Leave me alone 2 - Laws and the Church

"If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler." 1 Peter 4:15

"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands" 1 Thes. 4:11

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?"
1 Cor 5:12

"...what is that to you? You must follow me." John 21:22

In my first writing entitled "Leave me alone", I talked about the various social and governmental groups around the world that make it their goal to control the behaviors of other people. I only briefly touched on the Christian church, and how it tries to control the actions of unbelievers to make them behave as if they were believers. (I'll deal with how the church controls its own in another writing.) Today, I heard yet another news story that prompted me to revisit this idea.

--A congressman is trying to get Playboy magazine removed from military base stores, because one of his constituents complained that an officer bought one in front of her and her daughter, thus setting a bad example. The congressman was reminded by the host that we are at war on several fronts and have some genuinely nasty enemies trying to gain nuclear weaponry, and that he was making a fuss over a girly magazine. (Fox News, 4/28/2008, Studio B, Shephard Smith ~1:20pm)

--A group of Christians in Athens, Alabama wanted to introduce a form of prohibition by outlawing the sale of alcohol in their city (http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2644). The blogger whose site is referenced here wisely states, "The most important question facing Athens was not the possible social benefits of possibly less drinking vs. the theoretical social benefits of tax revenue from alcohol sales. It was, rather, how can a free society prohibit something that isn't intrinsically wrong? The prohibitionist Christians behind this bill were concerned about morality, but there is nothing moral about prohibiting responsible adults from engaging in voluntary transactions."

Contrast this approach with the Apostle Paul who talked with people, debated with philosophers, and tried to influence people's decisions. Paul wasn't trying to force people to conform to his way of seeing things.

In some ways, I can see the reasons why Christians want to influence the direction of the nation and the nation's media, since other forces are influencing the nation daily and they want to provide balance, and hopefully prevail. On the other hand it feels like Christians are meddling in people's lives, not only trying to influence them, but to actively forbid by law certain freedoms that non-believers enjoy in an attempt to make them act like Christians even if they are not. Often the pushes come in the guise of protecting children, such as the record labels warning of explicit lyrics. Often these tactics have the reverse effect, such as children being attracted to the "forbidden fruit" of naughty lyrics, and thus buying music they previously would have ignored. Paul commented on this effect where the law itself tends to inflame sin, causing a much bigger reaction than there would be with no law (Romans 7). I recall seeing a Christian man on TV read a list of "naughty" words found in a school dictionary to a panel that had authority to remove the book from the school. His wife sat by crying as he read the words. Far from sympathizing with them, I thought it was absurd and made the church look like mindless idiots in the eyes of the public. Similar situations happen across the country where Christians want various books banned from the school system becasue they don't represent the ideals, morality, language, and conduct that they see as "right".

"The log in your own eye"
Sometimes, Christians fail to see the significant similarity between their own use of law to push their values, and the other religions around the world that do the same to their peoples (e.g., Islam with sharia law, Hindu restrictions on public displays of affection), while simultaneously decrying these latter actions as an affront to freedom and human rights. Remember, these are not laws about who can be worshipped or about freedom of religion (though it may be related to free speech), these are laws restricting behavior. For example, there was a recent news story about an American woman in Saudi Arabia that was talking to a man at a Starbucks when she was arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for the sin of immoral behavior (i.e. talking to a man that was not her husband).

The Western world sees this as ludicrous and an egregious abuse of her freedom by zealots stuck in the 4th century. But just recently, the singer Miley Cyrus (aka Hannah Montana) did a photoshoot with Vanity Fair magazine that some Americans said was borderline pornographic and even potentially child abuse! The picture just showed part of her back with her head turned to the camera. That's it. Nothing more revealing than a typical evening dress, and much less revealing than the attire one would encounter at a public pool or beach. Yet some were ready to quit listening to her music and quit being fans because of this photo and its alleged "message it sends to our youth". It is a beautiful and luminous portrait done by a world renowned photographer. Miss Cyrus did nothing wrong. If you will permit me to take it to the logically absurd extreme, "Oh my gosh! Underneath those clothes she's wearing, she's completely naked! What kind of message does that send to our youth?"


"The law is powerless to change hearts (but we'll try anyway)"
Paul told us a long time ago that the law, including the law of God, is powerless to change hearts (Romans 8:3). Believers are creatures of a divided nature, and we are at war with ourselves (spirit vs. flesh). Only by God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus are we able to be reconciled to Him, and made new. Why then do so many people insist on trying to create a pseudo-heaven bounded by laws to restrict their unbelieving neighbors? Some might argue that since the rules are based on God's will, that they are good regardless of what people think. Paul indicated this in Romans 7 where he says that even though the law inflames sin, the law itself is good. Centuries ago when Christianity was the religion of the land in Europe, the inquisitors doled out punishments ranging from slight to extreme against those who did not conform to their God-based laws. The ultimate punishment of burning at the stake was intended as a visual representation of the fate that awaits all who reject the laws of God. Few people advocate such methods today, but the perception that people "ought" to submit to religious values and rules is still the same, at least among those who believe this religion. But the same people would balk at submitting to the religious rules of a Muslim country.

For example, Muslims have a very different set of rules that they feel "ought" to be enforced in society, so that God will be pleased. Hindus have traditions that they feel should be observed, especially if you are in their land. With all the competing groups that seek to control others, I begin to see why Nietzsche felt that man could only be free when God became "dead". But even in societies where God was officially declared to not exist, the government supplanted religion in controlling and punishing the people. Just this week in Myanmar, a cyclone destroyed villages and killed over 100,000 people. But the military "junta" is dragging its feet in allowing foreign aid, simply because it feels suspicious and threatened by foreign influence. Entry visas and registration of aid workers are more important to them than getting the aid. Even without the cyclone, compassion agencies like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are only allowed measured access to the country. Why is control so important that out of sheer paranoia of losing it they would allow their people to suffer terribly? This belies any façade of caring for their people, but shows clearly their devotion to power.


"Punishment by the church"
Christians see that God has a distinct will, but that it is up to man whether or not to obey. There are rewards and punishments, but they are typically reserved for the Day of Judgment, or at least for the death of the individual. After the Day of Judgment, the laws will be enforced immediately rather than being postponed. However, in Christianity, man was never commanded to try to enforce the will of God by laws or punishments, especially upon unbelievers. Only within the church is there any judgment, and it is almost always limited to shunning and exclusion. Only a couple of people are listed as dying for violating their relationship with God (e.g. Aaron's sons for approaching God incorrectly, Ananias and Saphira for lying), but that was at the hand of God, not church leaders or congregations.

"Bullies"
Schoolyard bullies want to have power over others, to instill fear in those they perceive as weak. This is a concept that has largely been foreign to my psyche, except as the brunt of the bullying. I don't "get" why control is so thrilling to these people. But even though I don't see the "why", I recognize that they do enjoy power and seem to enjoy punishing or humiliating those who are different than them. I keep coming back to this concept of control in my writings because it seems to weave through all human relationships, and ultimately influences how people relate to God, and how people "do church", to the point of forming expectations of how it ought to be done. I think this is where the whole of religion goes sour. It seriously irritates some believers that there are people who do things differently and are happy doing so, and that God is ok with that (or at least tolerates it for now). These believers feel compelled to do something to reign in behaviors that they disagree with, or at the very least to badmouth those who are different. I've heard Charismatic believers refer to Nazarenes and Baptists as "dead", because they don't speak in tongues or prophesy. I've heard and read books from pastors of mainline churches that condem Charismatic believers as foolish followers of whim and imagination. Both camps look outward at the behavior of our culture and condemn the music and images as satanic and immoral. No duh. but it is not our place to control or compel them to behave differently. It is our place to speak to them and demonstrate to them the reality of God, giving them a reason to change their own behavior. If they do, great. If they don't, that is their own decision.

"Politics"
The Christian religion, particularly in North America, has become highly politicized. Politics is seen as the best way to reclaim the Christian heritage that founded our country, a phrase I heard often in the church of the 1980's and 90's. The church today seems much more concerned with the interplay of human relationships, and satisfying human needs, than with individuals being reconciled to God. Due to its willingness to institute laws to press society into the mold that the pulpit declares to be "right", the church plays easily into the hands of a government that says it wants to weed out evil by passing much more invasive laws than would have previously been tolerated. Once such control has been granted, it is rare to regain it. Recent news stories of how the FBI lied to gain access to wiretaps are not nearly as shocking as they once were, because people almost expect it now. And of course, it really is "for our own good" (he said with dripping sarcasm).

The church has quite simply strayed into a level of involvement in politics and control that is inappropriate. We have as much right as the next person to vote and express our opinions. But to push for laws that try to conform unbelievers to a set of Christian-comfortable behaviors and expressions is no more right than Christians being forced to submit to the rules of another religion. As members of a free society, we need to leave it up to individuals to choose for themselves how they will live. We already have laws to deal with violations of rights, and that is sufficient.

"Summation"
I have tried to show how the church tries to control the behaviors of those outside the church, by pushing for laws that enforce moral aspects normally not controlled in a free society. This is disctinctly different from general morality that the secular law was intended to protect (don't steal, don't murder, drive safely, etc). I have tried to show that the scripture states that the law will not transform the hearts of the people, and in fact serves to inflame sin. I have tried to show that bullying is a common trait in many humans, and that the church is not only practicing it, but expects such behavior as evidence of devotion to God. I have tried to show how the church has turned to politics, looking to government as a pseudo-savior to bring a bit of heaven on earth. I hope that I have conveyed that these things are a perversion of the gospel, and not the way the church should be behaving. I hope to write soon about how I see the misapplication of control and manipulation within the church, as this is a subject that is near to my heart. I want us to be free. I want to be free. "It was for freedom that Christ set you free. Do not be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (Gal. 5:1)

Paradigms and Significance (Shift Happens)

Paradigm: (pronounced pair'-a-dime) My own understanding of this word is "a standard or accepted thought pattern; a fundamental way of seeing reality; a set of rules by which the self, others, culture, the world, and God are interpreted"

Significance: importance, or perceived importance

Facet: a point of view; one of many aspects; one of the many flat surfaces of a gemstone

WHAT IS REALITY?
I find that the way I see the world will shift from time to time, and entire situations, motivations, and foundational values take on entirely different meanings. However, I'm not exactly sure *how* the shift happens. It doesn't seem to be a conscious effort usually, but I can sense when it is happening. Sometimes the shift can happen multiple times in a day, and reality can seem to have many facets, not just back and forth between two viewpoints. How I see myself and the rest of the world (and God) changes depending on which facet I'm viewing at the time. A particular facet can last for days or even months.

Some weeks ago, I was despairing over not being very significant, and feeling that my life was pretty much mediocre. A short list of things I was brooding about:

*I hold an "entry level" job, though my training and education is much more advanced. Many men define themselves by their jobs, and though I don't usually do this, I occasionally see myself at a dead-end and have only myself to blame. Others also tend to pigeon-hole me by what I do. I have not "reached my potential" by any stretch.
*I seem to live a life of quiet self-centeredness, not really contributing to the well-being of others.
*For nearly 10 years, I was part of a worldwide Christian ministry, distributing significant preaching all over the earth via a website and via CD. That has come to a screeching halt for reasons I won't go into here. Now all I have is a "blog" where I brain-dump my thoughts on "church and reality" to anyone that cares to read, which may be no one at all, I really don't know.
*I used to have hobbies, like photography, electronics, and ballroom dancing. These days I rarely do much of anything interesting or fun, other than fix computers for people, which is a sort of puzzle solving.

All of this was adding up to a dismal self-image, probably brought on by discussing my employment possibilities with someone that evening.


However, a few days later, I "felt" my view shift and things just didn't seem that bad after all.
*I'm employed and making a decent living;
*I do help some kids in India and Africa with education and health-care;
*I still have fun and friends, it just looks different than it used to.

KEY THOUGHT
My point is that the underlying reality did not change, only my interpretation of it. Yet, the perception was going to drastically affect the way that I dealt with reality. Sometimes my perception of God or other people seems to take on a particular slant, and then later it will shift to a different perspective. During one lunch, I felt this change happen a couple of times, though I lack the words to describe it exactly. While I'm not sure what to make of the causation of the shifts, they led me to ponder the fixated paradigms and hard line absolutism that I witness in many people and people groups.

PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Like the old movie "It's A Wonderful Life" proposes, significance is in the eye of the beholder. I interact with many people daily at a surface level, and at a much deeper level with those I call friends. My influence on them is greater than I usually realize, and I doubt that they understand how much I value them. And like the movie, a simple shift of viewpoint can lead a man to the edge of suicide. I have heard that some teenagers of particularly high intelligence get so stymied by the thought that "I will die eventually", that they figure "What is the point of doing anything? All our actions are futile. Why put off the inevitable?" They get stuck on one facet or viewpoint, and all other views seem irrelevant. Some of them actually do commit suicide. Whatever significance they could contribute to the world, and whatever significance they could have in their own eyes is completely occluded by this thought of futility. The reality remains that they could learn, teach, create, influence, befriend, love, and experience several million things before dying. But due to a fixated paradigm, their souls become convinced of the need to die.

AROUND THE WORLD
I see another aspect of this "fixated paradigm" concept played out daily around the world in the form of people that are convinced that God wants them to kill other people. They base their view of reality on a book, and on their culture which honors that book and its author as being from God. Since these people are steeped in this world view from birth, it in effect becomes reality to them. The resulting actions of some of their more fanatical citizens occasionally come crashing into our lives at full speed, leaving us to wonder what the hell just happened. That is because on this side of the world, we were generally raised with a different book (culturally, if not religiously), and have a completely different view of reality that does not often include blowing up civilians to please an angry god, and thus gaining a bunch of virgins to screw in paradise. Admittedly, there was a time when the roles were reversed, about a thousand years ago, when certain representatives of "Christianity" were intent on killing Muslims (and Jews, and anyone else that was different, including other Christians) for the sake of God. Some might see this as a sort of "cosmic payback". More likely, it is the result of the philosophies and popular beliefs that ebb and flow across global humanity, and there is at least a chance that those fixated minds or cultures can be influenced towards a different behavior.

QUESTIONING "REALITY"
Within both cultures, there are variations of views influenced by family, school, media, other religions, and personal experiences. But even though other views exist, not many people question their own beliefs, and many people grow angrily defensive when their beliefs are questioned, because it feels like reality itself is being disrupted, and if they entertain such questions they stand the chance of no longer feeling safe about fitting in with their social structure (friends, family, religion, culture). And fitting-in is one of the primary motivators for most of humankind, as I have examined in other writings. Reality itself isn't any different for either culture (i.e., the physical laws, the need to eat, etc.) but the way it is filtered and interpreted through a set of assumptions dramatically affects the behaviors within each culture, and how those cultures view and interact with each other. Mostly these religious filters deal with how oneself and other people are to be esteemed (or not), and how to make sure that adherents are on the good side of whatever deity they happen to acknowledge. Unfortunately, some see it as a favor to God to kill and die "for Him", and these beliefs are ingrained in their children daily until it becomes unchanging reality to them.

MY OWN EXPERIENCES
I suppose that the interesting part for me in all of this is that my own view *does* change, even multiple times in a day. I consider myself an orthodox Christian (in the sense of historic beliefs, not a particular denomination), so I am probably heretical in my views from time to time. However, I always try to submit my changing viewpoints to an underlying foundation of beliefs. As I have mentioned in other writings, there are times I would have abandoned religion entirely if it were not for my own experiences with God that are non-negotiable. Without that foundation on interaction, I would be...perhaps multi-polar, if that is a usable term. However, I hope that my shifting viewpoints serve to give me a better interpretation of reality.

There are times when I cannot rationally arrive at the conclusion that the God of the Bible is real. The stories it presents sometimes seem farcical or shockingly evil (such as complete genocide of a people group). But because it was ordered by God, it is called good in the context of the scriptures. If we were to read the same account in a modern newspaper, we would probably be outraged at Israel and seek to impose sanctions on them. It seems barbaric and primitive to me to make humans carry out the capital judgment of the creator. This leads me to question how genuine the stories are from the perspective of revealing the Creator.

Yet my experiences with God stand there staring me in the face and I cannot conclude that God is unreal. And the thing that led me to know Him is the Bible. So even if I drift so far as not wanting any of my faith to be real, I am drawn back to what I know personally to be real. I have no way to translate this to another person, because it is experientially founded. I wonder sometimes if the way God is represented in the scriptures is strongly influenced by the rather barbaric culture of the Middle East and the He is actually rather different. Without direct revelation, I have no way to know. Thus far I am left with the book that led me to encounter God, and a lot of unanswered questions.

Perhaps my paradigm shifts can be classified as "temptation", or "spiritual attacks". But in the last couple of years, my quest has been to sift out the reality of God from the fantasies that man has about God. I quit going to church because it became a distraction rather than a benefit. Their desire to make me conform to their patterns of behavior and thought are strong, and they don't have much time for unusual questions that don't have a quick prefab answer. Genuine concerns are dismissed with a laugh and a quick denial. Grrrrr. Church seems to be more of an avenue of societal control than it is the body of Jesus.

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT
Violence around the world astounds me daily, particularly when it is founded in a desire to eliminate those who are "different". Currently, there are old tribal hatreds being inflamed in Kenya, and people who were behaving civilly are now hacking their neighbors to death with machetes. Wahabi Muslims around the globe are intent on making everyone else in the world conform to their views of God and reality, and they will maim, rape, and kill those who are different. Radical Hindus slaughter Christian families in fierce anger for claiming their gods are only dead idols. Communist governments and rebels routinely torture and destroy those who don't want to be controlled by them, or who merely desire to worship God in peace. Human life is cheap to them, and even infants are destroyed without mercy. [Of course, even one of the Bible psalmists advocated the same behavior: "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137. That is not often preached on Sunday mornings.]

AMERICAN INFLUENCE
It seems like those of us who have been taught to respect others and at least to tolerate opposing views are in the minority worldwide. While America has sought to spread democracy around the world, it apparently has done a poor job in spreading the values of integrity, tolerance, mercy, and generosity. We pour billions of dollars into third-world countries, only to have it sucked up by corrupt officials who divert it into the accounts of their families. Such people argue that they are duty bound to help their families first, since they don't know how long they will be in power. Those we establish in power have historically used our support to crush their enemies and rule with autocracy. So what we intended to help other nations often ends up continuing the cycle of oppression.

STRENGTH OF CIVILIZATION
I sometimes wonder if our own civilization would quickly disintegrate into such vile behavior should our enemies pop a few nukes on our soil, and the markets come crashing down. If our entire perceived goodness is the result of a largely cultural way of viewing reality, and the values we hold are not founded in something more solid than cultural tendencies, our grasp on civilization is tenuous. Other civilizations have lasted for much longer than ours, holding to very different values, ones that would disturb us in America. Their people groups have had authoritarian based rule for centuries, and their religions enforce strong controls on how people behave. History shows us that previously great nations like Greece and Rome, that spawned logic, science, and engineering, fell to the hands of barbarians, bringing about the Dark Ages which lasted over 500 years. I think there are quite a few people in America now (and certainly around the world) that would rejoice at the chance to be lawless barbarians, to have their gang/cult/religion in total control of an area. It feels really good to them to have power (significance), and to use it without mercy on those who are different. That is until worse barbarians show up and turn them into victims. But that whole "way" is primitive and shallow, and our advanced civilization would quickly degenerate into a civil war on several fronts.

MY VIEWS
Since I have observed that my own views change perspective, but recognize that the underlying reality hasn't changed, it remains that there is a common reality that is shared by all people, regardless of how they see it. The issue then is how we see reality.

It seems to me that living together on this planet in peace should be a fairly simple thing. But the attitude at the root of the discord is "Our way of seeing and doing things is reality and is correct. Everyone else is wrong and must be annoyed, harassed, abused, or destroyed" (often justified by claiming that God wants it that way). That may be an oversimplification, but it seems to apply to so many conflicts, from mere peer pressure on up to genocide. A more basic attitude of many criminals is that other people are merely prey. Criminals don't typically seek any justification to their actions. Their own comfort/thrill/high is the only thing that is important. "They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed." Perhaps it is a variation of the animalistic nature of man to prevail over competitors and so survive to breed. Man loses something distinctive when this way is embraced.

Yet some people still feel it is absolutely essential to hate and to kill to establish their viewpoint across the face of the Earth, because they consider their viewpoint abject reality and they feel that all eternity depends on their violent actions. They never stop to ask, "If God is so angry with all these unbelievers, why doesn't He stop blessing them, and why doesn't HE do something to stop them?" Instead they whip themselves into a religious frenzy (a fixated paradigm) and see bloodshed as their ticket to paradise.

It seems to me that we ought to be able to leave other folks alone, and that we should have the expectation of being left alone. But any time that people gather in groups, there is at some level an expectation of unity. The greater the unity, the more powerful the expectations of conformity, and the often accompanying attitude of snide superiority. Religion, sports, companies, schools, gangs, economic enclaves (rich and poor), political associations, military, race, and cultures, are examples of such groups. The critical factor of empathy is being left out of the life-teachings in many of these groups, and those who don't fit in with them are pigeon-holed with stereotypes and derogatory names.

When groups of people value and promote respect, tolerance, and empathy, it creates a foundation for a diverse and healthy society where new ideas find fertile ground for development and disagreement without fear of harm. What I don't know how to do is influence minds that have become set on destruction to reconsider their view. They are usually motivated by leaders that have no intention of becoming "martyrs" themselves, but who have no qualms pushing young men, women, and children to "die for God". These fiends should be opposed and removed by those who desire freedom and peace in their countries.

As I said before, the shift in my own view is not usually conscious. So to purposefully take a mind that is convinced that it needs to kill others for a God it has never met, and change it to a tolerant and merciful mind is perhaps ...miraculous. This does happen occasionally, very occasionally. But from the human angle, I think we have to try to counter the extremist teachings through a variety of methods, probably appealing to the human mind that values reason, beauty, order, and freedom.

My view of my own significance varies from day to day, but I think I have a healthy enough foundation that I can weather the shifting winds, and maybe even learn some things in the process.

That's my 20 cents on paradigms. ;-)

There is no spiritual America

There is no spiritual America.

Let me paint a background for what I mean. Many peoples, when faced with persecution or political upheaval, will uproot and move to a new land hoping to find peace. During the late 1500's in France, some Protestants fled Catholic persecution to a settlement in Les Baux and lived there for some years. But the Catholic forces in power sent an army with catapults to destroy their settlement. Others fled to more distant countries. The early settlers of America were often escaping the persecution of their governments. If things then got bad for them in the New World, they moved on further into the wilderness to establish their own settlements. There was always a place further out, a sanctuary away from humans that wanted to control them. Today, all the known land is governed by federal, state, county, and city laws, as well as unwritten cultural expectations (at least where other people are present). Wilderness areas can be inhabited to a lesser extent, but still there are limits on how far away from others one can live.

Occasionally, a religious group will create a compound like the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas, or the Rashneesh group that owned ground in Antelope Oregon, or the Heaven's Gate group that had a mansion in California. As long as the group practices do not violate current laws, they are generally free to practice their religion as they see fit. Since America largely has freedom of religion, we do not regulate what spiritual beliefs that people choose to hold.

However, spiritually speaking we do not have a democracy, we have a king. There is no freedom of religion in his kingdom. If you choose to hold a different set of beliefs, or a different set of values, you become a target for his wrath. Since he created the known universe, there is no New World where anyone can flee to escape his wrath, at least for very long. For now, most people do as they please, and worship (or not) as they choose. But we are told that the armies of the king are coming, and that there is only torture and woe awaiting those who do not willingly submit ahead of time.

Generally, a monarchy isn't necessarily restrictive of civil freedoms, it depends on what is important to the king. For example, even with all the rules that were given, God didn't seem to regulate much of the civil conduct (business, policing, local laws, freedom of speech, who can marry whom) of the Israelis. So, just because there is a king doesn't mean that that king wants to control every aspect of a person's thoughts and behavior. The more control that is desired, the more resources are tied up in enforcing the control. But even the benevolent kings tend to have a baseline of what is expected of the subjects, and they have a police or military force to back up those requirements.

In scripture, there were many rules of conduct. Jesus then amplified these rules from external applications to the very thoughts of people. I think the goal was both to demonstrate that our desires are usually in conflict with God, and to make it impossible for anyone to believe that he or she had fulfilled the requirements of the law, and therefore would have to seek a savior. But in so doing, he reveals that the degree to which we are governed is much more extreme than any human government has been able to accomplish. At the same time, we are promised that those who submit may become "new creatures" with undivided natures, wholly devoted to the creator. Without this, one could not hope to survive in the presence of this king, because sooner or later our thoughts would stray into rebellion and we would instantly become a target of the one that weighs our thoughts and motives.

This concept grates at the foundation of most Americans, and other people that value personal freedoms. This king demand obedience and is prepared to enforce his will on humanity. Humanly speaking, we have always had a place where we could flee, if we had opportunity and ability. But there is no spiritual America. Just as the Protestants met their doom at Les Baux centuries ago, there is a day of judgment coming and no one will escape facing the king. All the forces of Earth and the Devil are insignificant and useless against the King. God says that those who see his impending wrath will cry out to the mountains to cover them and hide them. But there is no sanctuary. The physical universe will "be rolled up like a scroll".

There remains a choice. For my part, I'd rather spend eternity surrounded by beauty and holiness than be immersed in molten sulfur. Perhaps I am painting too bleak a picture of something that is far more promising and wonderful. It is said of the believers that they are the "Bride" of Christ, and that the celebration that awaits them is beyond anything imaginable ("No eye has seen, no ear has heard, the things he has prepared for those who love Him"). But this conflict lies at the root of man's heart and is becoming more open in a post-Christian United States. Many see God as an invader from beyond, intent on ruining something good, stealing our freedom and calling all that we enjoy "bad". From another perspective though, we can be seen as a creation of his that has gone awry, no longer acting within the specs we were designed around, and he is coming to set that right. Either way, if he truly is king and his day of reckoning is unavoidable, then we still must choose. There is no gloating in the lake of fire; no proud stance of "I didn't give in"; no enjoyment or reminiscing over past times.

How one views God is based on a combination of how we view our own selves and his salvation offered in Jesus. Jesus said "He who has been forgiven much, loves much." We would do well then to consider what our salvation cost God, and his motives in providing a way for us to be reconciled; to examine our own behaviors and motives in light of this mercy; to repent of our rebellion and allow him to change our selves into something new. "We are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

My own experiences with God have been critically helpful, kind, guiding, protecting, revealing, fascinating, and astonishingly beautiful. I have not encountered him as a crushing dictator intent on destroying my fun and relegating me to a life of drab misery. On the contrary, I find that the more I seek him, the more he reveals himself in ways that are alive and good. I have encountered his presence in dreams, with a mountain beautiful beyond the natural, mansions that were unique and amazing to behold. I have heard his voice in situations that required information that only he could give, and once when he put a check on my building anger towards an individual that he wanted to protect. I have 3 times felt his tangible presence as power running through my body, focusing in the gut area, causing me to tremble. I have felt him as tremendous heat coming down from above, imparting knowledge to me without words. I have encountered too much to ignore or discount him as a product of my imagination. Though I confess that I do not understand some of the restrictions we have been given, I have never known him to be cruel towards me.

In conclusion, God is the king, unyielding and inescapable. Some will see him as a destroyer of all they hold as good, and as a sadistic torturer. Some will see the new Jerusalem as a mothership of an alien invasion, forcing humankind into a mold that is unnatural, and therefore it must be fought against. Others see their savior coming to bring justice to the Earth, to bring transformation of man from the seeds we are now into the form we were intended to be. They see beauty beyond imagination, and a God who loves them as dear children, welcome throughout his kingdom, and clothed in his finest garments. Either way, he is coming, and there is no place to hide. I suggest you reconcile to the king via the only means he has provided - Jesus. Read the words of Jesus, and even if you can't trust in "faith", trust his love. He will reveal himself to you as you continue to seek him. Other people will try to sway you one way or another, but stick to the words of Jesus. Let his spirit come into you. Allow him to change you. Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." In this way, we are aliens (though we were here first). We have a sanctuary, and we have a New World.

Marketing Evangelism

(I wrote this a few years ago when the church we were attending decided to purchase an evangelism program. An evangelism program is a set of books, videos, and seminars about a systematic approach to evangelism. In short, it is a business plan for expanding a congregation’s numbers.)

I am writing this to try to get my own thoughts out where I can see them. I am resisting the TNet program for several unspoken reasons and I need to get them out in the open so I can see if they hold water, or are just baloney.

I see TNet as a backwards approach to the church. TNet and similar programs attempt to reduce the life of the apostles into a formula, and then apply that formula to others and expect it to work. It is basically a business plan. The church, however, is a living entity, Christ’s body, filled with God’s own Spirit. When we short-circuit his passion by going through rote actions, we rob our disciples of life and create religious drones.

I have heard missionaries speak about working hard for years and getting very little results, ending up burned out because they went in their own strength. After pouring out their hearts to God, He gave them a vision of feeding the poor with His own body. But first they had to eat for themselves; otherwise they couldn’t give it to others. This tells me that without God’s own life and vision guiding us, our efforts at “discipleship” will end up like the Pharisees who traveled over land and sea (hard work) to make one convert and made him twice the sons of hell that they were.

When people approach me with a prefab religious “witness”, it has never failed to come across as plastic or fake. When someone has been moved by God to speak to me, it is natural and from the heart. Work motivated by the Spirit is so necessary for the growth of the church, but substituting a formula methodology will have contrary results, even if it makes for bigger congregations.

TNet specifically claims to impart maturity by “imparting a process and principles”. It also implies that those doing the leading have already arrived at maturity, since they are imparting it by calling the “apprentices” to follow in their own footsteps. While this sounds reasonable, I have only found a couple of people in my life whose footsteps would be good to follow in. Many who have tried to be leaders in the church either burn out or have character qualities that make me cringe. Promoting people to leadership without really knowing them is begging for pride and the ensuing fall and destruction it brings.

The steps of discipleship that TNet lays out are
1. Come and see
2. Follow me
3. Be with me
4. Remain in me

It is true that Jesus said these things to his disciples, but are they a template that we should apply to ourselves in creating disciples? I believe they still hold true of Jesus, but I don’t believe that a disciple has to follow me to follow Christ. If I lead someone to Christ, they may end up being a different part of the body of Christ than me, with completely different giftings. In examining the lives of the apostles, they primarily preached about Jesus being the sacrifice that reconciles us to God, and that we should turn from sin to follow God. After people were born again, they spent time under the teaching of the apostles, learning more about Christ and helping each other with whatever the body of Christ needed.

The emphasis in TNet is on strategy, not love; methodology and not compassion. It is a program that is sold to churches that are looking to increase attendance and “money stewardship”. Why is it that we are now led by businesses and not by the Spirit of God? Why are we so desperate to reach out for the help of men, and not the conviction of God?

I assume the argument from the other side would be that TNet seeks to give tools to those who want to see change, but don’t know how to go about it. It gives a framework that points to the concepts given in scripture that those who do what Jesus said will be built on solid rock. I still sense it is a Trojan Horse, a framework that lacks real life. Yes, techniques exist that will cause people to come to one congregation over another. Yes, charismatic speakers can draw crowds of thousands consistently. Yes, programs that focus on family issues will always be popular. But I don’t want the standard comfortable teachings that leave me at peace, sitting in a chair in a warm furnished church building, while souls are dying and going to hell constantly outside. I want to touch those souls with the reality of God, not the comfort of a church program. These programs are either like a camp meeting emotional high that goes on week after week, but have no value outside the bounds of cathartic experience, or are a set of prefab “witnessing” presentations that non-believers find trite and shallow.

Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor who spent years in prison for Christ, made a statement to the effect that if one does not have the God about whom it is written “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want”, then no verse will be able to bring comfort in the midst of torture. That is real! That is the God I desire, not a church program.

The immigrant families we know locally have stated that we are a gift from God to them. We have become family to them, since we shared our lives with them, not just teachings. They were not just a project to us, but important people. They have suffered for Christ under Communism, and now face dangers of worldliness in America. But together we seek God, and we help each other stay true. It is simple, and no product of business guides our interactions, only the love of Jesus that binds our hearts together.

Blog Summary 2007

I think there are 7 basic points of the thoughts in my blog entries:

1. There is a central core of truth in the gospel, but it gets dressed up in cultural and religious expectations and traditions that end up becoming so associated with the gospel, that any diversion from these traditions and expectations is treated like a divergence from the gospel itself. Conformity is an expectation by churchgoers, but what we are being told to conform to is often irrelevant to the gospel itself. The wide variety of church cultures in America alone is evidence that there is something amiss.

Examples of expectations: go to “church” every Sunday; read your Bible daily; participate in the “church” as much as possible; each congregation must have a building; tithing is a requirement. Some of these are modern inventions because prior to the printing press, Bibles were a rarity, and the church didn’t have the number of programs we have today. Rural believers can’t always get to a central location easily; others are willing to make the trek. What is expected in one congregation is not in another, or may even be looked on as odd. (Contrast a small super-strict Pentecostal congregation where tithing is not only expected but enforced, and swimming is permitted, but you have to be fully clothed including long sleeve shirts; versus a congregation of Presbyterians or even Coptic believers. They are all labeled Christian, but the cultures are dramatically different.)

2. Superstitions arise because of this distorted view of the gospel. The superstitions are pseudo-spiritual beliefs that have little to no basis in the gospel, but have a strong emotional influence on people due entirely to their belief in them.

Examples include: rituals that we “have” to go through to break the power of witchcraft, including specific prayers, anointing things with oil or holy water, “binding” things in the heavenly realms, or visualizing the power of God being released against the forces of darkness. Dreams taking on the importance of direct revelation; people that don’t follow our expectations (the way we’ve always done it) must be influenced by the devil.

3. There is a ton of portent in the words of Jesus, but we rarely see this realized. Perhaps the expectation (even my own) of what it “ought” to look like is quite different than the reality Jesus intended. But since God is not a liar, there are some things that must be attainable (rivers of living water; increasing glory, rather than fading; peace that passes understanding). There are reasons for this dichotomy of promise and realization that need to be explored. Being born-again is more than a doctrine.

4. Mostly, the church seems to be content with merely saying they have the above-mentioned realities of God in us, but resorts to playacting (speaking it out like it were so), and hype (yell it loud enough and it is assumed to be true) instead of actual demonstrations.

5. The church tends to substitute emotional content for spiritual content. Alternatively, it substitutes religious ritual for spiritual practices. Sometimes both happen simultaneously. This is true both in charismatic and high-churches.

6. Leadership sometimes is more concerned that the churchgoers submit to them than anything else. Stupid things, like which way the chairs face in a Sunday school class, get elevated to some kind of spiritual importance. Some people who rise to leadership in the church are real knobs. They are the embodiment of what the business world used to call “The Peter Principle”, i.e. in any organization people who were doing well at a particular function tend to be promoted to a position that is beyond their competence to fulfill well. This leads to misuse of the authority they were entrusted with. The leadership then hides behind an assumption that anything they have decided has the approval of God, and that any views to the contrary are just “contentious spirits” that need to submit. They cloak it in misapplied terms from scripture, such as “Touch not the Lord’s Anointed!” making themselves out to be Christ himself. This makes me wonder if it is better to leave such a congregation, or to stage a revolution of sorts. If God doesn’t remove them, these churches become bastions of religion, where real spirituality and original thought is shunned since the leadership doesn’t possess it.

7. Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for his or her own walk with God. The guidelines are simple: Love God, Love other people, Help those in need, Freely give the good news of Jesus, do the will of God and avoid evil behavior because hypocrites will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Conformity Revisited

It struck me today how groups of people around the world are drawn to conformity. Even those who strive to be different, tend to be different together with others like them. I’m thinking along the lines of hippies, Goths, environmentalists, vegans, and so on, but also world religions. Back in grade school, various cliques formed of like-minded people: jocks, theater, metal-heads, farmer types, rich kids, and geeks. Each group formed around concepts that they held dear, and the individuals tended to take on each other’s characteristics (dress, attitudes toward others, as well as speech patterns and vocabulary). Religions across the globe have sets of ideals, world-views, dress codes, behavioral expectations, dietary restrictions, physical alterations (circumcision, female “circumcision”, piercings, whippings). Variance with the local expectations usually brings shunning, violence, anger, verbal and real whippings, accusations, jail, cursing, all aimed at restoring conformity in the community.

Thus it seems that conformity is an extremely strong tendency amongst all of humanity, and is often taken with deadly seriousness. In America, we have seen this in the tension and hatred between races, the Salem witch trials, the division into cliques and gangs at school which have led to violence, conservatives and liberals each painting the other with large brush strokes of generalities and stereotypes.

It is religion that particularly draws my attention. My underlying suspicion about my own beliefs and why I hold to them, sets up a dissonance that I have to deal with, and thus this writing. Am I merely conforming to a pattern that was laid down in a Middle-Eastern tribal situation 2000 years ago, and drawing comfort from fitting in with others of similar faith? Am I simply being moved by forces of human behavior that motivate others around the world with similar emotional gravity, many willing to die or kill for their traditions and beliefs, or have I really encountered something genuine? And are my behaviors only similar, but stem from a different motivation?

If I had not heard the voice of God in response to a question (and even a confirmation when I asked), and if I had not been touched by His power tangibly, and had I not seen physical healings take place in my wife, then I would probably be done with religion at this point. There are many things that I don’t understand about the God of my faith. He is most definitely not made in my image. A few examples: I don’t understand the purpose of damnation instead of annihilation (or subjugation of a sort). I don’t understand why some are chosen to receive a spectacular salvation and intimacy with God, and most burn in torture that is unlike anything on Earth, given that the recipients cannot die and are subject to a continual barrage of the searing pain of being immersed in burning sulfur, extreme stench, rotten egg taste, ceaseless screams of those around them, the only view for their eternity is watching others in similar torment, and the hopeless knowledge that they will never be rescued from this fate. Or even simpler issues like sex. Why is it limited to the boundaries we were given in scripture? We can invent reasons after the fact, but God never really commented on it, it just seems to be assumed. (I should point out that I am not advocating rebellion here, just stating that I don't understand the "why" of some things.)

My walk with God has not been one marked by conformity. I have left the mainstream of church attendance, which has brought accusation of sin, and questioning by dear friends. I don’t think my motivation in pursuing God is one of pleasing people, or conforming to traditions that are only traditions. I first began seeking the Christian God when I was in 7th or 8th grade. No one preached to me, and my family did not attend church except very occasionally. (My parents quit going after their pastor took a special offering one Sunday, and gave it to his kids as a gift.) I feared the Devil and what he could do to me, and I had no perceived defense. I’m not sure why this was so palpable for me, but there it was. I sought out the only source of information I knew was authentic about Jesus – the Bible. I read and read, staying up all night, seeking some assurance that I could find protection from evil. I read the words of Jesus and took them at face value. During this time is when I “became a Christian”, though I couldn’t say when exactly. I started listening to preachers on the radio and shortwave, and kept reading the Bible. So my genesis as a believer was not so much formed by a desire to fit in with others as it was a desire for protection from evil, and to gain some standing with God.

I had previously mocked Christians and what I considered an unscientific viewpoint (which was mostly me parroting my family members, since I was still in grade school and hadn’t formed much of a world-view yet). But in one evening, out of sheer terror (having seen an excerpt from The Exorcist), I picked up and read most of the New Testament. I had tried reading from Genesis, but quickly jumped ahead to find some words of assurance. Then, having read Jesus’ words repeatedly, I found ground to put them into practice at school where I was harassed by jocks daily for being unlike them. Jesus said to not return evil for evil, so I didn’t; I smiled at them. I never told them why I didn’t fight back, and I assume they thought I was just a wimp. But I did what I was told to do by Jesus.

I think it was this approach that galvanized my walk with God before I ever started going to a church building. I wasn’t dependent on them for my sustenance, and when their traditions and behaviors diverted from the path as I saw it, I refused to follow. I couldn’t understand, and still don’t, why so many who call themselves believers put up with so much crap simply because the man in the pulpit endorses it. He isn’t a god, nor is he our go-between. He is a guy who went to seminary, or at least was approved to preach by the board of an institution of some sort. I also don’t “get” the behaviors and special language that Christians adopt. Some congregations are big into waving flags and beating tambourines. Some really get off on “prophetic utterances”, which are usually more vague than a horoscope. Some focus on “spiritual warfare” and have detailed manuals about how to deal with the spirits of the Enemy. Some speak in tongues, others forbid it. Some dance, others cringe at the thought. Some sing traditional hymns (mostly from the 1800’s onward), others sing choruses. Each tends to feel that their way is more right or at least more pleasing than their counterparts. Up until the late 1980’s, there was a lot of suspicion, disdain, and ill will between more conservative congregations and the more charismatic ones.

This all makes the simple goal of knowing God seem highly improbable, given that His children are so dedicated to conflicting forms and traditions that have little to do with Him, even though the forms and traditions were supposed to help people do it “right”. I have returned to my beginning and am trying to sort through the experiences and teachings I have received, hoping to reach a place that seems …right, at least right for me. I can’t tell the dancers to stop, or the stodgy to get up and boogie. I have to answer to God for my own walk, not theirs. To paraphrase Jesus, “What do you care what I do with that guy? You follow me.”

So I continue to believe, I continue to question and ponder the world around me, I write so that I can sort it all better, and perhaps help another soul along the way.

Failed Prophesy by Kim Clement

In January of 2006, I posted to this blog about a prophesy from Kim Clement (www.kimclement.com) made December 31, 2005 about several things that were to take place by June 2007, with the intent to follow up and see if they had been fulfilled or not. It is now July of 2007, so let's recap the items:

1. no death, only life; no sickness, only health; no poverty, only riches.

I'd have to say that one was a total miss.

2. a group of youth from Georgia, Illinois, Florida, and California, will arise and change the laws in the nation

If this has happened, it wasn't anything major that made the news.

3. On Christmas (no year specified) God will send signs (apparently an earthquake) in the Middle East to get the “perpetrators” out of their hiding places to be publicly humiliated.

This didn't happen in 2006. I guess we can wait another 6 months...

4. A new source of energy will be revealed in America in the next 18 months (by June of 2007) from “…garbage, from insects, shall come from beneath your feet: a new source of energy. Not ethanol only; something else…”

Nope. No announcements of anything significant.

5. The prophets will be shown where to invest money regarding the new energy source.

Still waiting for this. Maybe I'm not part of the "in" crowd. Ok, I'm definitely not part of the "in" crowd.

6. The new energy source is somehow related to what (Albert) Einstein was working on, before God “took him” to prevent it from being revealed too early.

Ah, a NUCLEAR-Relativistic garbage-insect energy source. I'm still waiting for an announcement about this one.

7. America shall apparently become debt-free “America--no deficit! America--no deficit!"

At last count, the country's deficit is in the trillions of dollars. A chunk of change in anyone's account book.

8. A Christian will be president for the next three terms (12 years)

Well, I guess we have to wait for this one since elections aren't for a while yet.

9. Great prosperity is promised over a four-year period.

Ok. The economy hasn't been too awful, and seems to be doing ok, though I wouldn't call it Great Prosperity.

10. Youth shall be saved and become apostles and devoted to studying the scriptures, and America will rejoice.

America generally tolerates Christians, and I haven't seen any national rejoicing over new apostles.

11. A vague statement about God multiplying in 2006. A later statement says
“For what you lost in 2003 and in 2004 and in 2005, I WILL MULTIPLY IN 2006!”

Did any of you get your lost stuff multiplied in 2006? Me either.

12. Muslims and Russia will be involved in using “radiation” against Israel (the people of God), but God will stop it and reveal the perpetrators.

Ummmmm, no. This was a complete miss.

13. One of the Kennedy family members will lose a limb and become a strong believer that will champion the way of God.

The Kennedy's seem to have retained their limbs, and their godlessness.

14. God will give houses and land;

Well, we bought a new house. I'd like it better if it were given. Not much land though.

15. wheat and other harvest will increase

Not that I'm aware of. In fact the bee population had a serious hit from a mite, thus reducing pollination of several fruit crops, thus reducing yield.

16. The NASDAQ will rise to the highest point ever

Woo hoo! Finally a hit. Well, it was the highest point ever until this month, when it got higher yet. It shows no signs of going down significantly.

Overall, I'd have to say this was a false prophesy. I only posted this as an example of the continued false prophesy spewed out daily by those who are desperate for some kind of word from God (other than love Him and love your neighbor as your very self).

QUIT TOLERATING THIS MALARKY, QUIT HONORING FALSE PROPHETS, START OBEYING WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED IN THE SCRIPTURES.