their college days or in their twenties, and most of it points to the leaders of their churches.
This failure goes beyond those who have rejected the faith of their youth, to people who have slipped away from their churches but still hold strong to their faith. There are an estimated 13 million Americans who say they are "born again" and are unchurched, and an estimated 112 million churchless Christians worldwide. Alan Jamieson, author of "A Churchless Faith," found that 94 percent of these people were previously leaders within their churches. 32 percent had been full-time pastors.
This past Sunday at Menlo Park Presbyterian was "Senior Weekend" to recognize the graduating high school seniors at my church. One young woman had a story I hear often from short-term missions, generally to the effect of how she found it much harder to live the Christ-centered life when she got back home. It is easy to live in the bubble of a short-term mission trip, campus fellowship or home groups at church. All these environments are spiritually beneficial, but they should not be enclosed and isolated. We were meant to interact in the world, actively work in the world and affect people through visible actions and not behind closed doors.
So what can be done? I believe most of the problems start at the top, so I believe there needs to be an examination of how pastors are trained. Pastors need to learn how to connect on numerous levels with their members and the world. As with the top MBA schools, seminaries should require a minimum numbers of years that students should work before entering. How much more important is ministering souls than managing consumer products and accounting systems? Pastors themselves need to live out of the bubble before they can effectively engage the world as God's shepherds.
Parents need to take their children out of the greenhouse. Some plants nurtured within a greenhouse environment quickly shrivel in the wild. It is no surprise when children enter college or beyond that the world consumes them. There is a balance between nurture and control that can be sought out.
Last, I would revisit Ortberg's practical advice, and just stop doing church stuff if you are not building friendships with those who do not believe in Christ. Your faith is not only active within church walls, but at work, home and your local Starbucks. Christians need to engage the world in all aspects of life and start popping the bubble that permeates throughout our culture.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Obama is Seriously Out of Touch
This latest mishap by Barack Obama revealed more of his true self than he probably wanted to. At a San Francisco fundraiser, he stated:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them and they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow. So the assumption that Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ for political purposes seems true. If he even circled a few times within the Christian community, he would not have even been able to utter those words about people "clinging to religion" out of bitterness.
Most of the liberal elites are seriously out of touch with religion, especially Christianity. Even if they go to church for Easter, Christmas and other public holidays, many of these politicians still wouldn't understand the drivers of people's faith. They would have to dive just a little deeper out of the shallow end to comprehend what moves people.
Even recently I attended a political seminar where a person incorrectly said that "the largest fundamentalist churches are in the most economically depressed areas of the U.S." Of course, I had to correct this ignorant, liberal elite who made this statement with such authority.
"Umm... point of correction. The largest fundamentalist churches are in the most affluent areas of the U.S..." There is Willowcreek Community Church in South Barrington, IL that has over 23,000 members in one of the affluent suburbs of Chicago. Rich Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA has over 22,000. Redeemer Presbyterian Church services thousands of investment bankers, consultants and other bitterly driven people in Manhattan. And my own church, Menlo Park Presbyterian Church services all those poor venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and tech geeks in Silicon Valley.
This whole situation with Obama takes me back to my old op-ed in The Boston Globe, "A lesson for the liberal elite" (Nov. 3, 2004):
IN A recent speech at Tufts University, Andy Rooney reflected on the election and said, according to The Tufts Daily, that Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."
Those comments as well as the identification of the "bigoted Christian redneck" after Election Day in various editorials left me wondering: Where do these "liberal elites" get this fictional image of Christians? When did this distorted perspective begin in our cultural history? How can I work to bridge this gap?...
I believe Andy Rooney in the article could have easily been replaced by Barack Obama.
The Wall Street Journal has a spot-on oped today, "The Other Obama":
As political psychoanalysis, this is what they believe in Cambridge and Hyde Park. Guns and God are the opiate of the masses, who are being gulled by Karl Rove and rich Republicans. If only they embraced their true economic self-interest, these pure saps wouldn't need religion and they wouldn't dislike non-white immigrants.
Mr. Obama's unreflective condescension is reminiscent of the famous 1993 Washington Post article that described evangelical Christians as "poor, undereducated and easy to command." And the fact that he said it so naturally in front of a San Francisco crowd suggests that this is what he may truly believe. This is Mr. Obama's inner Mike Dukakis. (full op-ed)
It's disappointing to see the luster fade on Obama's persona.
obama, clinton, election2008
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them and they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow. So the assumption that Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ for political purposes seems true. If he even circled a few times within the Christian community, he would not have even been able to utter those words about people "clinging to religion" out of bitterness.
Most of the liberal elites are seriously out of touch with religion, especially Christianity. Even if they go to church for Easter, Christmas and other public holidays, many of these politicians still wouldn't understand the drivers of people's faith. They would have to dive just a little deeper out of the shallow end to comprehend what moves people.
Even recently I attended a political seminar where a person incorrectly said that "the largest fundamentalist churches are in the most economically depressed areas of the U.S." Of course, I had to correct this ignorant, liberal elite who made this statement with such authority.
"Umm... point of correction. The largest fundamentalist churches are in the most affluent areas of the U.S..." There is Willowcreek Community Church in South Barrington, IL that has over 23,000 members in one of the affluent suburbs of Chicago. Rich Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA has over 22,000. Redeemer Presbyterian Church services thousands of investment bankers, consultants and other bitterly driven people in Manhattan. And my own church, Menlo Park Presbyterian Church services all those poor venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and tech geeks in Silicon Valley.
This whole situation with Obama takes me back to my old op-ed in The Boston Globe, "A lesson for the liberal elite" (Nov. 3, 2004):
IN A recent speech at Tufts University, Andy Rooney reflected on the election and said, according to The Tufts Daily, that Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."
Those comments as well as the identification of the "bigoted Christian redneck" after Election Day in various editorials left me wondering: Where do these "liberal elites" get this fictional image of Christians? When did this distorted perspective begin in our cultural history? How can I work to bridge this gap?...
I believe Andy Rooney in the article could have easily been replaced by Barack Obama.
The Wall Street Journal has a spot-on oped today, "The Other Obama":
As political psychoanalysis, this is what they believe in Cambridge and Hyde Park. Guns and God are the opiate of the masses, who are being gulled by Karl Rove and rich Republicans. If only they embraced their true economic self-interest, these pure saps wouldn't need religion and they wouldn't dislike non-white immigrants.
Mr. Obama's unreflective condescension is reminiscent of the famous 1993 Washington Post article that described evangelical Christians as "poor, undereducated and easy to command." And the fact that he said it so naturally in front of a San Francisco crowd suggests that this is what he may truly believe. This is Mr. Obama's inner Mike Dukakis. (full op-ed)
It's disappointing to see the luster fade on Obama's persona.
obama, clinton, election2008
Monday, January 22, 2007
Letter To An Atheist Nation
As 2006 came to a close, I came across articles in magazine such as Time and Wired and a few books, such as The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation, which seemed to reflect atheism was in vogue. Since I haven't written anything of substance in months that wasn't related to our startup, I decided to take some time out during my recent travels to respond in my own way.
As a Christian, it’s always good to be intellectually simulated so I began reading Letter to a Christian Nation. Disappointment is an understatement. Sam Harris’ approach was pop philosophy that made me yearn for Kant and Hume. As most of us have learned since our early years of schooling, context is essential for reading any text which Mr. Harris seem to have forgotten about or is simply ignorant of. I assume it is the latter.
He quotes laws from Old Testament books, such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which have little direct relevance to the Christian life. One of the first things I learned as a new Christian from the Bible was that Christ was a fulfillment of the old laws and that they were not always applicable to me. If the old laws and traditions were, then I would be looking forward hosting my future son’s Bar Mitzvah and my love of bacon would be sadly hampered.
His arguments were stale and reflected a certain arrogance that appears prevalent among educated atheists. This is best reflected by Harris’ colleague, Richard Dawkins, who said, “Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist… Either they are stupid, or they’re lying.” Are these really the only two options? I’ve encountered a fair amount of stupid people who don’t believe in God and know many brilliant people that do believe in God. Dawkins and Harris’ pretentiousness reveals the island of unfounded certainty that science places many people on. Even looking back a hundred years, there was a fundamental shift that occurred in science when Mendeleev created the periodic table of elements. Chemistry was the foundation of thinking and the human senses were at its core. With Mendeleev’s creation, the mind became the core since scientists had to begin believing in the unseen and undiscovered elements. Since then more fundamental shifts have occurred, but has the core of Christianity changed in over two thousand years?
It’s also interesting to observe how some leading advocates of atheism stem from the softer sciences that Dawkins and his former colleague Stephen Jay Gould were from. I remember my friend’s father who was a leading materials scientist (his creations are in Motorola’s chips) and a creationist met Gould while visiting Harvard. Professor Gould told him, “I heard of you. You’re not a real scientist.”
It seems these softer scientists might have a chip on their shoulders that lead them to become such advocates of science. The shallow part of my mind would rather listen to the strong constituency of physicists, such as Freeman Dyson, John Polkinghorne, and Charles Townes (Nobel Prize-winning physicist), whose research in the fabric and origins of the universe led them to a belief in God.
One pillar of Mr. Harris’ book is on the question of slavery. It states how “the only real restraint God counsels” on slavery is that we “not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth.” First, “slavery” in the Bible is not the slavery of America’s past. It is similar to indentured servitude which is a stark difference most of us learned from our high school U.S. history course. Second, Old Testament laws insured the humane treatment of servants and guaranteed their freedom unconditionally, which no other system of servitude or slavery in world history has done.
Mr. Harris writes that “there is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery,” but in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 you find St. Paul identifying slave traders along with murderers and adulterers as ungodly and sinful. Clearly God is speaking out against the practice of “slavery.”
While he touts the morality of atheist and tries to answer whether atheists are more evil than religious people, he fails to comprehend that it’s not about degrees of imperfection but about God’s abundant grace towards humankind in Christianity. One of my atheist friends understood this clearly when he told me, “Assuming the Bible is true, I cannot accept an unfair religion. I fine it incomprehensible that a highly moral man, such as Gandhi, is going to hell for not believing in Christ while if a man like Charles Manson accepts Christ then he will be allowed into heaven.”
The Gospel offends and it takes faith to accept the stories and values in the Bible. Theories and aspects of science take faith from the low probability that the Big Bang was a random event to actual species jumping within the Theory of Evolution. The conflict is not between Christianity and science, but between the egos and sinful nature of people. If the Queen of Hearts can do six impossible things before breakfast, surely we can believe in two impossible things at once.
UPDATE: More from Townhall.com's Mary Grabar, "Letter to a Stupid Atheist"
sam+harris, richard+dawkins, atheist, atheism, god, jesus, bible, letter+to+a+christian nation, christianity, christian, religion, religious
As a Christian, it’s always good to be intellectually simulated so I began reading Letter to a Christian Nation. Disappointment is an understatement. Sam Harris’ approach was pop philosophy that made me yearn for Kant and Hume. As most of us have learned since our early years of schooling, context is essential for reading any text which Mr. Harris seem to have forgotten about or is simply ignorant of. I assume it is the latter.
He quotes laws from Old Testament books, such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which have little direct relevance to the Christian life. One of the first things I learned as a new Christian from the Bible was that Christ was a fulfillment of the old laws and that they were not always applicable to me. If the old laws and traditions were, then I would be looking forward hosting my future son’s Bar Mitzvah and my love of bacon would be sadly hampered.
His arguments were stale and reflected a certain arrogance that appears prevalent among educated atheists. This is best reflected by Harris’ colleague, Richard Dawkins, who said, “Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist… Either they are stupid, or they’re lying.” Are these really the only two options? I’ve encountered a fair amount of stupid people who don’t believe in God and know many brilliant people that do believe in God. Dawkins and Harris’ pretentiousness reveals the island of unfounded certainty that science places many people on. Even looking back a hundred years, there was a fundamental shift that occurred in science when Mendeleev created the periodic table of elements. Chemistry was the foundation of thinking and the human senses were at its core. With Mendeleev’s creation, the mind became the core since scientists had to begin believing in the unseen and undiscovered elements. Since then more fundamental shifts have occurred, but has the core of Christianity changed in over two thousand years?
It’s also interesting to observe how some leading advocates of atheism stem from the softer sciences that Dawkins and his former colleague Stephen Jay Gould were from. I remember my friend’s father who was a leading materials scientist (his creations are in Motorola’s chips) and a creationist met Gould while visiting Harvard. Professor Gould told him, “I heard of you. You’re not a real scientist.”
It seems these softer scientists might have a chip on their shoulders that lead them to become such advocates of science. The shallow part of my mind would rather listen to the strong constituency of physicists, such as Freeman Dyson, John Polkinghorne, and Charles Townes (Nobel Prize-winning physicist), whose research in the fabric and origins of the universe led them to a belief in God.
One pillar of Mr. Harris’ book is on the question of slavery. It states how “the only real restraint God counsels” on slavery is that we “not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth.” First, “slavery” in the Bible is not the slavery of America’s past. It is similar to indentured servitude which is a stark difference most of us learned from our high school U.S. history course. Second, Old Testament laws insured the humane treatment of servants and guaranteed their freedom unconditionally, which no other system of servitude or slavery in world history has done.
Mr. Harris writes that “there is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery,” but in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 you find St. Paul identifying slave traders along with murderers and adulterers as ungodly and sinful. Clearly God is speaking out against the practice of “slavery.”
While he touts the morality of atheist and tries to answer whether atheists are more evil than religious people, he fails to comprehend that it’s not about degrees of imperfection but about God’s abundant grace towards humankind in Christianity. One of my atheist friends understood this clearly when he told me, “Assuming the Bible is true, I cannot accept an unfair religion. I fine it incomprehensible that a highly moral man, such as Gandhi, is going to hell for not believing in Christ while if a man like Charles Manson accepts Christ then he will be allowed into heaven.”
The Gospel offends and it takes faith to accept the stories and values in the Bible. Theories and aspects of science take faith from the low probability that the Big Bang was a random event to actual species jumping within the Theory of Evolution. The conflict is not between Christianity and science, but between the egos and sinful nature of people. If the Queen of Hearts can do six impossible things before breakfast, surely we can believe in two impossible things at once.
UPDATE: More from Townhall.com's Mary Grabar, "Letter to a Stupid Atheist"
sam+harris, richard+dawkins, atheist, atheism, god, jesus, bible, letter+to+a+christian nation, christianity, christian, religion, religious
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
"A Lesson for the Liberal Elite"... My First Op-Ed Piece
Christine complained that during my free time (outside of us spending time together... lately just shopping) all I do is blog, play basketball, and look at fantasy football & basketball related shows and information. She strongly suggested that I write an op-ed piece for a newspaper, so I took a shot at it this past Saturday afternoon. Pretty cool. First attempt, submission and The Boston Globe took it: "A lesson for the liberal elite."
Actually, my original title was "I, Christian" with respect to Asimov's "I, Robot," which I still like better. Also The Boston Globe editor, who was great, made some minor changes (e.g. original last line: As with Asimov’s “Robbie,” we seem to be misunderstood with multiple myths surrounding our beliefs, motivation, and existence.)
My original tagline was "Bernard Moon is a high-tech entrepreneur and blogger at http://bernardmoon.blogspot.com," but they just put "Bernard Moon is a freelance writer in San Francisco" so my blog didn't get promoted. Crap. Oh, well. Maybe next time.
UPDATE: My op-ed was the most popular story for the day at The Boston Globe's website. Pretty cool.
Actually, my original title was "I, Christian" with respect to Asimov's "I, Robot," which I still like better. Also The Boston Globe editor, who was great, made some minor changes (e.g. original last line: As with Asimov’s “Robbie,” we seem to be misunderstood with multiple myths surrounding our beliefs, motivation, and existence.)
My original tagline was "Bernard Moon is a high-tech entrepreneur and blogger at http://bernardmoon.blogspot.com," but they just put "Bernard Moon is a freelance writer in San Francisco" so my blog didn't get promoted. Crap. Oh, well. Maybe next time.
UPDATE: My op-ed was the most popular story for the day at The Boston Globe's website. Pretty cool.
Monday, April 5, 2004
The Passion of The Christ... Saw It and Did Not Meet Expectations
I finally saw "The Passion of The Christ" after my various posts and reading all the debates about it. It was okay. It wasn't even a good movie to me since it seemed more like a documentary. I think all the hype and excitement raised the bar too high for me. My good Christian friend told me that it was awesome and how he was sobbing throughout the movie. He's not that emotional, so I was getting ready to shed some tears and preparing to be awestruck. I did not shed a tear, and it didn't stir any particular emotion in me.
The movie wasn't as gruesome as various critics proclaimed. If they saw "Kill Bill Vol.1" and still proclaim it's one of the most grotesquely violent movies in recent memory (from a comment a read a while back) then they are lying and just trying to slander the movie. "Kill Bill" is far worse in terms of graphic violence and blood shed.
It was confirmed for me that the movie was not anti-Semitic. I was more disturbed by the brutality of the Roman soldiers, but that is what I pictured from my readings of the Roman Empire. The Jews that were against Jesus were threatened and fighting for their faith, holding on to their power, or whatever other motivation that led them demand his death. It happens and those qualities are not solely Jewish traits, but of all of mankind. A great symbolic message related to this topic from Mel Gibson is his only cameo appearance. His hand was one of the hands that held Jesus down while He was being nailed to the cross. So the message is that we all nailed Christ to the cross. We all crucified Him for our sins.
It was a good reminder for me what kind of sacrifice Jesus Christ did for humankind. In our society, especially Western society where His name is a curse that people use daily, Jesus Christ has become too marginalized and commercialized (e.g. Christmas, which is suppose to be a celebration of His birth). Our minds are desensitized to the point that we tend to picture Jesus Christ as some distant character in a children's Bible, some person in ancient history, or a name that has been so commonly used it rolls off our tongues like the words crap, f*@k, or sh#t. In the remote parts of the world, modern day missionaries talk about how His name amazingly brings people to their knees. On rare occasions, they don't need sermons or discussions about the Bible, but by simply saying the name "Jesus Christ" people are transformed.
Anyway, I still am amazed by the impact Mel Gibson's movie has had financially and spiritually today. If you are a Christian reader of this blog and saw "The Passion of The Christ," you can consider donating to a project my close friend emailed me about a few days ago:
Dear friends,
Campus Crusade in Russia is mobilizing a special effort to enable interested Russian students to see the film, "The Passion of The Christ", which has had a world-wide impact on people and their interest in Jesus Christ. Please consider taking part in this unique outreach effort.
In His Grace,
Sam & Hanna Won
Ekaterinburg, Russia
--------------------------
From the Russia Campus Ministry:
Send a Russian college student to see "The Passion of the Christ" for $3.50 per ticket
Thousands of students in America have been greatly impacted by this film. The Buzz about the film has reached Russian students... they want to see it!
The film opens in Moscow on April 8 and will be shown in theaters all over Russia during the month of April.
Your gift will be used in several ways depending on the city:
- Christian students will take a friend to see the movie... this is the most effective approach!
- Special showings will be held.
- Related materials will be distributed at the theatres and on campus.
- Follow up discussion groups will be held.
How many students would you like to sponsor?
By April 15, please send your gift to:
Give ONLINE
Send a check payable to
"Campus Crusade for Christ"
PO Box 628222
Orlando, FL, 32862-9841
"Russia Campus Minsitry" account #2580598
The movie wasn't as gruesome as various critics proclaimed. If they saw "Kill Bill Vol.1" and still proclaim it's one of the most grotesquely violent movies in recent memory (from a comment a read a while back) then they are lying and just trying to slander the movie. "Kill Bill" is far worse in terms of graphic violence and blood shed.
It was confirmed for me that the movie was not anti-Semitic. I was more disturbed by the brutality of the Roman soldiers, but that is what I pictured from my readings of the Roman Empire. The Jews that were against Jesus were threatened and fighting for their faith, holding on to their power, or whatever other motivation that led them demand his death. It happens and those qualities are not solely Jewish traits, but of all of mankind. A great symbolic message related to this topic from Mel Gibson is his only cameo appearance. His hand was one of the hands that held Jesus down while He was being nailed to the cross. So the message is that we all nailed Christ to the cross. We all crucified Him for our sins.
It was a good reminder for me what kind of sacrifice Jesus Christ did for humankind. In our society, especially Western society where His name is a curse that people use daily, Jesus Christ has become too marginalized and commercialized (e.g. Christmas, which is suppose to be a celebration of His birth). Our minds are desensitized to the point that we tend to picture Jesus Christ as some distant character in a children's Bible, some person in ancient history, or a name that has been so commonly used it rolls off our tongues like the words crap, f*@k, or sh#t. In the remote parts of the world, modern day missionaries talk about how His name amazingly brings people to their knees. On rare occasions, they don't need sermons or discussions about the Bible, but by simply saying the name "Jesus Christ" people are transformed.
Anyway, I still am amazed by the impact Mel Gibson's movie has had financially and spiritually today. If you are a Christian reader of this blog and saw "The Passion of The Christ," you can consider donating to a project my close friend emailed me about a few days ago:
Dear friends,
Campus Crusade in Russia is mobilizing a special effort to enable interested Russian students to see the film, "The Passion of The Christ", which has had a world-wide impact on people and their interest in Jesus Christ. Please consider taking part in this unique outreach effort.
In His Grace,
Sam & Hanna Won
Ekaterinburg, Russia
--------------------------
From the Russia Campus Ministry:
Send a Russian college student to see "The Passion of the Christ" for $3.50 per ticket
Thousands of students in America have been greatly impacted by this film. The Buzz about the film has reached Russian students... they want to see it!
The film opens in Moscow on April 8 and will be shown in theaters all over Russia during the month of April.
Your gift will be used in several ways depending on the city:
- Christian students will take a friend to see the movie... this is the most effective approach!
- Special showings will be held.
- Related materials will be distributed at the theatres and on campus.
- Follow up discussion groups will be held.
How many students would you like to sponsor?
By April 15, please send your gift to:
Give ONLINE
Send a check payable to
"Campus Crusade for Christ"
PO Box 628222
Orlando, FL, 32862-9841
"Russia Campus Minsitry" account #2580598
Thursday, February 26, 2004
The Passion of The Christ... Following Up
Following up from my Feb. 20th entry, The Passion of The Christ came out yesterday under a storm of controversy and protest. Thomas Lifson from The American Thinker wrote a great review and commentary on the movie.
A "peace-maker" review by Dennis Prager... "It is crucial for Jews and Christians to try to understand what version of 'The Passion' the other is watching and reacting to."
Going negative, My Stupid Dog wrote: "Overkill: Gibson's Passion of the Christ, Exploitation Cinema and Robert Bresson."
Christian view by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts. Pretty Good.
A "peace-maker" review by Dennis Prager... "It is crucial for Jews and Christians to try to understand what version of 'The Passion' the other is watching and reacting to."
Going negative, My Stupid Dog wrote: "Overkill: Gibson's Passion of the Christ, Exploitation Cinema and Robert Bresson."
Christian view by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts. Pretty Good.
Friday, February 20, 2004
The Passion of The Christ Misunderstood
"The Passion of the Christ" is opening in theatres on February 25th in the U.S. with a stir of controversy. Mel Gibson's movie initially brought out some strong criticism and reaction from various Jewish leaders and organizations that it was anti-Semitic and would create some hatred towards Jews.
Without seeing the movie (and knowing Billy Graham "okay" it), if it simply follows the story of the New Testament, I don't understand how it can be anti-Semitic. Yes, the Jewish religious leaders called for Jesus Christ's death because he claimed what was outrageous and blasphemous to many of them... that he was the Messiah and also inferred that he and God are one.
In Judaism, it is prophesied that the Messiah ("Christ" is Greek for Messiah) will come to restore Israel and establish his kingdom. Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah and the Jews who believed this during that time (the initial group of Christians) saw the difference in how that prophecy was to be fulfilled. "Kingdom" as many Jews hoped for was a physical kingdom on earth established by their Messiah. While "kingdom" for those initial believers in Jesus Christ was a spiritual kingdom, which even his disciples did not realize until he was crucified. Jesus was a Messiah that most Jews never would have expected during those tumultuous times. He was a meek, humble carpenter not a strong, warrior or ruler who would save them from Rome.
Anyway, this conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees led to his death, but does anyone who believes in Christ and his teaching hold hatred for Jews? It might be an excuse for the really ignorant or really, really stupid, but to simply hate Jews because they "killed Christ" would not make sense and goes against everything within the Christian doctrine and the words that Jesus spoke.
If Christians were to hate all Jews than they should also hate Jesus and all the disciples since they were Jewish. Hence they wouldn't be Christians, just haters... and not political conversatives, just haters. Simple but truthful rebuttal. More convincing is that "hate" should not be within the minds and hearts of Christians. Anyway you slice it, whether today's Jewish leaders or liberal Christian-hating people or supposed-Christians who hate Jews for "killing Christ", those that say the Bible's New Testament encourages or promotes anti-Semitism are idiots. This site gives a more direct and lengthy answer to whether "The Passion of The Christ" is anti-Semitic or not.
On a related note, Gibson's father might be anti-Semitic: Gibson Father: Holocaust Mostly 'Fiction' .
Hutton Gibson follows a tiny wing of traditionalist Catholicism that views the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council as a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to take over the church.
He reminds me of Montana Freemen or people I use to talk to once in a while when I lived in Springfield, IL (truly Middle America). Some of them really believe in the black helicopters of the U.N., seven gnomes of Switzerland ruling the world (Jewish bankers), or how U.S. insurance companies controlled many presidential administrations. Of course, his views and recent public statements don't put people that really are concerned about an anti-Semitic message in the movie at ease.
Sort of timely too since I'm reading The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Conspiracy cracks must have loved this book. It's been a good read, but I hit some bumps in the road that made me lose my initial excitement. I'm back on track and will soon finish this entertaining book to blog about it. Definitely amusing since it has many historical stretches, logical flaws, poor assumptions about human nature, and the twisting of facts... of course, it's a fiction book so what did I expect, right?
Anyway, I do recommend the book and I'm excited about seeing the movie, "The Passion of The Christ."
Without seeing the movie (and knowing Billy Graham "okay" it), if it simply follows the story of the New Testament, I don't understand how it can be anti-Semitic. Yes, the Jewish religious leaders called for Jesus Christ's death because he claimed what was outrageous and blasphemous to many of them... that he was the Messiah and also inferred that he and God are one.
In Judaism, it is prophesied that the Messiah ("Christ" is Greek for Messiah) will come to restore Israel and establish his kingdom. Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah and the Jews who believed this during that time (the initial group of Christians) saw the difference in how that prophecy was to be fulfilled. "Kingdom" as many Jews hoped for was a physical kingdom on earth established by their Messiah. While "kingdom" for those initial believers in Jesus Christ was a spiritual kingdom, which even his disciples did not realize until he was crucified. Jesus was a Messiah that most Jews never would have expected during those tumultuous times. He was a meek, humble carpenter not a strong, warrior or ruler who would save them from Rome.
Anyway, this conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees led to his death, but does anyone who believes in Christ and his teaching hold hatred for Jews? It might be an excuse for the really ignorant or really, really stupid, but to simply hate Jews because they "killed Christ" would not make sense and goes against everything within the Christian doctrine and the words that Jesus spoke.
If Christians were to hate all Jews than they should also hate Jesus and all the disciples since they were Jewish. Hence they wouldn't be Christians, just haters... and not political conversatives, just haters. Simple but truthful rebuttal. More convincing is that "hate" should not be within the minds and hearts of Christians. Anyway you slice it, whether today's Jewish leaders or liberal Christian-hating people or supposed-Christians who hate Jews for "killing Christ", those that say the Bible's New Testament encourages or promotes anti-Semitism are idiots. This site gives a more direct and lengthy answer to whether "The Passion of The Christ" is anti-Semitic or not.
On a related note, Gibson's father might be anti-Semitic: Gibson Father: Holocaust Mostly 'Fiction' .
Hutton Gibson follows a tiny wing of traditionalist Catholicism that views the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council as a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to take over the church.
He reminds me of Montana Freemen or people I use to talk to once in a while when I lived in Springfield, IL (truly Middle America). Some of them really believe in the black helicopters of the U.N., seven gnomes of Switzerland ruling the world (Jewish bankers), or how U.S. insurance companies controlled many presidential administrations. Of course, his views and recent public statements don't put people that really are concerned about an anti-Semitic message in the movie at ease.
Sort of timely too since I'm reading The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Conspiracy cracks must have loved this book. It's been a good read, but I hit some bumps in the road that made me lose my initial excitement. I'm back on track and will soon finish this entertaining book to blog about it. Definitely amusing since it has many historical stretches, logical flaws, poor assumptions about human nature, and the twisting of facts... of course, it's a fiction book so what did I expect, right?
Anyway, I do recommend the book and I'm excited about seeing the movie, "The Passion of The Christ."
Monday, January 12, 2004
A Christian View of Homosexuality, Same-Sex Marriage
With all the recent discussions and legal activities on gay marriage, it seems this might be a growing issue for the 2004 presidential elections. Since there have been various editorials and commentaries on gay marriage, I thought I would touch upon this issue and more so on a Christian's perspective of homosexuality.
First, I believe in the Bible as a whole and complete doctrine of the living God. I believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God, all have sinned before God, my savior who died for all my sins (past, present, and future), and rose from the dead to give me the gift of eternal life, which is free for all who believe this. As C.S. Lewis stated, I cannot simply believe Christ was a great philosopher or moral teacher because that would be to ignore the majority of His message that He was God incarnate. It was for these reasons that He was crucified on the cross and the Pharisees sought His death. So after studying the Bible and the historical components around Jesus Christ, C.S. Lewis concluded that you can only accept Christ as a liar, lunatic, or God incarnate, but not simply as a moral teacher or philosopher.
"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 on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg or else he would have to be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God, or a madman or something worse." - C.S. Lewis
Second, as a student of public policy and a person whose career will be in and out of government, I do not believe you can legislate morality. Moral change or conviction has to come from within a person. Your moral fiber or principles can be influenced by the people around you or whatever religious institutions you attend can have an indirect affect, but these choices are still decided by you. There is also a great danger in trying to legislate morality. Such behavior or values can become ritualized, dumbed-down, or insignificant in a person's life. For example, if some school district enforced a morning prayer for all students, I would be against this. Separation of church and state here is a value to hold, and from a practical view it would ritualize prayer for many of the students and hold little affect or influence in their lives moving forward. I can point to many of my Catholic friends who grew up in such a setting as an example of this effect.
As a Christian, I consider homosexual acts as sin. A sin as much as when I lie, hate, get drunk, and place the things of this world above God within my heart. Even though I am redeemed now through faith in Christ, I still sin and will struggle with my sinful nature until I die. I personally consider my independent spirit from God worse than most sins anyone else can commit, but all sins are like blades of grass to God above. Especially once you believe in Christ and His actions, all your sins are forgiven past, present, and future, which is called God's grace. And this includes homosexual acts, which I admit there are "Christians" out there that forget this and weigh it more than other sins for whatever reasons. There are groups within the Christian faith that hate gays and lesbians, but I personally question the validity of their faith and their knowledge of the Bible. "Hate" is probably a good red flag for starters. It's like when the KKK justifies their hatred and beliefs on Christian doctrine. Or other individuals or groups have a hatred towards Jews "because they killed Jesus." Ummm... Jesus was a Jew and so were His disciples. One of my role models, Paul the Apostle, was a Jew. Actually, he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:3-6).
So as a heterosexual sinner I am no better than a homosexual sinner. What is the difference within the Christian doctrine? None. Are there such things as "greater sinners" in Christianity? No, everyone is a sinner before God. No less, no more. I remember explaining some of these points to one of my good friends, who's active in the gay community, and he was initially surprised to hear such things. He said it was refreshing to hear such a perspective as a gay man from someone he knows is a "devout Christian." I believe majority of Christians, if not all, who believe in the Bible as a whole and are knowledgeable take this view or cannot argue against this beyond their personal discomfort or cultural biases.
"Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?"
Deroy Murdock's article below highlights a good point that maybe the "religious right" or "social conversatives" should focus their energies elsewhere towards the greater problem of heterosexual marriage. Maybe he knows this already, but some of the "religious right" or "social conversatives" were against the mockery of marriage that Britney Spears, David Lettermen, or other people committed. Of course they are, especially the Family Research Council, but you have to pick your battles. That battle is so widespread and a whole another problem in itself it would be very difficult to tackle. From the Christian perspective, divorce is only condoned when adultery is committed, so the examples that Murdock brings up might not be relevant towards some of the fears against the institution of marriage. Their fears and thoughts are already based on those examples that he brings up, or similar examples from the past. They already know that marriage has become a weaker institution in America, and has become a disruption of healthy family lives. There are many studies I can point to that reveal the various direct and indirect social ills and individual problems that develop from single-family homes and irresponsible marriages by heterosexuals. So gay-marriage strikes another fear into these people's hearts on top of the existing problems. Maybe some of their reasons against gay-marriages are from ignorance, and maybe some of it is from concerns about how it can affect the fabric of American family culture. Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the "religious right" or "social conversatives", which is a vast, nebulous group in America. Maybe many of these campaigns against gay-marriage are driven by fear and ignorance, or a need for some non-profits and political groups to "do something."
Anyway, the practical effect of a law supporting gay-marriages would be in question for me. I don't think it would increase homosexual acts in our society, which is one reason I'm against legalizing drugs because I know it would increase drug use which as a clear adverse effect on our society, so I'm not completely decided on this issue of gay-marriage. On principle then I should support laws against lying in non-professional settings, against any form of drunkness, adultery,... even against my own arrogance before God. I have to think about this some more...
(continue on latter post: "case against gay marriage")
A Mockery of Marriage
The things heterosexuals do.
National Review Online
Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor
January 09, 2004
Social conservatives are working overtime to argue that gay marriage would imperil straight matrimony. They say that if Jack and Joe were united, till death do them part, they would jeopardize husbands and wives, from sea to shining sea.
"We will lose marriage in this nation," without constitutionally limiting it to heterosexuals, warns Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. The Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, sees "same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether."
It would be far easier to take these claims seriously if gay-marriage critics spent as much energy denouncing irresponsible heterosexuals whose behavior undermines traditional marriage. Among prominent Americans, such misdeeds are increasingly ubiquitous.
Exhibit A is musical product Britney Spears's micromarriage to hometown pal Jason Allen Alexander. The 22-year-olds were wed on January 3 in Las Vegas. Clad in sneakers, a baseball cap, ripped jeans, and a navel-revealing T-shirt, the vocalist was escorted down the Little White Wedding Chapel's aisle by a hotel chauffeur. Spears and Alexander, who wore baggy pants and a zippered sweater, soon were wife and husband.
Almost as soon, their marriage was annulled. Clark County Judge Lisa Brown accepted Spears's request and ruled that "There was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract, and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void."
The revolving-door couple's 55 hours of marital bliss were based neither on love nor shared commitment, but because "they took a joke too far," explained Spears's label, Jive Records.
Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.
Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?
And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.
But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.
Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?
Of course, not every American is an overexposed pop diva, network talk-show host, or sitcom multimillionaire. For rank-and-file heterosexuals, marriage can involve decades of love and joy. In 51 percent of cases, people stay married for life. Such unions are inspiring, impressive, and deserve every American's applause.
On the other hand, 49 percent of couples break up, according to Divorce magazine. The Federal Administration for Children and Families calculated in 2002 that deadbeat parents nationwide owed their kids $92.3 billion in unpaid child support. In 2000, 33.2 percent of children were born outside marriage. Among blacks, that figure was 68.5 percent. A 1998 National Institute of Justice survey found that 1.5 million women suffer domestic violence annually, as do 835,000 men. So-called "reality" TV shows like Fox's Married by America and its forthcoming My Big Fat Obnoxious Fianc? turn wedding vows into punch lines. In nearly every instance, heterosexuals ? not homosexuals ? perpetrated these social ills.
Gay marriage is a big idea that deserves national debate. Nonetheless, social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service.
First, I believe in the Bible as a whole and complete doctrine of the living God. I believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God, all have sinned before God, my savior who died for all my sins (past, present, and future), and rose from the dead to give me the gift of eternal life, which is free for all who believe this. As C.S. Lewis stated, I cannot simply believe Christ was a great philosopher or moral teacher because that would be to ignore the majority of His message that He was God incarnate. It was for these reasons that He was crucified on the cross and the Pharisees sought His death. So after studying the Bible and the historical components around Jesus Christ, C.S. Lewis concluded that you can only accept Christ as a liar, lunatic, or God incarnate, but not simply as a moral teacher or philosopher.
"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 on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg or else he would have to be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God, or a madman or something worse." - C.S. Lewis
Second, as a student of public policy and a person whose career will be in and out of government, I do not believe you can legislate morality. Moral change or conviction has to come from within a person. Your moral fiber or principles can be influenced by the people around you or whatever religious institutions you attend can have an indirect affect, but these choices are still decided by you. There is also a great danger in trying to legislate morality. Such behavior or values can become ritualized, dumbed-down, or insignificant in a person's life. For example, if some school district enforced a morning prayer for all students, I would be against this. Separation of church and state here is a value to hold, and from a practical view it would ritualize prayer for many of the students and hold little affect or influence in their lives moving forward. I can point to many of my Catholic friends who grew up in such a setting as an example of this effect.
As a Christian, I consider homosexual acts as sin. A sin as much as when I lie, hate, get drunk, and place the things of this world above God within my heart. Even though I am redeemed now through faith in Christ, I still sin and will struggle with my sinful nature until I die. I personally consider my independent spirit from God worse than most sins anyone else can commit, but all sins are like blades of grass to God above. Especially once you believe in Christ and His actions, all your sins are forgiven past, present, and future, which is called God's grace. And this includes homosexual acts, which I admit there are "Christians" out there that forget this and weigh it more than other sins for whatever reasons. There are groups within the Christian faith that hate gays and lesbians, but I personally question the validity of their faith and their knowledge of the Bible. "Hate" is probably a good red flag for starters. It's like when the KKK justifies their hatred and beliefs on Christian doctrine. Or other individuals or groups have a hatred towards Jews "because they killed Jesus." Ummm... Jesus was a Jew and so were His disciples. One of my role models, Paul the Apostle, was a Jew. Actually, he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:3-6).
So as a heterosexual sinner I am no better than a homosexual sinner. What is the difference within the Christian doctrine? None. Are there such things as "greater sinners" in Christianity? No, everyone is a sinner before God. No less, no more. I remember explaining some of these points to one of my good friends, who's active in the gay community, and he was initially surprised to hear such things. He said it was refreshing to hear such a perspective as a gay man from someone he knows is a "devout Christian." I believe majority of Christians, if not all, who believe in the Bible as a whole and are knowledgeable take this view or cannot argue against this beyond their personal discomfort or cultural biases.
"Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?"
Deroy Murdock's article below highlights a good point that maybe the "religious right" or "social conversatives" should focus their energies elsewhere towards the greater problem of heterosexual marriage. Maybe he knows this already, but some of the "religious right" or "social conversatives" were against the mockery of marriage that Britney Spears, David Lettermen, or other people committed. Of course they are, especially the Family Research Council, but you have to pick your battles. That battle is so widespread and a whole another problem in itself it would be very difficult to tackle. From the Christian perspective, divorce is only condoned when adultery is committed, so the examples that Murdock brings up might not be relevant towards some of the fears against the institution of marriage. Their fears and thoughts are already based on those examples that he brings up, or similar examples from the past. They already know that marriage has become a weaker institution in America, and has become a disruption of healthy family lives. There are many studies I can point to that reveal the various direct and indirect social ills and individual problems that develop from single-family homes and irresponsible marriages by heterosexuals. So gay-marriage strikes another fear into these people's hearts on top of the existing problems. Maybe some of their reasons against gay-marriages are from ignorance, and maybe some of it is from concerns about how it can affect the fabric of American family culture. Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the "religious right" or "social conversatives", which is a vast, nebulous group in America. Maybe many of these campaigns against gay-marriage are driven by fear and ignorance, or a need for some non-profits and political groups to "do something."
Anyway, the practical effect of a law supporting gay-marriages would be in question for me. I don't think it would increase homosexual acts in our society, which is one reason I'm against legalizing drugs because I know it would increase drug use which as a clear adverse effect on our society, so I'm not completely decided on this issue of gay-marriage. On principle then I should support laws against lying in non-professional settings, against any form of drunkness, adultery,... even against my own arrogance before God. I have to think about this some more...
(continue on latter post: "case against gay marriage")
A Mockery of Marriage
The things heterosexuals do.
National Review Online
Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor
January 09, 2004
Social conservatives are working overtime to argue that gay marriage would imperil straight matrimony. They say that if Jack and Joe were united, till death do them part, they would jeopardize husbands and wives, from sea to shining sea.
"We will lose marriage in this nation," without constitutionally limiting it to heterosexuals, warns Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. The Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, sees "same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether."
It would be far easier to take these claims seriously if gay-marriage critics spent as much energy denouncing irresponsible heterosexuals whose behavior undermines traditional marriage. Among prominent Americans, such misdeeds are increasingly ubiquitous.
Exhibit A is musical product Britney Spears's micromarriage to hometown pal Jason Allen Alexander. The 22-year-olds were wed on January 3 in Las Vegas. Clad in sneakers, a baseball cap, ripped jeans, and a navel-revealing T-shirt, the vocalist was escorted down the Little White Wedding Chapel's aisle by a hotel chauffeur. Spears and Alexander, who wore baggy pants and a zippered sweater, soon were wife and husband.
Almost as soon, their marriage was annulled. Clark County Judge Lisa Brown accepted Spears's request and ruled that "There was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract, and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void."
The revolving-door couple's 55 hours of marital bliss were based neither on love nor shared commitment, but because "they took a joke too far," explained Spears's label, Jive Records.
Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.
Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?
And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.
But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.
Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?
Of course, not every American is an overexposed pop diva, network talk-show host, or sitcom multimillionaire. For rank-and-file heterosexuals, marriage can involve decades of love and joy. In 51 percent of cases, people stay married for life. Such unions are inspiring, impressive, and deserve every American's applause.
On the other hand, 49 percent of couples break up, according to Divorce magazine. The Federal Administration for Children and Families calculated in 2002 that deadbeat parents nationwide owed their kids $92.3 billion in unpaid child support. In 2000, 33.2 percent of children were born outside marriage. Among blacks, that figure was 68.5 percent. A 1998 National Institute of Justice survey found that 1.5 million women suffer domestic violence annually, as do 835,000 men. So-called "reality" TV shows like Fox's Married by America and its forthcoming My Big Fat Obnoxious Fianc? turn wedding vows into punch lines. In nearly every instance, heterosexuals ? not homosexuals ? perpetrated these social ills.
Gay marriage is a big idea that deserves national debate. Nonetheless, social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service.
Labels:
christianity,
homosexuality,
sex
Thursday, December 25, 2003
Merry Christmas!!... A Little Bit About My Faith
Since Christmas is the celebration of Christ's birth, I might as well write about its importance in my life. It's amazing to think how much of an impact one man has had on the history of this earth, and it was really only three years of public ministry where Jesus Christ exerted any type of influence. Incredible.
Coming from a Buddhist background and very little exposure to Christianity until my eighth grade, allowed me to accept Christianity without any social or family pressures that some people face at a young age. Sometimes being cold and naturally cynical of everything around me, I didn't accept Christianity out of an emotional need at some church camp, a fiery Sunday sermon, or friendly nudges by a friend. It was a process of questioning, reading, and thinking that led me to accept the whole of Christianity since there really is no other way. I don't believe in "blind faith", so my initial acceptance of Christianity was followed by several years of further questioning, reading, and thinking. Probably why I enjoy listening and reading to C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias more than Billy Graham or Charles Swindoll.
In the end, I found the Christian life to be the most difficult life to live. Far from a "crutch for the weak" as some philosophers label religion, it is difficult for a very independent and confident person to submit their will to a greater, unseen power. The Christian journey has been the most toilsome but at the same time the most joyful experience for me.
Anyway, below is an essay by an unknown writer on the life and impact of Christ. Not a great piece of writing, but gets the point across. Also below are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by Michael Card, a Christian singer and writer. The depth of his thinking and knowledge is truly reflected in many of his songs. Merry Christmas again!
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village,
the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another village, and that a despised one.
He worked in a carpenter shop for thirty years,
and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never owned a home.
He never had a family.
He never went to college.
He never put His foot inside a really big city.
He never traveled, except in His infancy,
more than two hundred miles from the place where He was born.
He had no credentials but HIMSELF.
While still a young man,
The tide of popular opinion turned against Him.
His friends ran away.
One of them betrayed Him.
He was turned over to His enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed upon a Cross between two thieves.
His executors gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth,
His seamless robe.
When He was dead,
He was taken down from the cross
and laid in a borrowed grave through the courtesy of a friend.
Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone,
and today Jesus is the centerpiece of the human race,
and the leader of all human progress.
I am well within the mark when I say that
all the armies that ever marched,
all the navies that were ever built,
all the parliaments that have ever sat, and
all the kings that have ever ruled put together
have not affected the life of man upon this earth
like this one solitary personality.
All time dates from his birth,
and it is impossible to understand or interpret
the progress of human civilization in any nation on earth
apart from his influence.
Slowly through the ages man is coming to realize that
the greatest necessity in the world is not
water, iron, gold, food and clothing, or even nitrate in the soil;
but rather Christ enshrined in human hearts, thoughts and motives.
More poems have been written,
more stories told,
more pictures painted, and
more songs sung about Christ
than any other person in human history,
because through such avenues as these
the deepest appreciation of the human heart
can be more adequately expressed.
God's Own Fool
by Michael Card
Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind
For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane
(chorus)
When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well
So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
(chorus)
So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well
Coming from a Buddhist background and very little exposure to Christianity until my eighth grade, allowed me to accept Christianity without any social or family pressures that some people face at a young age. Sometimes being cold and naturally cynical of everything around me, I didn't accept Christianity out of an emotional need at some church camp, a fiery Sunday sermon, or friendly nudges by a friend. It was a process of questioning, reading, and thinking that led me to accept the whole of Christianity since there really is no other way. I don't believe in "blind faith", so my initial acceptance of Christianity was followed by several years of further questioning, reading, and thinking. Probably why I enjoy listening and reading to C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias more than Billy Graham or Charles Swindoll.
In the end, I found the Christian life to be the most difficult life to live. Far from a "crutch for the weak" as some philosophers label religion, it is difficult for a very independent and confident person to submit their will to a greater, unseen power. The Christian journey has been the most toilsome but at the same time the most joyful experience for me.
Anyway, below is an essay by an unknown writer on the life and impact of Christ. Not a great piece of writing, but gets the point across. Also below are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by Michael Card, a Christian singer and writer. The depth of his thinking and knowledge is truly reflected in many of his songs. Merry Christmas again!
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village,
the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another village, and that a despised one.
He worked in a carpenter shop for thirty years,
and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never owned a home.
He never had a family.
He never went to college.
He never put His foot inside a really big city.
He never traveled, except in His infancy,
more than two hundred miles from the place where He was born.
He had no credentials but HIMSELF.
While still a young man,
The tide of popular opinion turned against Him.
His friends ran away.
One of them betrayed Him.
He was turned over to His enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed upon a Cross between two thieves.
His executors gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth,
His seamless robe.
When He was dead,
He was taken down from the cross
and laid in a borrowed grave through the courtesy of a friend.
Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone,
and today Jesus is the centerpiece of the human race,
and the leader of all human progress.
I am well within the mark when I say that
all the armies that ever marched,
all the navies that were ever built,
all the parliaments that have ever sat, and
all the kings that have ever ruled put together
have not affected the life of man upon this earth
like this one solitary personality.
All time dates from his birth,
and it is impossible to understand or interpret
the progress of human civilization in any nation on earth
apart from his influence.
Slowly through the ages man is coming to realize that
the greatest necessity in the world is not
water, iron, gold, food and clothing, or even nitrate in the soil;
but rather Christ enshrined in human hearts, thoughts and motives.
More poems have been written,
more stories told,
more pictures painted, and
more songs sung about Christ
than any other person in human history,
because through such avenues as these
the deepest appreciation of the human heart
can be more adequately expressed.
God's Own Fool
by Michael Card
Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind
For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane
(chorus)
When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well
So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
(chorus)
So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well
Monday, August 18, 2003
Is Man Determined or Free?... Thoughts From "The Matrix: Reloaded"
I recently saw Bruce Almighty which was entertaining at times, but overall a mediocre movie. Anyway, it jarred my thinking to a few months back after I saw The Matrix: Reloaded about the issues of whether man is determined, what is free will, and predestination. Bruce Almighty interestingly provided a simplistic yet smart and concise perspective on the issue of how God can predetermine and control the universe while allowing for man’s free will. Morgan Freeman plays God who bestows upon Jim Carrey’s character all his powers, but he cannot affect a person’s freewill. Later on in the movie, Carrey’s character truly learns about this limitation, but I won’t spoil it for anyone.
Severals weeks before watching this movie and after The Matrix: Reloaded, I was listening to an excerpt by Stephen Hawking on his lecture at Cambridge University on whether man is determined or free.
As you might know, Stephen Hawking is our modern day Einstein. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. This is an academic chair first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1669 by Sir Isaac Newton. His intellectual capacity and power can be rarely matched. His assistant once told of time when he was dictating volumes of notes and on the 46th page he recognized that there was an error 20 pages before and corrected it. Since the beginning of his academic career, Hawking has researched and studied about the laws which govern the universe.
At the lecture he concluded, ““Is man determined? Yes! But since we do not know what is determined, he may as well not be.”
To explain determinism, the PBS website explains:
“A far-reaching term, which most widely states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe sees all events in the world simply as effects of other prior effects, and has particular implications for morality, science, and religion. Ultimately, if determinism is correct, then all events in the future are as unalterable as are all events in the past. Consequently, human freedom is simply an illusion.”
So if you remember from The Matrix: Reloaded, the Merovingian (wine drinking French-wannabe, trafficker of information, and had Monica Bellucci as his wife:) was a determinist in the purest sense. He was preaching causality... everything is cause and effect so human freedom is nonexistent, especially within the matrix.
This is where Bruce Almighty describes determinism in a Christian context better than PBS since they assume determinism is expressed in the "Calvinist doctrine of predestination, wherein those elected to a divine eternity and those condemned to an eternal hell are already established prior to birth" and assume the lack of free will in this Christian doctrine. I believe the PBS definition related to Christianity is incorrect. Foreknowing does not imply forecausing. Calvinist doctrine and mainstream Christian thinking allows for the dual existence of pre-determined salvation and human free will. This doctrine is similar to the Oracle's viewpoint in The Matrix: Reloaded.
"Candy?" asks the Oracle.
"You already know if I'm going to take it," states Neo.
"I wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't."
"But if you already know, how can I make a choice?"
"Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to to understand why you made it."
(Neo takes the candy)
"I thought you would have figured that out by now," says the Oracle.
"Why are you here?"
"Same reason. I love candy."
So I guess you really shouldn't call the Oracle's perspective determinism. Let's say Calvinist or "Free Choicer" (excellent explanation by The Old Oligarch on May 28, 2003 Matrix Essays blog).
Back to Hawking, he continued by stating his fear for the long-term survival of our species, “My only fear is this. The terror that stalks my mind is that we have arrived on the scene because of evolution. Because of naturalistic selection, and natural selection assumes natural rejection, which means we have arrived here because of our aggression. And my hope is that somehow we can keep from eating each other up for another 100 years. At that point science would have devised a scheme to take all of us into different planets of the universe and no one atrocity would destroy all of us at the same time.”
Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, commented on Hawking’s lecture, “Hawking was unavoidably caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, if there is no God he could feel the hold of determinism from which evolutionary theory could not escape—out of flux, nothing but flux. What followed from that deduction was even more troubling. For on the other hand, if evolution held true, he could not further ignore the aggression and violence through which man has evolved. Therefore, Hawking offered mankind’s only hope—that the savior of technology would come riding on the wings of science to rescue us from the clasping teeth of determinism.”
“We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” – Malcolm Muggeridge
Zacharias quoted Muggeridge and went on to explain how even the greatest of minds in the world today should not ignore the logical and rational existence of God. Basically, Zacharias was criticizing determinism and how flawed it is and a more logical explanation is having God govern and control the laws and powers of the universe.
Continued... deeper into the matrix.
Severals weeks before watching this movie and after The Matrix: Reloaded, I was listening to an excerpt by Stephen Hawking on his lecture at Cambridge University on whether man is determined or free.
As you might know, Stephen Hawking is our modern day Einstein. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. This is an academic chair first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1669 by Sir Isaac Newton. His intellectual capacity and power can be rarely matched. His assistant once told of time when he was dictating volumes of notes and on the 46th page he recognized that there was an error 20 pages before and corrected it. Since the beginning of his academic career, Hawking has researched and studied about the laws which govern the universe.
At the lecture he concluded, ““Is man determined? Yes! But since we do not know what is determined, he may as well not be.”
To explain determinism, the PBS website explains:
“A far-reaching term, which most widely states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe sees all events in the world simply as effects of other prior effects, and has particular implications for morality, science, and religion. Ultimately, if determinism is correct, then all events in the future are as unalterable as are all events in the past. Consequently, human freedom is simply an illusion.”
So if you remember from The Matrix: Reloaded, the Merovingian (wine drinking French-wannabe, trafficker of information, and had Monica Bellucci as his wife:) was a determinist in the purest sense. He was preaching causality... everything is cause and effect so human freedom is nonexistent, especially within the matrix.
This is where Bruce Almighty describes determinism in a Christian context better than PBS since they assume determinism is expressed in the "Calvinist doctrine of predestination, wherein those elected to a divine eternity and those condemned to an eternal hell are already established prior to birth" and assume the lack of free will in this Christian doctrine. I believe the PBS definition related to Christianity is incorrect. Foreknowing does not imply forecausing. Calvinist doctrine and mainstream Christian thinking allows for the dual existence of pre-determined salvation and human free will. This doctrine is similar to the Oracle's viewpoint in The Matrix: Reloaded.
"Candy?" asks the Oracle.
"You already know if I'm going to take it," states Neo.
"I wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't."
"But if you already know, how can I make a choice?"
"Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to to understand why you made it."
(Neo takes the candy)
"I thought you would have figured that out by now," says the Oracle.
"Why are you here?"
"Same reason. I love candy."
So I guess you really shouldn't call the Oracle's perspective determinism. Let's say Calvinist or "Free Choicer" (excellent explanation by The Old Oligarch on May 28, 2003 Matrix Essays blog).
Back to Hawking, he continued by stating his fear for the long-term survival of our species, “My only fear is this. The terror that stalks my mind is that we have arrived on the scene because of evolution. Because of naturalistic selection, and natural selection assumes natural rejection, which means we have arrived here because of our aggression. And my hope is that somehow we can keep from eating each other up for another 100 years. At that point science would have devised a scheme to take all of us into different planets of the universe and no one atrocity would destroy all of us at the same time.”
Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, commented on Hawking’s lecture, “Hawking was unavoidably caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, if there is no God he could feel the hold of determinism from which evolutionary theory could not escape—out of flux, nothing but flux. What followed from that deduction was even more troubling. For on the other hand, if evolution held true, he could not further ignore the aggression and violence through which man has evolved. Therefore, Hawking offered mankind’s only hope—that the savior of technology would come riding on the wings of science to rescue us from the clasping teeth of determinism.”
“We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” – Malcolm Muggeridge
Zacharias quoted Muggeridge and went on to explain how even the greatest of minds in the world today should not ignore the logical and rational existence of God. Basically, Zacharias was criticizing determinism and how flawed it is and a more logical explanation is having God govern and control the laws and powers of the universe.
Continued... deeper into the matrix.
Monday, May 5, 2003
Destructive Christianity Continued
Timing can present itself in interesting ways in life. I arrived in New York City this past Friday and on Saturday I wrote about something Tim Keller, the pastor at Redeemer Church in Manhattan, said in one of his past sermons. Well, I visited my old church Sunday and Tim Keller's sermon was on The Rich and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Without going into an overview of the sermon, which was excellent, a few things stuck out and was relevant to my prior blog. He talked about how The Rich Man didn't get into heaven not because he was rich, but because it consumed him. It was his motivation for being and source of his pride to the point that he despised those without wealth. He despised and looked down upon the poor. Going back to my prior blog and about the church leaders, their pride was so overwhelming that they despised those who would not live up to their narrowly focused set of ideals. Their set of values and Christian doctrine were their "riches" that consumed them.
A disappointing continuation of that situation was that woman member wanted to join a new branch the church was starting in the city. The two leaders that held this self-righteous grudge against her were part of the leadership group assisting a pastor for the new church plant. They told the pastor that if she attends the new church that they would quit and not help out. It's amusing because their self-righteousness blinded them to the actually mission of such a church. I assume they are seeking to attract unchurched people and those seeking out some meaning from Christianity. Their target group are probably far worse "sinners" or people from their worldview, but they cannot even accept a willing but "lesser" person from their own home church. If I was the pastor, I would have asked them to leave for even asking such a thing. Clearly their focus and heart is not in the right place and will in the end harm the environment and chemistry of the church body. Maybe even such a poor Christian as I would be more helpful. Probably not.
The last part of Tim Keller's sermon discussed how miracles and amazing signs would not convert someone to Christianity unless they actually knew the "whys" of their faith. In the Bible passage, the rich man asks Father Abraham to warn his brothers of his fate in hell.
"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."
"And he said, No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
"But he said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."
Basically, Keller was saying that even if Christ were to rise from the dead in front of some people today, it wouldn't matter but for a brief moment in life. They might have an emotional, temporary experience that "converts" them, but they won't know the reasons or basis of their faith. These points reinforce my thoughts on how shallow many people's faith and beliefs were which led to their quick rejection of Christianity once it was challenged intellectually or within their lifestyle, especially within the Korean American church.
As people explore Christianity, they need to poke, prod, and examine all aspects of the doctrine and ask questions upon questions on whether it is flawless religion. I'm biased because I believe I have and my faith has never wavered. I am in a weak period of my life where I struggle to submit my will to God and seek out His desires instead of my own, but I never doubt any aspect of the completeness of the Bible and Christ's life. I joke around with my friends that I am a "heathen", but I take full responsibility for my lack of effort in my Christian life. The reality I've come to is that living such a life is the most difficult thing I will ever encounter in my life.
A disappointing continuation of that situation was that woman member wanted to join a new branch the church was starting in the city. The two leaders that held this self-righteous grudge against her were part of the leadership group assisting a pastor for the new church plant. They told the pastor that if she attends the new church that they would quit and not help out. It's amusing because their self-righteousness blinded them to the actually mission of such a church. I assume they are seeking to attract unchurched people and those seeking out some meaning from Christianity. Their target group are probably far worse "sinners" or people from their worldview, but they cannot even accept a willing but "lesser" person from their own home church. If I was the pastor, I would have asked them to leave for even asking such a thing. Clearly their focus and heart is not in the right place and will in the end harm the environment and chemistry of the church body. Maybe even such a poor Christian as I would be more helpful. Probably not.
The last part of Tim Keller's sermon discussed how miracles and amazing signs would not convert someone to Christianity unless they actually knew the "whys" of their faith. In the Bible passage, the rich man asks Father Abraham to warn his brothers of his fate in hell.
"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."
"And he said, No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
"But he said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."
Basically, Keller was saying that even if Christ were to rise from the dead in front of some people today, it wouldn't matter but for a brief moment in life. They might have an emotional, temporary experience that "converts" them, but they won't know the reasons or basis of their faith. These points reinforce my thoughts on how shallow many people's faith and beliefs were which led to their quick rejection of Christianity once it was challenged intellectually or within their lifestyle, especially within the Korean American church.
As people explore Christianity, they need to poke, prod, and examine all aspects of the doctrine and ask questions upon questions on whether it is flawless religion. I'm biased because I believe I have and my faith has never wavered. I am in a weak period of my life where I struggle to submit my will to God and seek out His desires instead of my own, but I never doubt any aspect of the completeness of the Bible and Christ's life. I joke around with my friends that I am a "heathen", but I take full responsibility for my lack of effort in my Christian life. The reality I've come to is that living such a life is the most difficult thing I will ever encounter in my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)