What's so bad about Christian dogma?

• Let’s look at the word dogma. First, you need to understand that it doesn’t appear on my favorite word list. I see dogma as the misguided efforts of the corporate Body of Christ and some educated but confused individuals to drag the nature of mystical divinity down to levels of human understanding. Dogma results from a creature need to define the indefinable Creator and to conform everyone to approved doctrine, to validate and protect church polity, and to corral everyone by fencing them into systems of acceptable belief and practice. 

Amazing prayers of the New Testament

Go to this link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/iLoveJesus/Features/Amazing-Prayers-of-the-New-Testament.aspx?b=1&nlsource=10&source=NEWSLETTER&utm_campaign=Inspiration&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=NL&utm_term=comcast.net

It's Up To You

It’s Up To You . . .

Unknown Author

If a free-thinker doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

If a block-head doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a free-thinker is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

If a block-head is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned or regulated for everyone.

If a free-thinker is homosexual, he leads his life.

If a block-head is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a free-thinker is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a block-head is down and out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a free-thinker doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

If a block-head doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that he/she be taken off the air.

If a free-thinker is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

If a block-head is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a free-thinker needs health care, he shops for it, or finds a job that provides it. If a block-head needs health care, he demands that the rest of us provide it.

If a free-thinker reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can reflect on it. If a block-head gets it, he will delete it because he's "offended".

A block-head can’t think for himself, but insists on thinking for everyone else!

A bucket full of thoughts for today...

"I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies;
no sudden rending of the veil of clay;
no visitant, no opening of the skies;
but take the dimness of my soul away."

George Crowley
"Spirit of God Descend" Verse 2
1869 - Galatians 5:25

When loving yourself isn't easy...

I want to post a few blogs relating to the Old and New Testament commandments regarding loving our neighbors and loving ourselves. I immediately start the process by asking some elementary questions about the words used in those simple sentences. What is love? What is a neighbor? How do I love myself properly? None of them are easily addressed, but I'd like to begin with a sampling of Mere Christianity where C.S. Lewis muses about loving himself.

Later we can look at what Jesus said about neighbors, who they are and how ought we to love them.
It's not as easy at it sounds. Here's a great start:

"How exactly do I love myself? Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently love your neighbor does not mean feel fond of him or find him attractive. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of the person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous  relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate  some of the things my enemies do.

Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate the bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.  For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did but not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life–namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit agreed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I love myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is any way possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.”

I admit I have a hard time thinking in loving terms about some of the people in my past to have gone out of their way to hurt me with slander, innuendo, or outright lies. I also have a hard time thinking in loving terms about leaders who were unwilling to allow me to face my accusers. Granted, I have done enough wrong in my life to warrant discipline, but trying to love church leaders who opted out of the biblical tenants of discipline in favor of personal punishment, is still a challenge for me. As a wise counsellor once told me, sometimes the best we can do is hold our enemies in forgiveness until we can gather the grace to completely forgive them. The same holds true regarding how we think about ourselves.

Anyone who has ever disappointed themselves, and those they love, will experience a period of time when finding self-love is impossible. Self-love is often closely associated with how we perceive what others think about us so when we fail openly and spectacularly must begin anew by restructuring our lives by making amends, seeking forgiveness, and reestablishing valued friendships - or starting new ones. This is not easy work, and it takes a great deal of time before we can be sure that people we associate with either graciously look past our failures, or never learn about our past failures and treat us strictly at our face value.

Stephen Covey says the way to reestablish broken trust is by making and keeping small promises.  There's a tendency for broken people to want to make grand statements and reestablish trust by using promises that are difficult to keep. For example, when an alcoholic promises "I will never take another drink as long as I live”, they set themselves up for failure because they can't speak for the rest of their lives. But if they say "I will not drink today” their chances of success increase greatly.  Making and keeping small promises speaks to a pro-active and manageable commitment that is not found in grandiose promises.

 Simply put, self-love must grow out of a sense of self value, and that can only come out of the mind and heart that believes in and has experienced grace. Once we understand, and embrace the notion that despite our failures, we are still loved by both God and the special people in our lives, we can begin a new life–not sidestepping the consequences of our bad choices–with a sense of regeneration and hope.

Those who have experienced grace in times of their own failure are capable of giving grace to others in their times of brokenness. That supposed to be what Christians do: They love themselves because they know they are loved by God, and thereby are enabled to love others without strings attached,
just like God.

Occupy What?

Maybe this is too political for some, but I want to say something that is on my heart.

I'm reading a biography about Mao, you know the Chinese Communist tyrant who is said to be responsible for the killing (a euphemism for murder) of about 70,000,000 people, outside of war. His story is interesting, to say the least, but the early years of communism in China reminds me of some things I see today that many will say is unrelated and harmless. 

The Russians (Stalin in particular) were the bankroll and the military/political support behind the birth and spread of Communism in China. Mao was a fringy player at first who made a name for himself by being power-hungry, self-centered, elusive, resilient and very brutal. Since I'm still reading the book, I can't say much more about him until I'm finished.

In short, the communist Russians sought to spread their revolution, using anyone they could to foment discord in the masses of people around the world. Their technique was quite simple, make villains of anyone who owned anything, call out people who were "wealthy" as dangerous, hunt down and confiscate their wealth so it could be redistributed to the poor, and create systems of dependency in the masses, giving false hope in order to gradually gain complete control over literally everyone. All the while, the revolutionary leaders lived in luxury themselves.

I don't know but that all sounds familiar to me today. Isn't Occupy Wall Street a movement designed to convince the masses (99%) that they are victims and that they deserve a bigger piece of the pie? Call anyone who has achieved wealth (1%) a villain. Find ways to make them pay more of their filthy money to support the millions (40%) who pay no income taxes at all.  Restructure  and socially engineer society so that the government controls wealth and determines who gets what share. Create dependencies on the government's elite, all of whom live like kings and queens, so they can keep their power at the ballot box. Finally, look for ways to erode the Constitution so that it becomes more helpful to those on the dole, all the while demonizing capitalism as the reason for all our woes.     


Occupy Wall Street? Same tactics. Same rhetoric. Same goal?


I recently read something that strikes home for me. In the wild, we are told not to feed wild animals lest we create a dependency in them. They need to learn to eat by their own efforts, ideally, they forage for their own food and survival, allowing the system of natural selection to work.

While everyone agrees that's a good system, why don't we do the same for people who have greater capacities than animals. We are now creating a dependency on government that actually discourages capable people from making their own way. Should I find a job or collect food stamps and unemployment for another year? Given the choice, I'm not sure what I would do, but I suspect it would include asking for as little help as possible. (Actually, when I was set out to pasture five years ago,  I didn't apply for unemployment. We cut the budget and continued to seek ways every day to improve our situation.) Helping the indigent is good, necessary and critical to many, so it's not hard-hearted conservatism that makes me wonder about the hundreds of millions of able-bodied people who opt out of the work force to collect what they deserve from the government and those damn rich people.

For me, this is not about compassion or a perceived lack thereof,  but it's about finding a balance for the long-term good for our society, not short term fixes that allow politicians to keep their cushy life style while keeping us divided and at each other's throats.

If wisdom reigned, not expedience, we would all feel better about the future than we do.

Bramwell Tripp - Big Themes in Small Portions

The following is a chapter from Bramwell Tripp's book of short essays on the various aspects of the Christian life. For those who don't know, he was a remarkably insightful leader who impacted the lives of many generations of young people who sat under his tutelage both when he was the principle of Chicago's Salvation Army training school, and later as a leader in the Eastern United States. Using today's  catchwords 25 years ago, like inclusion, he still speaks to us, and motivates me.

This short article reveals his simple yet brilliant nature, and serves as my personal homage to him, a big man who befriended and helped build a young man who idolized him.  

                                          Say Our!

 “The best things in life are universal: music, art, science, Christianity. We should beware of any doctrine which tries to isolate a man from his fellows or one group from another. Be inclusive, not exclusive.

Those oft–repeated words  we call the Lord's Prayer emphasize the oneness we should feel and express. Jesus said, 'when ye pray, say, OUR' (Luke 11:2). I know that what follows is extremely, eternally important. But will you concentrate on those 5 initial words: 'when you pray, say, OUR'?

To say this determines the nature of our religion. Our religion embraces all the world. Our Father is the Creator who gave life to all 'and hath made of one blood all nations of men' (Acts 17:26). He gave his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world. He is the One to whom we all pray, from whom we all received grace. The same gospel unites us in a common fellowship.

We do not need to repudiate the differences which distinguished the varying denominations, but remember the injunction to 'receive ye one another, as Christ also received us' (Romans 15:7). How did he receive us? By grace, graciously.

To say this determines the nature of our relationships. Having been received through Christ, we are part of the family of God, members of the household of faith. Again: OUR father! The brotherhood and sisterhood which result must reach beyond our family, our class, our nation, our race. Every world crisis emphasizes our interdependence. The unrelieved hunger of millions of people should confront us every time we quote give us our daily bread'. It is for US, all of God's human family; it is OUR bread.

 To say this determines the nature of our responsibilities. The first element in that word is response. This is sensitivity plus action. Responsible living is reciprocal action. The manner of our response to each other expresses the quality of our lives. To whom am I responsible? First to my Father; then to my brothers and sisters. 'all ye are brethren… for one is your Father, which is in heaven' (Matthew 23:8, 9).

 Don't struggle with words. “Our,” “we,” “us,” “father,” “brother,” “sister”… these are easy to say and are always appropriate. Not me: US! Not mine: OUR”


* Any typos are mine, not his!

Council of Nicea

http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11629650/?utm_source=This%20Week%20in%20Christian%20History%20-%20Christianity.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=05/25/2012/

Defending Scripture. Literally. | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Defending Scripture. Literally. | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

A Profile of Prophets

(Not just about those in the Bible, but about us, today.)

Jack C. Getz

1. Prophets speak truth to power.
2. Prophets are called upon to Forth-tell the truth more than to Fore-tell the future.
3. Prophets have a divine commission, not a self-generated calling.
4. Prophets speak God’s word to move people and/or situations Godward.
5. Prophet’s motives are never about their personal profit. :=) Often they experience great personal losses. (Dealing with truth is always costly!)
6. Prophets are commanded by God to speak to immediate and necessary changes (Some achieve their work in a relative short period of time others take a lifetime).
7. Prophets integrate the values of Honor, Honesty and Humility
8. Prophets ultimately find their courage to obey, through faith alone.
9. Prophets operate according to the “proportion of their faith”. (Romans 12:6)
10. Prophets today must do all in the spirit of love. (I Corinthians 13:1-2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haggai and Zechariah were commissioned by God to stir action in the leaders of post-exilic Jerusalem. The initial rush of joy expressed by the holy celebrations and the laying of the Temple’s foundation by the newly returned exiles (described by Ezra) was replaced by self-indulgence, apathy and possibly sloth. Twenty years after their arrival back home, there was no further progress on the Temple. So, God asked two men to bear His words of instruction and order to the leaders of the nation. (Ezra 5:1; 6:14) 


A brief overview of these two very MAJOR MINOR prophets:

Haggai (lit. "My Feast") made four prophetic statements to Zerubbabel:

A Call to Construct - 1:3

A Call to Courage - 2:1

A Call to Cleanliness - 2:10

A Call to Confidence - 2:20

Zechariah (lit. "Yahweh Remembers") spoke both simple truths (1:3 and 8:9) and shared:

8 visions (1:7 -6:15),

Teachings (7:1 - 8:23)

2 Christological Oracles (9:1 -14:21)

A) 9:1-11:1

B) 11:18- 14:21

Moving Beyond the Boundaries

Moving Beyond the Boundaries
Dr. Colin Harris - Atlanta, GA
May 6, 2012
Acts 8: 26-40

Continuing Luke’s narrative of the expanding Christian community during its first generation, our lesson text for this week provides another snapshot of an experience that pushes the Christian family still further from its familiar moorings.  It is an account that is full of symbolism and no doubt became a memorable part of the Christian story.

After the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7, the apostles scattered into the regions of Samaria, sharing the gospel message with all who would listen; and there were many who embraced it. This expansion sets the stage for the new level of inclusion reflected in our story.

Our text begins with a messenger of the Lord speaking to Philip, one of Stephen’s “deacon” colleagues, telling him to go to the highway that led from Jerusalem down to Gaza, the main artery from Judea to Egypt.  Then the Spirit tells Philip to intercept a chariot traveling south, containing an Ethiopian eunuch, who had been to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh.  He was the CFO of an Egyptian queen, reflecting the particular custom of having a gender-altered man in a position of trust over a queen’s property.

The eunuch is reading from the book of Isaiah one of the “suffering servant” poems (Isaiah 53: 7-8), and is puzzled as to what it means, to which Philip responds with the gospel story, connecting it with what he has been reading.

The features of this story communicate important parts of Luke’s intention in telling it.  First, while the other disciples head back to Jerusalem to share the good news that Samaritans are receiving the gospel, Philip (not one of the original twelve, but one of the seven ordained later to help with the distribution of resources) is told to go farther out and connect with one who is both an “insider” and an “outsider.”  The man he meets in the chariot is evidently a “God-fearer” – one who worshiped Yahweh in the Temple but was not a “proselyte” – one who had officially converted to Judaism.  His “mutilated” state would have prevented him from becoming a Jew.

In several ways, this Ethiopian government official represents the spreading of gospel into new territory – his ethnic difference, his sexual abnormality, and his citizenship of a foreign country were three things that point to the nature of the new community the gospel seeks to create.  Earlier, Paul had written, “In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, bond nor free” – pointing to the transformation of the human family that comes with the embrace of the gospel.  The gospel of Jesus Christ points toward inclusion rather than exclusion – it’s hard to miss that point.

We don’t know from the text the details of the conversation between Philip and the man from Ethiopia, but from the passage in Isaiah that he is reading, it is reasonable to assume that a connection was made in his mind between the image of the mutilated and humiliated servant of the poem and his own life as something “less than a man.”  Evidently the connection between the powerful poetic image of servant Israel reflected in the poem, and the early church’s embrace of that image as a way of understanding what had happened to Jesus, and the eunuch’s seeing of his own experience reflected in this picture was strong enough to bring him to the place of thinking, “This is who I am , and I want to be a part of this community of people.”  So he asks to be baptized, and Philip baptizes him, no doubt doing something he would not have anticipated earlier in the day.

Luke’s masterful storytelling has put clearly before us that the call of the gospel is to go beyond the boundaries of the distinctions we make among ourselves, and on which we base much of our security, to see and to listen to the stranger who may be an agent of the Lord able to teach us something that we have not thought of.  Philip may have held his tradition’s prejudice toward Ethiopians, and he certainly would have had opinions about eunuchs, but he was willing to follow the guidance of the Spirit to embrace and include this “alien” (racially, nationally, and sexually) into the Christian family.

The question for us from this account is naturally where the call of Christ might be inviting us to go to encounter those who have to this point been outside the boundaries of our lives.  I suppose we could say, “Well, I would certainly be glad to welcome an Ethiopian eunuch if I ran across one;” but that would not really be the point, would it?  If Luke were writing his account of the spread of the gospel in our generation, who would the characters of this part of the story be?

The prelude to the story tells us that there was great rejoicing that the Samaritans were receiving the gospel, but then there was a new boundary to cross.  We have done some great things in sharing the gospel both here and afar – what is  next boundary the Spirit is inviting us to cross?

Always grateful for your companionship in the journey.

Colin Harris
Atlanta, GA

Irony and Reality Strike Again!

Yesterday I passed a woman sitting outside Walmart at Cofer Crossing. Her plaintive eyes, heightened by a cowering, head weaving, painful countenance, would have melted even the hardest heart. It melted mine.

The moment was worthy of a Dicken's novel/movie, and she played her role perfectly. The scene was completed with a rather sloppily hand-written message on a bright yellow/green poster board that said something about 5 hungry children at home and no money. I smiled, indicating I would see her when I came out. This is nothing new for us. We always give something to people asking for help, so all I needed was a chance to get a few bucks in change and hand it to her when I left.

While inside, I thought about the message Sunday morning that called on us to do more than pass by people in need, but to get involved, speak, smile and send love vibes - with our gifts. The idea almost came across that needy people want our love more than our money, but the preacher didn't go quite that far. So yesterday, I decided to do more than smile and hand her a couple of bucks. In fact, I shifted from giving her a dollar or two to parting with a precious "fiver", a Lincoln not a Washington.

Then I decided to do something creative and fun for her. I bought her a gift card for Walmart, figuring they had everything she needed. I have always believe in giving choices to people we help, even if they abuse the gift on something frivolous. That's their problem, not mine. I want to give them both a gift and the dignity to spend it however they choose.

When I went outside to leave,  she was still there, and a convenient cement stoop enabled me to sit down to chat and be warm and fuzzy. I asked her name. She answered, smiling while feverishly digging for something in her purse. I figured it was pictures of the children. Instead she whipped out a wrinkled yellow form, pointing to a number that was, I suppose,  her balance due on something. It was around $135.00. I acted interested, hoping she would feel my gringo warmth and be blessed.

She kept bobbing and smiling, anticipating my gift, and since she spoke virtually no English, and I no Spanish, I decided to give her the card and be gone. Written on its small envelope was a simple witness that I hoped would do wonders for Jesus: "From a  Christian friend".

Just as I was handing her the card, using my improvised sign language to say it was for Walmart, she exposed that she knew enough English to ask: "How much?" I held up five fingers and said 5 dollars... credit... inside".

Here's where the fun starts. At that very meaningful minute, the bestowal of the actual gift,  a young suburban-type anglo woman swooped by, and almost tossed a 20 dollar bill her way, without comment, and mysteriously disappeared into the traffic flow, almost like an angel. The lady with the bright sign, spotting the twenty, immediately forget all about me and my measly little gift card, and began scrambling and shouting: "Thank you! God bless you! God bless you!"

Convinced the big fish was gone,  she turned back to me, pointed a the card, almost disappointed and asked a second time, "How much?" I sheepishly held up my five, suddenly embarrassed fingers,  and said: "5 dollars". She looked at me like I was a piker and softly mumbled, "Thank you. God bless you." - in her best five dollar tone and volume.

I know the point of giving isn't to receive shouted, "Thank you! God bless you! God bless you!'s" for everyone to hear. Nor should we be overly concerned about what others do.  I did the right thing so I ought to feel good etc. Truthfully, I wasn't upset. In fact, I was amused. And, from that encounter, I immediately learned that an impersonally tossed Jackson always trumps a warm fuzzy Lincoln. I can't wait to tell the preacher.

I will continue to try following my "spiritual" leadings, but they don't always turn out like the sermons and story books say they ought to. Sharing myself, and my wonderfully warm smile, didn't move this lady's emotional meter-needle when compared to a briskly tossed, impersonal twenty from a fleeting, completely uninvolved woman who did't stop, smile or say a boo!

Irony and reality strike again!

My new article in Priority! Magazine- Winter 2011

PRAYER POWER Gaining Prayer's Best Dividends by Jack Corbin Getz Font Size	Email this article to a Friend
Given the nature of our distracted and often fragmented lives, praying covenantally usually requires some basic structures: a place, a time, and a practice. … To help with that are three easily remembered prayer types, which, when balanced, will lead to great spiritual gain and effective praying. Share Prayer  Jimmy was driving down the street in a sweat because he was almost late for an important appointment and couldn't find a parking place. At his critical crossroad of crisis, he did what many do, he tossed a Share Prayer God's way: "Lord take pity on me. If you find me a parking place I'll go to church every Sunday for the rest of my life and give up all my bad habits!" Miraculously, a parking place appeared. With that, Jimmy looked up again and prayed: "Never mind Lord, I found one." The upside of Share Prayer is that it's portable and convenient, allowing a running "state–of–the heart" report to God, which in some cases is all the moment calls for. Other times, however, it's not what God has in mind when He asks us to be people of prayer. Far too many make Share Prayer their primary source of spiritual investment, which is akin to thinking that saving pocket change is a wise retirement plan. While convenient, compact, and often comforting, Share Prayer is no substitute for more focused forms of praying.  Subject Prayer  Subject Prayer has both great utility but also notable downsides. Such prayers grow out of hard times when we, or someone we know, need God's immediate help.  Subject Prayer takes two forms: petitions for our needs, and supplications for others' needs. When we make a promise to pray for someone else, it involves us, invests us, and indicates that we care enough pray. But not all prayers carry the same weight. Some are tossed like darts at a heavenly target, in hopes that a few will hit the mark. Others involve painstaking sacrificial intercession that requires incredible commitment and ongoing desire. While both have value, the latter speaks clearly to the level of spiritual integrity and discipline that must accompany our public promises to pray.  Certainly, God cares about everything that concerns us and He enjoins us to tell Him whatever is on our hearts, but assuming He's beholden to jump to our commands or to be our genie in a prayer bottle who ought to make everything fair and level is a disservice to both Him and prayer.  Silent Prayer Here is where great saints discover divine intimacy and mine spiritual power. Silence, more than any other form of prayer, convicts, confirms, calls, and conforms us to Christ's image. In silence, personal interaction with the divine takes place (a possible reason why so many avoid it). Of course, Silent Prayer is the most demanding form of praying to master and sustain. If you have mercenary motives or too little time to pray, don't try it. Remember, God's written promise: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). Half–hearted prayers apparently don't help us locate God because, as Ken Gire suggests, "God is not indiscriminately intimate."  Silent Prayer is where serious spiritual formation takes place. Devoting good amounts of time in silence with God yields perspective, inspiration, courage, and spiritual power. It's here where you gain an active relationship with the Lord because in silence, truth always has its way. (See Psalm 46:10.) Brennan Manning writes, "Silence is not simply the absence of noise or the shutdown of communication with the outside world, but rather a process of coming to stillness. Silent solitude forges true speech. I'm not speaking of physical isolation; solitude here means being alone with the Alone, experiencing the transcendent Other and growing in awareness of one's identity as the beloved."  Given the benefits of contemplative or Silent Prayer, it's worth at least half of a healthy prayer portfolio. Granted, other forms of prayer have a necessary and legitimate place, but none, combined or alone, yield the long–term benefits of silent, contemplative, meditational praying. Spiritually, we get what we pay for, and reap what we sow; therefore, why not spend spiritual capital where the dividends are the greatest? (See 2 Corinthians 9:6.) Excerpted and adapted, with permission, from Getz's book Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work: Finding a way back to the heart of God. (Available at. iUniverse.com/bookstore) Priority Magazine Winter 2011 Volume 13 Number 4 http://www.prioritypeople.org

Evolution haunts me.

For some reason I’m drawn to those wonderful nature shows that appear ‘round-the-clock on cable television. The beauty of nature and the wonder of how the animal kingdom works together boggles my mind.

As a Christian, I often feel guilty if I fall for the evolution talk that permeates the scripts of every episode. While I find some of it hard to refute, much of it smacks of an easy linguistic convenience or expedience that satisfies the scientific intelligentsia who won’t consider any other possibilities. Sure, it’s much easier to say that the lemur evolved its long tail over 30 million years than to say, "There sure is a clever and creative mind behind how all these creatures function in their habitats."

The other night while watching a program about how all big cats are part of the same genus, we heard that their amazing diversity came about from eons of adaptation to their unique environmental needs. For example, according to the guy on TV, because the black panther hunts exclusively at night, one old panther way back millions of years ago decided to change his family’s fur color to black. Wow. How smart was he to make that happen?

They also say that all the big cats, as well as a bunch if other night stalkers, changed the pigment in their eyes to allow them to see in the dark. Somehow, that special fluorescent stuff that coats the back of their eyeballs started working. So tonight, they will easily see all the other edible night creatures whose lazy ancestors fell down when it came to evolving enough defenses to keep them from being run down and consumed by panthers, leopards, tigers, lions and hyenas.

My favorite part of the show related to the great Bengal tigers that are so invincible as well as beautiful. The narrator said they were once tan like lions, but because they hunted in the forests, they needed to break up their evolved orange fur with stripes so they are invisible while they stalk the less-evolved prey they call dinner. What’s funny about that is they tried to tell me that the tiger was invisible, but I saw him without any trouble. His stripes helped, but his orangeness made him stand out like ... an 800 pound orange tiger standing in the bushes.

Something didn’t make sense as my restless mind wandered away from the narrative for a few minutes. The it hit: if tigers evolved stripes (or leopards spots) to hide in the forest, why didn't they go ahead and evolve themselves green? That way they would really be invisible. But if they did that, they would be creepy, ugly and probably much fatter, not majestic, muscular and orange.

And what about sharks evolving as the top predator of the ocean? Did the rest of the ocean's stupid creatures (prey) not bother to travel that far? They say dolphins have almost human level intelligence and speak a special dolphin language, but apparently sharks liked being dumb as rocks.

It seems that each creature evolved from something less to something more, but some weren’t as clever as others when it came to evolving. Many species chose to survive by simply creating multitudes of offspring so at least some of the family would escape the dolphins and sharks. "Hey Fred. How do you think we can change ourselves to avoid being eaten?" "That's simple Barney, make more babies!"

That reminds me of the old joke about the two back-packers who were wary of bears in the woods so they planned their survival techniques. One of them said "I'll just take off and run like crazy." The other said "That's foolish. A bear can run you down in no time," to which the first responded, "I know that, but all I need to do is outrun you!"

If the evolutionists can get by with explaining the mysteries of nature by saying every animal if perfectly self-adapted to survive and reproduce, why do so many still get eaten by tigers, leopards, lions, panthers or sharks or sneaky snakes?

If an animal 10 million years ago was eaten by another one, how does that hard lesson or congenital weakness get genetically transferred to the next generation who also gets eaten? If stinks bugs evolved an awful smell to survive, why don't all bugs evolve some stink? And if one species of fish was clever enough to develop wings, why didn’t other fish do the same? Obviously, evolution doesn't explain why every group stops short of becoming impregnable or invisible to the Genghis Kahn's of their world.

Simplistic as it seems, the food chain appears to be less about random self-generated chance and more about an actual plan that works great for everyone. The little critters reproduce so many offspring that their species survives, and the big dudes make just enough of themselves to control their area but not too many to strip it bare. Sometimes the big guys win, but sometimes the little meerkat scampers back to his hole only to emerge a minute later to see an ugly green tiger slinking back to the jungle. (That's metaphorical, because I clearly don't know enough about meerkats to know if green tigers eat them.)

Oaky, I admit, it's easier for my brain to say this was all well-planned, not the result of millions of years of self-generated mitosis. (Or is that bad breath?) I think I’ll leave it right there for now.

Thomas Aquinas on debating with others

"[I]t is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered."
— Thomas Aquinas

Who Needs Help?

Blogger Friends:



I have a good friend in England who is reading my book as his Lenten devotionals. I appreciate that. He's a deep thinker, a globally minded man who probes both small things yet thinks universally.

Recently, as part of an ongoing dialogue about things he may or may not agree with in the book, he about why I suggested that canned prayers don't lead to great personal spiritual depth. In the book I compare such systematic prayer practices to telling Barbara I love her versus an exclusive diet of Browning poems. The poems may work well on occasion, but if they are all I can muster, she may begin to wonder if I have my own feelings for her.
I also say that a scribbled home made Father's Day card from my grandsons, Isaac or Will, is far better to me than the most beautiful Hallmark card. Nothing against Hallmark at all, but that piece of colorful paper from them may hang on my wall for years. Brennan Manning says “A little child can not do a bad coloring; nor can a child of God do a bad prayer.”  

So, this morning while praying, I thought about my friend, Alan, and want to offer the following thoughts:



1) Prayer must be most of all a personal expression from me to my Maker. It doesn't have to be formal, poetic, profound or even logical, just as long as it's honest, honoring and humble. Since the Spirit makes intercession on our behalf, sometimes a simple groan or a one word prayer is enough to do the trick. (I especially enjoy the way I have fun with this process in the book.)



2) Prayer must always have a context. I believe that the focus of today's urgent need often provides all the context we need to pray purposefully. Sometimes, however, we have no urgent need and the microscope that moves us to pray with urgency becomes a telescope that causes us to simply ponder. The further away the moment is from urgent, the more we tend to wander and need some form of contextual structure.



3) "Canned" prayers and prayer structures/systems often provide such context. I say in the book that we often feel like sailors who hit the doldrums and have no wind to move the ship so they have to get down and row until the wind returns. Using the words of others or following closely to a liturgical prayer system is fine when it's needed, but, it's not the best for developing an ongoing personal relationship with the Almighty.


I included a number of prayer systems in the book's appendices, including one of my own that I call "A Cognitive Approach To Praying." There's also reference to the ancient system called Lectio Divina, and the system used by St. John of the Cross to prime the pump when his spiritual experience got dry. 

A good way to think of prayer systems is that they provide a framework for us to speak our minds and open our hearts to God. If, however, they dictate everything we say, they can become crutches that lead to ritual, not relationship.



I hope this stirs some good thoughts.
Jack

A Soul Mate!

"Contrarian thinking at it's best simply asks Is this true? It speaks up when the politically correct answer or conventional answer doesn't match reality - when things simply don't work the way everyone says they should."

Larry Osborne - "A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God" Multnomah Press

MY TAKE Trusting in Tough Times by Jack C. Getz Font Size

Email this article to a Friend

In these tough economic times, when almost everyone’s focus is on the sinking dollar and rising employment rates, Christians are hard–pressed to find the financial means to vigorously pursue their mission. That challenge is especially daunting for a movement like The Salvation Army, whose mission is to “…preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name, without discrimination.” How can the Army achieve those lofty goals when even its most faithful supporters find themselves facing financial meltdown? The story of George Müeller, who lived in even more troubled economic times than ours, provides an answer to that question that is also a challenge to deeper faith. Born in 1805 in Prussia, Müeller immigrated to England as a young man. As a seminary student, he was a playboy who had no time for the things of God, much less any notion of spending the next 70 years of his life in spiritual warfare on behalf of homeless street waifs. But by 1843, Müeller had turned his life over to God, and he responded to a sense of calling to feed and educate the masses of orphaned children who roamed the mean streets of Bristol, England. This was the era of the Industrial Revolution, whose dark side Charles Dickens painted vividly in his novels. The sad reality for thousands of children in that day was a life of poverty, thieving just to survive, and general hopelessness. Müeller began his outreach ministries with free meals and Bible stories for a few dozen children. Soon, demand grew to a point that his resources were strained, but his faith never wavered. As a young pastor and new husband, George and his wife tested God’s promises and refused to accept a salary. He learned that he could not trust himself and God at the same time, so he chose to put himself in a position to depend completely on God for all his needs and the needs of the children in his care. A few decades later, General William Booth of The Salvation Army demonstrated a similar faith when he said: “The promises of God are sure, if only you will believe.” Müeller accomplished his work in relative silence. He didn’t use mail campaigns, Christmas kettles, or development professionals. Amazingly, his only method was fervent prayer. For years the Müellers lived by just two principles: One, live completely by faith. Two, never tell anyone but God about financial or physical needs. Yet in the multiple facilities Müeller ran, no child ever missed a meal. The numbers associated with Müeller’s ministry are staggering by any standard. It is estimated that during 50 years of providing critical daily services to children, he raised the equivalent of about $180 million and touched the lives of more than 120,000 orphans. In his 1898 obituary in The Daily Telegraph, Müeller was called “the robber of the streets,” not because he was a thief, but because he was said to have “robbed the cruel streets of thousands of victims, the gaols [jails] of thousands of felons, and the workhouses of thousands of helpless waifs.” Like Müeller, The Salvation Army has always trusted God to provide. The record of how God has blessed and multiplied the Salvation Army’s “loaves and fishes” is nothing short of miraculous. And it is humbling to think that even though Army polices discourage paid advertising, the Army has always had enough, and usually more than enough, to accomplish what is needed most. Some might believe the current financial crisis is God’s way of cleansing the church from pride and self–reliance so that we will learn to trust Him more. That may or may not be the case, but in such times, everyone is forced to re–evaluate their priorities and realign their methods. Perhaps this is a good time, possibly the best time, to adjust the balance of trust that will allow God to do what He has always done: provide for His work through the ministry of those who trust Him, especially in tough times. The expanded work of George Müeller continues today through The Müeller Charitable Trust in Bristol, England. This article was published in Priority! Magazine. Read my latest article in the current issue.  Google it!

My Hero

There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus is my ultimate contrarian hero. The next in line for me is C.S. Lewis, a man of incomparable gray-matter who was voted the most influential Christian writer of the 20th century. (That was the last one, right?)

One of the things I like best about Lewis is his disarming way of being brilliantly and charitably contrary. Most people see things one way but he invariably points out a better, or bigger way to think about virtually any subject. I have read him so long that I'm allowing my similar nature to thrive, not that he and I ought to be compared. As I said in my book about another hero, Brennan Manning, my squeak compared to his roar is laughable, none-the-less, I keep squeaking.

(I'm extremely happy to report that someone very dear to me told me this week that reading my book (see link) reminded them of reading Lewis! They meant they had to take it in small portions and think about it before proceeding. I don't understand that completely but I'll take it, believe me!)

Here is a good example of how Lewis thought and why he wins yet another Contrarian of the Day Award:

"Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think ... of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time or another.... The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think that love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence at trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man." Mere Christianity

In my book, Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work, I take some time to make the same point about the many impulses that come to us daily. Some of them may feel seamy when they arrive while others appear to be full of divine sanctity. Regardless of their condition, or the nature of their arrival, we have the time and the responsibility to examine each to discern their potential for good or evil.

Response (Response - Ability) is completely different than reacting. We get in trouble when we react to impulses, and most likely stay pretty clean when we respond to them - according to our values, commitments and covenants. Is lust evil? It is when it wins our hearts and minds. Is laughter good? Not when looking into a former business partner's casket for the first time. (Play that out with any impulse you can think of and see how right Lewis is.)

In my book, I call those impulses prayer triggers. That is to say, anything that comes to us can immediately be used to create a moment of prayer. If it's troublesome, turn it into a moment of discernment by asking hard questions about what it means or where it plans to take you if you follow it. On the other hand, if it feels like it is something good, use it as a moment of gratitude and praise to bring yourself into the presence of God. (Psalm 100:4)

Don't fall for everything you hear. Be a little contrary with some of the dogma that wants to devour your mind. Heck, if you tell me about it, you may end up winning an award from this desolate blogger.

Blessings.

Jack

Oprah Use To Go To Sunday School

“According to a stunning new survey by America's Research Group, 95 percent of 20 to 29 year old evangelicals attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years. However, only 55 percent of them attended church regularly during high school, and only 11 percent of them were still regularly attending church when in college... 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 indicated that they had no religion... According to the Barna Group and the United Methodist Church, 62 percent of Americans in that age group consider themselves to be "spiritual", and 43 percent of them have prayed to some higher power in the last 2 months.

But what it does mean is that almost half of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 do not identify themselves with any particular religion.

And when you look at more recent poll numbers for Christianity in particular, the numbers become even more staggering.

Another new survey by the Barna group reveals that less than 1 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 hold a Biblical worldview. This new poll data clearly demonstrates that the youngest adults in America are clearly rejecting traditional evangelical Christian teaching.

The Barna survey defined "a Biblical worldview" as holding all of the following six key beliefs:

1. Believing that absolute moral truth exists.
2. Believing that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
3. Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic.
4. Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works.
5. Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
6. Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.” http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/the-decline-of-christianity-in-america”

Given the information above, I conclude there is a problem in the church that transcends anything we can imagine, and there can be no sidestepping of the issue or ignoring its relevance to the future of the church as we know it. These facts are a ticking time bomb that will explode sometime in the next generation and result in even more dead churches and lost Kingdom opportunities.

It’s always been true that the college experience literally removes fledglings from the nests that long provided nurture and support and forces young people to try their wings. Given the “progressive” nature of most higher institutional educators, traditional values are challenged, at best, and ridiculed at worst. But, to be fair, isn’t college supposed to expose new world views and encourage eager young minds to consider alternative intellectual and spiritual options to their previously guarded existences?

It’s almost as if higher education says, “Okay. Your parents have had you long enough. Now it’s our turn to mold your mind toward a better, more enlightened view of the world.”

Unfortunately, they may be right. The traditional views and values held by mainstream Christian denominations don’t cut it with young adults. In fact, the continual decline in church identification and involvement outlined above suggests traditional “Church values” don’t cut it with adults either.

One conservative reaction to such volatile rhetoric (not to mention the factual realities) is to assume that the current generation of parents and offspring have simply “wandered away from the truth ... which, by the way, we still possess.” To fall for such logic, however, suggests that what’s needed is a good dose of the old time religion. Or, for people to get saved and find Jesus as their personal savior.

Unfortunately, that school of thought which prevailed for centuries rests on a cracked foundation that’s crumbling under the pressure of the new reality. Getting saved use to be the panacea for all personal and social maladies. Unfortunately, people no longer see their condition as a malady, but instead prefer freedom of spirit to just be acceptably spiritual without being a Christian.

It’s no longer a virtue to be called a Christian. In fact, it’s a liability when dealing with the hoards of people who leave the church because it, or the God it peddles, has failed to live up to its billing.

I suggest there are a number of related primary reasons why people jettison the Christian faith system as they are doing around the world. And, none of my list has to do with their personal immorality or lack of spiritual awareness. Here’s may take on what they may be:

1. The foundational issue, from which all the others flow is this: The rhetoric of Christianity doesn’t jibe with reality. For example, saints say many things about God’s love, yet for most people on this earth, life really sucks. The experience of trying to get through the day, much less the year, suggests that God isn’t all He’s cracked up to be, and He’s certainly not as loving or personal as gushing church ladies claim He is to them. He’s remote, silent and distant – at best – and destructive, hateful and mean-spirited at worst. Read the Bible if you don’t believe that.
2. Most church goers were raised to believe what the pastor or the denomination said it true. Therefore, the initial exposure to church tradition is given to children, usually in sunday school. (Oprah used to go to sunday school in Mississippi.) And, despite all the talk about Christian’s being loving people and the church a safe place, individuals, congregations, and denominations bicker all the way to heaven. And worse, pastors and priests have regular morality break downs as they lead their flocks to the Promised Land. The average, unversed, believer blindly follows their denomination’s intellectual champions, most of who lived in the middle ages, or earlier. To question established church doctrine usually creates looks of fear or anger, and the status of the seeker’s eternal soul is placed in doubt. “You must obey the home office if you want to continue to be part of this loving circle of believers.”
3. The scripture is possibly the primary source of the disenfranchisement of one-time sunday school children. The fundamentalist is adamant that any who don’t believe the Bible comes directly from God’s lips to man’s ears is ostracized, if not worse. The other view of the Bible that it’s man’s attempt to explain, experience and define God, simply blows the “spiritual chaff” out the church’s back door. The studies show that viewing the Bible through the first lens repels people away from the church and ubiquitous dogma defines Christian faith and practice, mostly because the church lady can’t explain away the problems the Bible creates. So people leave. Rigid views no longer represent the truth, nor are they the best way to keep the pews full of eager worshippers.
4. There are serious contradictions in what people intuitively feel is right. Dark, heavy lines divide Christians among themselves, and from society. Confusing social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the role of women both in the church and in the market place, and the very nature of truth itself (Jesus) are too easily addressed by much of the church. “Why do Christians make everything into black and white issues?” That used to work, but it doesn’t now. Thinking and individual experience trumps the one time virtue of being absolutely sure that your way is the only way.
5. The language of the church is confusing, if not misleading. Therefore people want to go where others speak plainly and honestly, not according to an unseen approved script passed down from headquarters or heaven. When marginal believers – or restless unsettled individuals – encounter words like: “God told me ... What is God saying to you?” or the classic, “Jesus is my personal savior and my best friend”, the back door can’t be close enough.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect it’s found dwelling within the confines of the following divine traits:

Truth

Honesty

Relevance

Tolerance

Charity

When Christians turn their faith into a system, it fails to attract people to the Light. In fact, it drives them away to lesser lights. This is a post- modern age full of people who no longer believe they have to toe the line and believe or behave according someone’s clearly failing principles.

Today, to reach people for Christ, something has to change. Specifically, He must be lifted up and made relevant. It takes personal discipline and dedication to relate to Him, however, and nothing else – not the Bible, the church, its traditions or other Christian dogma can take His place. He said if He was lifted up He would do the heavy lifting of drawing all people to Him.

So, showing up and sitting thorough worship, even participating in it, isn’t enough to lift Him high enough for someone outside the chapel walls to see who He is.

Faith must first be personal, flexible and somehow made valuable enough to pursue it as Jesus suggested His followers ought to. Right now, the demographics of the crumbling church prove it’s currently not any of those qualities for millions of fleeing potential saints.

The Lord said He would build His church and not even the power of Hell can stand against it, but fortunately, this isn’t a pitched battle between believers and Beelzebub just yet. It’s more of a battle between comfortable good and uncomfortable best. Unfortunately, it seems the church has settled for good because the price of best is too high to pay.

Jack C. Getz

October 27, 2010