Driving to church this morning I saw a heart-breaking sight: a boy in a baseball uniform.
Why was it heart-breaking? Because ten-year-old boys don’t belong on a baseball field on Sunday morning; they belong in church.
I have never believed that it is a sin to miss church on a given Sunday. My parents used to try to find a church if we were on vacation over a weekend; this can be awkward and unpredictable to say the least. I don’t think that’s necessary.
But I don’t think it’s the same thing to be home and not go because you’ve got something else to do. Even if it isn’t technically a sin (and I may be wrong about that one), think about the message that it sends to tell your kids, “We’re going to be in church every Sunday – unless there’s a [insert sport] game.”
It could be that this boy’s family is not Christian, but I’ve known Christians who did let their kids play on Sunday. I’ve even known church league teams that played on Sunday.
If we want to raise our kids to think that church is optional and that religion is just one part of our lives, we should continue. If we want our kids to grow up thinking that our lives revolve around Christ and our decisions should be made in line with His character and mission, we need to put our foot down (each family and as a community) and say that our children (and adults, for that matter) will not be skipping church for sports and let the chips fall where they may.
My kids aren’t in little league yet, but that decision has already been made.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Accidentally filthy
Reflections on Leviticus
Leviticus 4 gives directions for the sin offering. As in the burnt offering (chapter 1) and the fellowship (or peace) offering (chapter 3), the blood has to be sprinkled, but there is a slight difference – the priest must now dip his finger into the blood (v6). This offering, unlike the burnt offering, is made for a specific sin, and the directions seem to be focusing on making it clear that sin is ugly and requires ugly things to atone for it.
Something else that jumped out at me is that this sacrifice to be given “when anyone sins unintentionally” (v1). Accidental sins are still sins. We’re no less dirty because we "didn’t mean to.” We are all responsible for our actions, and we have to own up to the fact that we offend God through the little things we do every day, sometimes without realizing it.
Something else that jumped out at me is that this sacrifice to be given “when anyone sins unintentionally” (v1). Accidental sins are still sins. We’re no less dirty because we "didn’t mean to.” We are all responsible for our actions, and we have to own up to the fact that we offend God through the little things we do every day, sometimes without realizing it.
It’s said that Martin Luther was gripped with fear when he understood that if the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, then the greatest transgression was to fail to do that. Every day in countless ways I fail in that whether I intend to or not, and each of those sins is a vile act that required a messy sacrifice of most holy blood.
Next, it’s interesting that different instructions are given for the sins of different people. The first in the list is also the most elaborate – the sin of the priest requires that the curtain of the sanctuary be cleansed as well as the most choice part of the animal be burned. Then there is this – the rest of the valuable animal must be discarded like trash. The sin of the religious leader dirtied the very sanctuary and even the carcass of the sin offering.
Every believer sins, but history has shown that the sin of the religious leader is more dangerous than that of those in the pews. Rarely have churches been damaged by sin among the congregation like they have by the sin of the pastor and leaders. Those with the most power and influence, as well as the privilege to stand in the name of God, have a heavy burden to bear – both leading the church in the kingdom work and in guarding their hearts.
Those of us in the pews have a dual burden as well – to hold them responsible and to support them in their struggles.
Next, it’s interesting that different instructions are given for the sins of different people. The first in the list is also the most elaborate – the sin of the priest requires that the curtain of the sanctuary be cleansed as well as the most choice part of the animal be burned. Then there is this – the rest of the valuable animal must be discarded like trash. The sin of the religious leader dirtied the very sanctuary and even the carcass of the sin offering.
Every believer sins, but history has shown that the sin of the religious leader is more dangerous than that of those in the pews. Rarely have churches been damaged by sin among the congregation like they have by the sin of the pastor and leaders. Those with the most power and influence, as well as the privilege to stand in the name of God, have a heavy burden to bear – both leading the church in the kingdom work and in guarding their hearts.
Those of us in the pews have a dual burden as well – to hold them responsible and to support them in their struggles.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Links
At First Things "Renewing the Church, Converting the World" is chocked full of meaty goodness.
"To be a Christian means believing that you are part of a vast historical project. And it’s not our project. It’s God’s. We believe that since the beginning of time God has been working out his own hidden purposes in the history of nations and in the biography of every person."
"We all very easily agree that the Church needs to be renewed and revitalized. But we need to understand what Jesus Christ wants from us. What I suggest to you is this: The renewal of the Church begins inside each one of us. If the Church isn’t what we want her to be, it’s because you and I aren’t yet the men that Jesus Christ has called us to be."
"Christian love is not weak or anesthetic. It’s an act of the will. It takes guts. It’s a deliberate submission of our selfishness to the needs of others. There’s nothing “unmanly” about it, and there’s nothing—and I mean nothing—more demanding and rewarding in the world."
We don't have to be Catholic to learn a lot from this man.
Read about Ayn Rand's redeeming quality at Parableman.
Christian Carnival #191 is at Pseudo-Polymath.
"To be a Christian means believing that you are part of a vast historical project. And it’s not our project. It’s God’s. We believe that since the beginning of time God has been working out his own hidden purposes in the history of nations and in the biography of every person."
"We all very easily agree that the Church needs to be renewed and revitalized. But we need to understand what Jesus Christ wants from us. What I suggest to you is this: The renewal of the Church begins inside each one of us. If the Church isn’t what we want her to be, it’s because you and I aren’t yet the men that Jesus Christ has called us to be."
"Christian love is not weak or anesthetic. It’s an act of the will. It takes guts. It’s a deliberate submission of our selfishness to the needs of others. There’s nothing “unmanly” about it, and there’s nothing—and I mean nothing—more demanding and rewarding in the world."
We don't have to be Catholic to learn a lot from this man.
Read about Ayn Rand's redeeming quality at Parableman.
Christian Carnival #191 is at Pseudo-Polymath.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
What is faith?
I saw this on another website:
"Christians [can] never genuinely value and utilize logic and critical thinking because their faith prohibits them from basing their beliefs on rational considerations. Therefore, logic and critical thinking are at odds with the Christian conception of faith (particularly the believer’s acceptance of the Bible as a divine revelation)."1
This would be true if the popular conception of faith was consistent with biblical faith. Fortunately it's not.
The biblical model of faith, however, is quite different. Christian faith is trust based on evidence. Specifically, faith is saying, "I will trust God for the future because of what He has done in the past."
Abraham saw God's faithfulness (Gen 12:17, 14:19-20) before he received God's promise (Gen 15:4-6) and he saw more signs of God's faithfulness (Gen 15:12-21, 21:1-5) before he received God's greatest test (Gen 22).
The generation of the exodus saw the signs before being asked to believe God. The following generations heard the evidence of that generation before being asked to believe God. The apostles saw Christ's miracles before they were sent out, and they saw the resurrected Christ before they were commissioned. The subsequent generations received the evidence of their testimony, and it is on that evidence that we base our trust.
If she rebuffs other guys, if she seems to have eyes only for me, and if she's wearing clothes that hide her figure, I would be silly and paranoid to doubt her.
Christianity is built on the testimony of people who had no reason to claim Jesus was the risen Christ and every reason to say He wasn't.2 Their testimony includes the kind of details that lend credibility to their accounts. These accounts were passed down imperfectly but prolifically so that we can be confident that we have a reasonably reliable record. Trusting in this is not blind faith; it's making a decision based on the best evidence available.
(1) You may want to check out the original post on the life of the mind.
(2) For more info see my piece the Resurrection: a story no one would make up.
"Christians [can] never genuinely value and utilize logic and critical thinking because their faith prohibits them from basing their beliefs on rational considerations. Therefore, logic and critical thinking are at odds with the Christian conception of faith (particularly the believer’s acceptance of the Bible as a divine revelation)."1
This would be true if the popular conception of faith was consistent with biblical faith. Fortunately it's not.
Faith: two views
The average man on the street (and, unfortunately, Christian in the pew) would define faith as belief in the absence of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. If you think of this as faith, you can't blame the skeptic for picturing the believer as a child with his fingers in his ears chanting "I can't hear you I can't hear you" as the skeptic patiently tries to educate him about the flaws and fallacies of the Christian faith.The biblical model of faith, however, is quite different. Christian faith is trust based on evidence. Specifically, faith is saying, "I will trust God for the future because of what He has done in the past."
Abraham saw God's faithfulness (Gen 12:17, 14:19-20) before he received God's promise (Gen 15:4-6) and he saw more signs of God's faithfulness (Gen 15:12-21, 21:1-5) before he received God's greatest test (Gen 22).
The generation of the exodus saw the signs before being asked to believe God. The following generations heard the evidence of that generation before being asked to believe God. The apostles saw Christ's miracles before they were sent out, and they saw the resurrected Christ before they were commissioned. The subsequent generations received the evidence of their testimony, and it is on that evidence that we base our trust.
The obvious objection
Some will no doubt say that believing their testimony (which is the New Testament) doesn't count as believing evidence but as blind faith. Malarky! While some are more accepting than others, there exists a mountain of works from throughout the generations that endevours to show that the testimony of the apostles is sound and reliably transmitted. If Christian faith was a blind faith, there would be no such body of literature. You may not accept our arguments that the NT is believable, but that does not change the fact that we try to build our faith on the facts of the past.An example of evidence-based faith
If my lovely wife says she's going out for a night with the girls, I have to trust that she's actually going to meet the girls and not some muscular guy named Biff. If she tends to be flirtatious, if she talks about other guys all the time, and if she's dressed like she's going on a date, trusting her fidelity might be considered blind faith.If she rebuffs other guys, if she seems to have eyes only for me, and if she's wearing clothes that hide her figure, I would be silly and paranoid to doubt her.
Christianity is built on the testimony of people who had no reason to claim Jesus was the risen Christ and every reason to say He wasn't.2 Their testimony includes the kind of details that lend credibility to their accounts. These accounts were passed down imperfectly but prolifically so that we can be confident that we have a reasonably reliable record. Trusting in this is not blind faith; it's making a decision based on the best evidence available.
(1) You may want to check out the original post on the life of the mind.
(2) For more info see my piece the Resurrection: a story no one would make up.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Do you know why you don’t believe?
Driving home Friday I was appalled to hear Lee Strobel1 explain why he doesn’t believe in theistic evolution on the Bible Answer Man show (9/21/07 edition). I wasn’t appalled that he doesn’t believe in it; it was his reasoning that got to me.
If you give a nonbeliever a poor reason for not believing in something, you reinforce various unfortunate notions about Christians and thinking including:
- Christians can’t/don’t think.
- Christianity requires blind faith.
- Christians don’t care to know what the other side really believes.
These stereotypes harm Christians in academia, hinder bringing people to Christ, and make it more difficult to take Christianity into the public square. On top of that, if Christians look dumb, it makes Christ look dumb. We cannot permit that.
Macro-evolution may be summed up as “descent with modification.” The idea is that a change will occur in a creature’s genetic code. It will get passed on to its progeny. If this change makes the progeny superior to their competitors, those with the change will be more likely to reproduce than those without it – thus preserving the change. Such changes slowly accumulate over time until a creature is born that is fundamentally different than its ancestors – a new species.
The above may be an undirected process (aka Darwinism), or it may be divinely (or otherwise) directed. If one believes that there are stages in a naturalistic system that require intelligent guidance or supernatural assistance (e.g., abiogenesis, the origin of information, chirality, certain special physical features, or consciousness), the system could be described as theistic evolution. (Incidentally, adherents can believe that most species were created by the somewhat automatic evolutionary system and still believe that humans are a special creation.) To put it bluntly, theistic evolution is defined as macro-evolution that required divine assistance.
Again, I have no problem with Strobel not believing in theistic evolution. But by mischaracterizing that position to the BAM audience he made it more likely that those Christians will later mischaracterize it to others who will recognize that they don’t understand the position; this will make them, and by extension Christ, look bad.
We owe it to our Lord and to our unbelieving neighbors to think carefully about everything we believe and everything we do not believe. Anything less is not loving our God with all our minds.
(1) For the record, I respect Lee Strobel's work and have many of his books. His connection to apologetics is part of what causes my concern.
(2) I'm certainly not convinced.
You may also be interested in You are what you eat...and hear, see, and read
The importance of clear thinking
It’s ok to disbelieve theistic evolution2, or any old-earth or young-earth position, but you need to be able to give a reasonable answer as to why. The reason I’m so concerned is that nonbelievers will judge us based on the quality of our reasoning – even when they’re not so picky about their own!If you give a nonbeliever a poor reason for not believing in something, you reinforce various unfortunate notions about Christians and thinking including:
- Christians can’t/don’t think.
- Christianity requires blind faith.
- Christians don’t care to know what the other side really believes.
These stereotypes harm Christians in academia, hinder bringing people to Christ, and make it more difficult to take Christianity into the public square. On top of that, if Christians look dumb, it makes Christ look dumb. We cannot permit that.
Strobel and theistic evolution
When asked about theistic evolution, Lee Strobel described macro-evolution as a random, undirected, and purposeless process. Therefore, he thinks that theistic evolution is implicitly contradictory because it does not leave room for a creator. I would argue that this is true of Darwinian evolution, but this doesn’t necessarily apply to theistic evolution.Macro-evolution may be summed up as “descent with modification.” The idea is that a change will occur in a creature’s genetic code. It will get passed on to its progeny. If this change makes the progeny superior to their competitors, those with the change will be more likely to reproduce than those without it – thus preserving the change. Such changes slowly accumulate over time until a creature is born that is fundamentally different than its ancestors – a new species.
The above may be an undirected process (aka Darwinism), or it may be divinely (or otherwise) directed. If one believes that there are stages in a naturalistic system that require intelligent guidance or supernatural assistance (e.g., abiogenesis, the origin of information, chirality, certain special physical features, or consciousness), the system could be described as theistic evolution. (Incidentally, adherents can believe that most species were created by the somewhat automatic evolutionary system and still believe that humans are a special creation.) To put it bluntly, theistic evolution is defined as macro-evolution that required divine assistance.
Again, I have no problem with Strobel not believing in theistic evolution. But by mischaracterizing that position to the BAM audience he made it more likely that those Christians will later mischaracterize it to others who will recognize that they don’t understand the position; this will make them, and by extension Christ, look bad.
We owe it to our Lord and to our unbelieving neighbors to think carefully about everything we believe and everything we do not believe. Anything less is not loving our God with all our minds.
(1) For the record, I respect Lee Strobel's work and have many of his books. His connection to apologetics is part of what causes my concern.
(2) I'm certainly not convinced.
You may also be interested in You are what you eat...and hear, see, and read
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)