I have a quick observation or two to make about a post that I saw first here. I read the post then followed the link on one of the commentators names, Erik, to here.

What I found ironic is that when I went to Erik’s blog I found that he had provided several links to other blogs that were covering the same topic. Five such blogs in fact are linked. The usual suspects, but also this: The Friendly Atheist.

So, what can we conclude from this? What does this mean? How is it that an atheist is saying the exact same thing as a ‘christian’? Or how is it that a ‘christian’ is saying the same thing as an atheist? Who’s echoing who here?

Seems rather ironic, doesn’t it, that a christian and an atheist are walking down the same judgmental road in mocking and condemning a believer in Christ. Yes, to quote Pastorboy: “I am not surprised that apostatw pr soon to be apostates would react in this way. It is a sign of the times. I wash my hands and shake the dust off my feet.” After all, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?” (2 Corinthians 6).

Apparently, a lot.

Also, Erik, you can quote Chucky all you want and it doesn’t mean anything. Silence is not an argument against something. Jesus thought that such ’stunts’ were necessary or at least permissible. In fact, in order to draw all men unto himself, he was hung on the cross. That’s no small ’stunt.’ That may be a bit of a stretch I concede, but, to be sure, Jesus seemed rather willing to do whatever was necessary to draw a crowd and preach even if all those who showed up eventually went back to their ways and never followed him again.

Still, silence is not an argument against something.

PS–Here’s the quote at A Load of Cr–I mean A Little Leaven: “This might be cheesy, but what can I say? I am passionate about the church getting out and being the church, not just within our walls, but outside of them as well. It’s time for the church to get out of the box and let our world know that we serve a great God and have fun doing it.”

So the preacher’s stated goal is to motivate the church to get out and do evangelism. Hmph. Strange that A Load of Cr–I mean A Little Leaven and Erik and the Friendly Atheist would all be opposed to the Church getting out of the walls and being church. Because regardless of what you think about the stunt, that is what the preacher says his goal is: To get the church out of the box and being the church. Strange that there would be opposition to this from Spurgeon to Rosebrough to Erik to Friendly.

Imagine that: Look who’s siding with atheists!

So today, Ken has a post up at ??N linking to Ingrid. What’s Ingrid so upset with? Well, Tim Challies wrote a piece about evil as entertainment. Here’s my favorite quote by her

Challies does not bother to specifically address what blogs/bloggers he is talking about, and as a result, anyone who reads a news and views blog can be made to feel that they may be in sin for doing so.

Here’s my question, How can anyone make anyone else feel that they might be in sin. For that matter, if her conscience is clear before God, why is she worried about one lone blogger? There’s a Shakespeare quote that comes to mind about protesting too much.

Do me a favor. Imagine for a minute that you are back in college. You’re in the middle of midterms and your busting your tail to get everything done. Next week, you’re going to Florida for vacation.  You’re a strong Christian, who loves God and has worked hard to live a life that honors him. You strive to live a pure life that is honoring and glorifying to God. Finally, you fly down to the beach. Ahh, sweet bliss. You go out to the beach, open a cold beer and plan on having a fun day.

Now, change gears a little. You’re out of college but you and your friends have been going to Florida for years.  You fly down, slip into a bathing suit and grab a cooler and some chairs and head to the beach.

Suddenly, in the middle of your throwing a football back and forth a Muslim shows up.  Now, he’s not just trying to engage people in conversation and talk to them, he’s with a group of friends and they’ve brought a P.A. system with them.  It squeaks every five minutes or so.  He starts yelling that you’re a whore and that you are on your way to Hell.  There’s no discussing with this guy. In fact, if you come up close to him, he’ll point his finger at you and call you a whore/drunk/slut , whatever over the PA system.

Now, you could move. You could pick up all of your stuff and head on down the beach but should you have to do that? Does this Muslim, who just says that he’s doing Allah’s work when the cops show up, have the right to make you listen to him? Does he have the right to call all who don’t follow the Koran pagans? Do you have a right to some level of peace and quiet?  Should the Muslim be arrested?  Can I be honest? I think that he should be.

When the good Muslim is confronted, he points out that many of his religions earlier followers debated people publicly and openly. When you point out that happened in synagogues and other places where it was expected and not on a vacation front, our happy Muslim begins to praise Allah for the persecution he is under for sharing Allah’s good news. When you call the police and they show up and threaten to have he man arrested, he again praises Allah, and mumbles about the persecution he is under. He laments the state of our country that won’t allow him to make you listen to his “preaching.” Finally, in a desperate act you fling a football his way that knocks him out cold. One of his compatriots will later write about how blessed he almost was to have died while serving Allah.

Parenthetically, imagine if this same Muslim street preacher showed up at certain ODM’s/ADM’s vacation? Can you imagine the blog posts? After you have fun with that for a few minutes go back to your vacation…

Would you be angry? Would you just want the guy to shut up so you could enjoy your vacation? I imagine that a lot of these people felt the same way about a man preaching at them about Jesus.

During Lent, I have been preaching about Christian unity in my church (mostly from 1 Corinthians, although this week is from Ephesians 4). We have also read a book called Together Again by Bob Russell and Rick Atchley. It is a short book, but a good book that seeks to help, in part, heal the ginormous rift that existed in so-called Restoration Movement churches. At the root of our division has been the issue of instrumental music; no small rift I assure you. I believe it took an enormous amount of courage for these two preachers of the Gospel, from opposites sides of the proverbial keyboard, to write this book and I have benefited greatly from their wisdom.

But I think there can be a wider application of their work in the broader, wider body of Christ. Here, then, is how they conclude their work:

Often the reason we struggle to accept those who disagree with us is that we are hesitant to accept the radical implications of God’s grace. It is difficult to set aside our pride and admit it is by grace we are saved, not by moral or theological perfection. ‘Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God’ (wrote Paul in Romans 15:7).

We are saved by Christ, not correctness. If that’s true, then we can accept someone whose doctrine isn’t perfectly aligned with ours. Someone said, ‘If we spent more time at the cross of Jesus, we would spend less time being cross with each other!’ Let’s accept that a man doesn’t have to be my twin brother. Let’s admit that none of us has achieved doctrinal perfection, and let’s be thankful that we’re saved by grace.

[...]

We can’t manufacture unity. We can’t transform people’s lives. We can’t save the world. But Jesus Christ can. If we will just lift him up, if we will just speak the truth with a humble, loving spirit, he will draw all men to himself and we will be one in him. (121-122, 123)

So this is yet another word on the grace of God. (I’m trying to find 100,000 ways to say we are saved by grace. I’m up to about 20-25.) I stand amazed at the grace and power of God to bring us together as one people in Christ. Let us all work together to see the church, the greater church, brought together under the headship and banner of Christ, united together in the bond of peace, transformed by the grace of God, and growing and building ourselves up, together, in love.

Be blessed in him. Praise be to God for his indescribable gift.

Tags: grace, unity in the church

Commenting on Jesus’ miracle of raising the dead son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), Todd Hunter writes:

‘God is back, looking to the needs of his people!’ And the news spread. This is how the rule and reign of God out to be experienced among us today. Caring for the needs of others is what I have in mind, not just the spectacular part about the boy’s resuscitation. I like the thought of others experiencing Christianity ‘for their good.’ But because of two dynamics, Christianity is seldom seen as being good for others. First, many Christians believe that our relationship with God is a private matter–just between Jesus and me. Second, when we do extend our beliefs into the public sphere, we are noted for nagging, for being judgmental, argumentative or holier than thou. But we see neither of these in Jesus.” –Todd D Hunter, Christianity Beyond Belief, 112-113

Yes. I do believe Mr Hunter is correct here. I can tell you from first hand experience that this type (the self-centered, judgmental type) of ‘christianity’ simply must die.  And, to be sure, I believe it will.

With my particular area of interest in the Hebrew roots of Christianity, I am often asked for book/resource recommendations on this topic.  Most of the ones I’m familiar with are better suited for a college classroom than personal reading/research (books by Brad Young, David Flusser, Abraham Heschel and others), and tend to dive into a number of topics outside of Hebrew roots.

One I’ve recommended in the past, and I still recommend, is Marvin Wilson’s Our Father Abraham.  While still a little on the dry side, it is more accessible than the bolus of books available on this topic.

With apologies to Dr. Wilson (whose recommendation is on the back cover), my number one recommendation has now been updated to the new book, Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg.

In Sitting, Spangler and Tverberg do a fantastic job of balancing accessibility, applicability and scholarship.   Organized in a logical fashion for the average Christian reader, the authors sift through the most applicable parts of pre-70 AD Judiasm (with more than adequate end notes) to paint a picture of the Israel in which Jesus lived and taught.

WASHINGTON, DC — April 1, 2009 — In an announcement that stunned the nation, Barack Obama called a press conference today to state that he is stepping down as President of the United States. Effective immediately, Hugh Beaumont will assume the role. Mr Obama also said that Joe Biden is being replaced by Ozzie Nelson. Similar replacements are taking place throughout Congress, although it is reported that Nancy Pelosi has locked herself in her office.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.

Obama wants to forbid church attendance… or so some say.  Every time this kind of hype and hysteria is promoted, Christianity in general, and individual Christians in particular lose a little more credibility.  And (just maybe) rightfully so.  This time it is in response to a bill that would create a youth corps which would require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade.

I admit from the outset that I have not studied, nor read, HR1388.  Nor do I need to, since I am not addressing the bill at issue (it’s a pet peeve of mine when some condemn a book they have not read, a movie they have not watched, etc….); what I am addressing is the hype and hysteria of this article.

The title makes a pretty amazing accusation.  The Obama Youth brigade forbids church attendance – simple statement of fact, there is no hint that this is a question – it is presented as fact.

The article begins with the necessary data on HR 1388:

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

It’s that final phrase that introduces the hype, hysteria, and the first crack in credibility. “This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it” – seriously?  OK, I see the parallel between the so-called Obama Brigade and Hitler Youth in the Governmental sponsored youth organization sense.  But lots of countries have youth organizations and they are not Neo-Nazi.  If we used this kind of logic, any gathering of religious people that serves flavored water could be said to have “serious Johnstown overtones to it.”

That silliness aside, the real issue is stated in the next paragraph:

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

This followed by a few select lines from the actual bill.  They are:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

According to this article the bill would require those receiving student loans to serve three months in a civil corps.  [As an aside, I think this is a great idea... what better way to stem the tide of entitlement than require a little "sweat-equity?"]  The article also says that being part of the brigade “means no church attendance or witnessing.”  According to the article, the Bill would prohibit any student from participating in worship, religious education, and witnessing.

But is that what it really says?  When I read the quoted portions of HR1388 it read as these religious activities were not eligible as fulfillment of the three months of service.  It does not say anything about forbidding church attendance or witnessing… you just cannot work off your three months leading worship, teaching the Bible, or mowing the church yard.

Now, it is possible that the bill does in fact say, that for the three months you belong to the brigade you cannot attend any worship service, receive and religious instruction, or even talk about your religion – but I doubt it.  But even of it does, this article does not come close to demonstrating this fact.

All this article does (and others like it by the the accumulative effect) is lessen our credability in the arena of ideas by making Christians appear unable to discern nuances of meaning, or make credible and logical arguments.

(HT: Slice of Laodicea)