Toward a Christian Worldview

July 22, 2013August 9, 2014 Michael2 Comments

Part of the reason we attend school is to learn how to think critically. The better we are able to reason, to answer deep questions and solve problems, the more our maturity develops, and we become capable of handling a future of responsibilities. I would like to put this same idea in a Christian context. Christians profess thinking with a Christian worldview in order to better solve spiritual problems and answer deep moral questions and to grow spiritually mature and capable of meeting life head-on. I think this is a reasonable assumption.

Now why would we not learn to think for ourselves? Even our earliest ancestors had to think, naturally so, just to get food in their bellies each day, not considering their self-awareness to ponder their role as humans in the world. The truth is that civilizations arose, some faster than others, according to people’s ability to think. We are much further along today in most places. The Stone Age is now the Information Age. We know more in this age than in all the earlier ones combined, consequently owning a quality of life inconceivably better than the earliest humans.

I often grow concerned that I do not observe this priority and progression of thought with many of my fellow Christians. Christianity, they would say, defines their approach to life morally, ethically, and religiously; however, many don’t seem to think with a Christian worldview.

When I say “think with a Christian worldview,” I mean to think through the deep meaning and implication of their Christian heritage and doctrine tackling the easy and difficult issues therein. I mean to approach the entire sphere of life, its various ideologies and moral dilemmas, with the guidelines they claim God has revealed in life and through Christ. I mean to read between the lines of scripture to find where life situations then might corroborate with life situations now to support authentic answers about what the Lord requires. So to me a Christian who does not think Christianly turns the point of learning on its head.

The apostle Peter wrote that we should make every effort to add to our faith various godly virtues in order not to become ineffective and unproductive (2 Pet. 1:5-9). I think what we should first assess in his words is the possibility that we can march along the Christian path without a clue that our way does not please the Lord. Peter charges this person with having “forgotten that you have been cleansed from your past sins” (v. 9).

The stew of religions, cults, and immorality that the fledgling church faced in the first century was much tougher to deal with than what we face in the Western world today. The Roman world was highly polytheistic and without dogma. Religion was personal and unorganized. There was no need for heretics or martyrs because it was unthinkable to deny another’s god or way of worship. One was free to worship, as he pleased and what he pleased. Many religions came with perks, especially those with gods whose identities were associated with vice, like sex, debauchery, or revelry.

We should also take from this that the church would have been comprised of an array of converts that now served Christ with the pangs of sinful appetites reverting back to their former days. Imagine it—a church of former gambling addicts located in the greatest casino city in the world! Think on it though: Men who patronized temple prostitution in Ephesus or Corinth would have still lived in town. There is something to learn from our spiritual ancestors and scriptural admonition.

What we learn is that if we don’t take Peter’s advice and continually build onto our faith—like adding onto a house—we risk taking our cues from the prevailing worldviews around us and our former lifestyle will resurface. This is why the New Testament writers warned the churches about sliding back into sin: It was easy to do without clinging to Christ. So Peter continues his exhortation: “If you do these things, you will never stumble” (v. 10).

I believe that God gives us a faith worth having that profoundly addresses every area of life. Therefore, it ought to guide our practice in word and deed. For example, it assures me that God is providential. Part of what this means is that God has not flown the coop but is present among us guiding and controlling all things to achieve his will even when we don’t understand him. This is built into my Christian conscience, into the worldview by which I evaluate life, and grounds me so I don’t fly apart when things aren’t going well. To put it another way, it prevents me from doubting God. Sometimes, however, it seems that I am overrun by people whose faith has never informed them of such basic knowledge of God and the faith, at least their behavior tells me so.

The point is we must be aggressive with the ideas that vie for our attention and watchful of the words we speak. What enters our minds and hearts should support and add to our faith in Christ. We are less Christian when we allow carnal ideas dominate our thinking and decision-making.

I should also extend this to any Christian music that elevates plight and hardship and keeps us living at the mercy of life. Christians aren’t excluded from the troubles of life, yet the abundant life Christ offers inspires and assists us to overcome everything oppressive life can throw at us. A dirge just isn’t helpful.

I’ve heard people lament, “We never know what state we’re gonna be in before we leave this world.” Well we all know this. Wouldn’t it be interesting though to see how our biblical heroes met their end? Who among the persecuted died valiantly and who didn’t die so bravely? Who grew feeble and senile? Who suffered the agonies of cancer or emphysema? Who passed away so suddenly, maybe even tragically, that it sent shock across the land?

Death can be difficult to handle but eventually we reckon it a natural part of life. So why let its somberness distort our Christian perspective? A Christian worldview offers me a splendid hope regarding death. Christ says death is only the beginning. The Fathers explain that death makes an end of sin. The apostle Paul challenges our faithlessness outright—”If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all others” (1 Cor. 15:19).

I feel that it’s important for me to qualify my expectation. I am not requiring that we become Christian intellectuals; if that is what you hear me saying, you are mistaken. It is not necessary to be a scholar any more than any of us need to learn Hebrew or Greek to get the real message of the scriptures. I consider myself a follower of Jesus, a student of the scriptures, and an examiner of Christian history and doctrine—in that order. My hope is that every fellow follower would move toward becoming devoted students and researchers, feeling it their reasonable service. And if one day they stand as Christian intellectuals, we should suppose it but one possible result of a life aflame with God.

Our Christian worldview is important in many regards but especially as it relates to those who might become Christians one day. I refer to those who live at the fringes of Christianity, Christian sympathizers and seekers and those who may have deep religious or philosophical questions. If we Christians do not possess a mature, wholesome, life-giving relationship with Christ that thoughtfully addresses life’s questions and issues in superior fashion, why should any outsider want what we have?

Our lack will be evident when we don’t understand Christian ideology ourselves; when our superficial answers only produce more frustrated questions; when we haven’t spent time mining to the heart of our scriptures. Where it will show is in the marketplace of ideas—and are we ready to publicly put Christ to shame?

The Christian Brand

July 17, 2013July 29, 2013 Michael1 Comment

The preaching of Jesus explained that a loving God has entered our sinful world to bring spiritual hope and life to all humankind. It was a simple message that remains profound when we understand how Jesus breaches the disparity between our woeful, lost state and God’s lofty, holy nature. Now Christ commands believers to proclaim his good news so that we all can be saved from eternal death and embark on a journey of sanctification that results in our enjoyment of God and everlasting freedom in his service.

With such a controversial message in his day, we can doubt that Jesus had much need to insist on the handling of his message. He died for it and so did the apostles. Only serious, sold-out persons would dare confess him, much less preach in his name. But today, amidst social pressures and conflicting interests, there may be the need for his further instruction.

It is not hard to flip television channels and walk through stores and grow increasingly concerned about Christian wares and media. I am often turned off by much of it and understand how wanton it could appear to the non-Christian community. Let me come clean, too: Christian media has been a formative part of my Christian life and remains a support to me, although in a minor way. Still, I have deep concerns about a Christian commodity that seems to have taken root in the church.

Nothing is important in the world system if it doesn’t channel market forces. Stated another way—what is important is what can be understood in capitalistic terms. With the advent of radio and television and now nanotechnologies, a dilemma arises as it relates to the gospel message: 1) Should the church use the media as a platform for spreading its message only to 2) allow the message to be molded by market pressures? Mass media has developed more in one century than it ever existed in the history of the world, and it has been a marvelous opportunity for the gospel of Jesus Christ. But the medium has in some ways become the message and is producing a certain brand of Christianity that threatens to diminish the true message.

Although a conterminous existence of gospel and media does not automatically indicate a weakening of the message of Christ, media unquestionably magnifies its subject. Thus, Christian media (spokesperson, presentation, and all) will be for many their first impression of all-things-Jesus and, for some, their last. I recall discussions in seminary about Christ’s expectations for his church after his departure, such as whether he expected the global reach of his message and if he intended to start an organized faith system as the Christianity has become. If he were to now return to the American religious scene, I cannot be sure that he wouldn’t walk through our church bookstores and conference boutiques and overturn tables as he did in the temple marketplace, decrying our houses of worship-turned-dens of thieves.

I say this because, to some degree, the American church—with its misinformed notion of being the embodiment of ideal Christian spirituality—has succumbed to media conformation and capitalistic trivialization. A once powerful voice for Christ is becoming an ignored one in the milieu of televangelism, megachurch superstardom, book deals, conferences, salacious teaching, and gimmickry. These things have sometimes caused us to lose sight of purpose and led us to catering our conviction.

We must focus again on the message of Christ, always potent and viable, and question where the line is drawn that signals a loss of efficacy. We must be clear about who is served by what we do: God’s kingdom or our own? We must also examine the gifts we endeavor to offer God. Having large ministries and books and TV programs is fine, but why do we have them and why do we view such as the ideal? Our gifts to God can sometimes assume what he may not desire and only exist to satisfy our wants.

I would never criticize what God is actually doing among his people. Some churches will grow large and have a global reach; not all will. But it is not for us to exaggerate God’s ministry. God’s ministry. If he is truly growing a ministry, growth may be in numbers or scope or effectiveness, but it will first always be in the lives of the people. The rest is peripheral. Satan took Jesus up a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth and told him that he would give him everything he saw, if Jesus would only bow down and worship him. May it never be that Christ’s church falls to its knees.

The Religious Roundtable

July 15, 2013July 29, 2013 MichaelLeave a comment

I watched a feature story and listened to a gentleman explain his approach to religion that helped me estimate my own feelings.

The man, a Christian, led an interfaith forum that encouraged dialogue between religions. He highlighted that if people attended the meetings only to brand others as infidels and to banish them to hell, they usually found little meaning in the gatherings. On the other hand, people firmly rooted in their beliefs and sure that their religion was indeed the way but who were also willing to open themselves to discussion—those people greatly benefitted from the meetings.

The gentleman went on to say what brought together two years of intense seminary study for me: to claim that your faith is right is not bigoted fundamentalism, as liberalist and anti-religionists would suggest or goad us toward relativism. It only demonstrates the acceptance of revelation, and many religions are grounded in revelation.

Simply put, we’re supposed to believe “hard,” or fervently. Yet when it comes to coexisting and plainly having to do with one another, we must be willing to meet at the roundtable to communicate and agree to set aside our bibles and other holy texts to simply hear one another. We will discover that our spiritual needs are the same and notice better the rich human diversity in which we partake.

To hear this was like emerging from a slick of religious sludge.

Why can’t we talk? It may happen that a person converts through the communication process, although this isn’t the goal. But arguments accomplish nothing, except the disrespect of religion.

Got Good Religion?

June 29, 2013August 8, 2014 Michael2 Comments

Novelist Anne Rice explains that she has lived as a Christian for 12 years and publicly so for four of those years. But on July 28, 2010, in three Facebook entries, she “quit” Christianity—“In the name of Christ…Amen.” Her I Refuse entry laments her broad assessment of the Christian religion that she can simply no longer be part of. Some have said that Christianity draws fire from her due to treatment she has witnessed in the life of her gay son.

I think I know where she’s coming from. She is upset that much of the love and moral uprightness that she cherishes about Christ in the New Testament is either not evident or altogether spurned by those who claim to know him, as she deems it, in their views on science and philosophy and their position on socio-political issues.

She’s right to bring rebuke to a Christian community that may be blinded by its own righteousness. History such as the Crusades and the Inquisition all the way to modern-day radical, Christianized ideology should teach us as much about ultra-conservative idealism.

The Historical View

Allow me now to respond to this issue by stepping back and taking a comprehensive view. One of the greatest tasks of the Church Fathers was their fight against heresy, particularly about Christ, finalizing the canon (the Bible), and explaining the doctrines and teachings of the faith. Their work helped convert a Christian sect into a more developed religion by systematizing its thought and showing those who attacked it that Christianity was philosophically viable and apologetically defensible.

Their work continues to (and will always) help answer the moral and ethical issues that crowd out generations in countless cultural circumstances, which is an amazing thing to ponder. Yet culture is the one thing that makes the issues and questions so difficult to answer in strictly Christian terms—that is, to answer them in a way that coherently and thoroughly responds to an ever-evolving culture and honors and esteems God’s holiness at the same time.

In light of the solid groundwork that has been laid and an almost tangible picture of God’s holiness gathered from the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament writings, Christians still do not always fare well at interpreting God’s heart and character, if only by showing too one-sidedly a God of love or one who loves justice a little too much.

So with Ms. Rice I agree that Christians should be present at the forefront of these issues, especially after 2,000 years of developed thought, standing firm in their convictions, yet open to dialogue and not castigating, close-minded, or stranded of thoughtfully deep analysis.

All Other Ground…Sinking Sand

Still, I take issue with her “I quit” proclamation, the old organized religion is full of trouble argument. Anne says that she is not quitting Christ (a good thing), but she is quitting his Church because she can no longer be part of a “quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.” If by these adjectives she means what I have already attempted to say, then I understand, although I find her reasoning faulty.

She must understand—and why don’t people?—that the true Church of God will always oppose sin, plain and simple. The church will always struggle within itself with the questions of society and come up with responses not to please but to say, This is how best we see God answering this. That will always be a clear and firm ‘No’ to any (new) social immorality and what has already been shunned by scripture. Religion with changing convictions is not worth keeping.

Why do people lose their faith in God when they see ministers fall and Christian institutions being less than reputable? Peter walked on the water with Jesus until he took his eyes off Christ. This is what happens when our faith isn’t grounded in the person of Christ despite the imperfections of his Church.

I believe Anne Rice loves Christ and loves what his Church represents and is existentially, not only in America, but also around the world. As usual, however, error often comes with an overcorrection to abuse. Is she now siding with culture against the church she loves? (Yes, you hear me correctly. You cannot love Christ and think yourself divorced from his Church. To be so is to be at odds with your faith and maybe even outside of it.

There is no way to read the scriptures and not find Christ represented as the “head of the body” [Eph. 1:22-23] and the groom of “the bride” [Rev. 21:2-6].) And why is it that people think Christ would be any more lenient against sin than his Church has been in holding the guard? Surely there would be no Church—it would have died in the first century. Ms. Rice cannot jump ship because Christ is aboard the ship and all else is chaos.

Stay in the Fight!

This reminds me of desert monasticism that arose in early Christian history. Many fled into the deserts to flee persecution and to live out their Christian faith distanced from the immorality that abounded in the cities. It led to spiritual revival and some of the saintliest personages and literature in all Christian history.

Yet that approach to living the Christian life is not one to be quickly emulated. Christians have to live in this world just like anyone else, and we will have to deal with very un-Christian institutions and situations. Jesus’s high priestly prayer to his Father says it all: “I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one” (John 17:14-15).

We should count Christ’s prayer a promise of safety to us in our lives and evangelical mission since we trust that his Father heard him. We will get it right some of the time and not so right at other times. Still, we will press on in Jesus’s name and for his honor. But we are not to get fed up amongst ourselves despite inconsistent faith and differing viewpoints and abandon it all. Peter expresses this sentiment when he remembers the glory of Christ’s transfiguration (2 Peter 1:12-19).

There is also no place for Me-and-Jesus spirituality. In Christ there is no looking back to sin or looking away for isolation. Anne Rice should not flee any error she notices but rather engage it with a call to repentance.

I think this is the higher message to be dealt with, as opposed to other social issues she may actually be supporting. Christians should see Ms. Rice’s situation for what it is: a rebuke where we may be insensitive and less than Christ-like in our attitudes to some. But she need not now lead the army of devils that hate the Church and all religion but work to open dialogue and to transform.

On Religion

June 26, 2013June 9, 2014 Michael1 Comment

Flickr cathedral spire — Mike Smail, Flickr

Do not be hastily critical of Christianity as religion. It is the door by which we enter faith. We are to blame, however, should we not walk along far enough and discover relationship, for it is the heart of the house.

What do you seek? If religion is what you seek, then religion is all you will get. But if it is Christ whom you desire, then he will surely be found by you—and your religion will lead you to him. It is not possible to enjoy relationship apart from religion. Godly practice guarantees fellowship and fellowship sanctifies the practice.

Communication Barriers Between Christians and Gays

June 22, 2013August 15, 2014 Michael2 Comments

Many communication barriers exist between some Christians and some gay people—not all. It is unfortunate and has cost both sides wholesome relationship and understanding of one another and their ideas. But I find this odd—to speak of the two as though they are perfectly incompatible and as if homosexual and Christian do not describe the experience of some persons, especially when the apostle Paul says, “And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9, 11).

We all understand how consuming a topic this has become. We have watched the news stories, heard from hardliners in both camps, drawn our opinions on the politics, and questioned our own prejudices when things have turned tragic. Particularly, there is tension from a moral and religious aspect and perhaps it is understandable.

In a nation that has been overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in its outlook, orthodox definitions and interpretations of love and theology are being challenged. Many Christians are affronted that their scriptures should be reinterpreted to allow for a position they say God condemns; many gays love God or want the embrace of the church but feel scolded and are in search of acceptance.

♦♦♦♦

I believe there are two major communication barriers that exist between many Christian and openly gay people we all know—a real reason why dialogue turns into emotional blowouts or frustration that leads to irreparable relations. I will explain them succinctly and without the charged nuances that often sideline discussion.

First, Christians inflame gays when they claim that their sexuality is a choice. Many Christians do not care to believe that same-sex attraction is anything other than a person’s choice; some have never given deep thought to it. There is no scientific evidence validating same-sex attraction, but there is no proof to the contrary either, biblical or otherwise.

Yet I wonder if Christians listen with their hearts. Personally, I do not believe that men and women who express knowing their difference from an early age and who grew up altering part of their identity by suppressing their feelings would choose a life that is oftentimes unavoidable of much personal pain and scorn. It is not fair to dismiss their feelings by claiming they are not real. Such is a deep insult to gays, many who believe God made them as they are. Christians strip gays of part of their personhood when they say their feelings are chosen.

This is not merely about what Christian theology teaches, which is not necessarily wrong. This is about human emotions and not knowing why they work differently for two men or two women that love each other. Furthermore, what if a gene is discovered that indeed proves same-sex attraction in some? There are only 10,000 gene functions currently known of the 80,000 genes in the human body.

The conversation about choice from a Christian standpoint is a valid one but not pertaining to homosexual feelings. There are things all people refrain from doing simply because it is not the proper thing to do, whether there is inclination or not. For instance, there are many heterosexuals, single and married, that, against their better judgment, would freely bed other persons but do not for several reasons. A Christian might steer clear of questionable behavior solely to avoid offending God. Although feelings and temptations may flare, however, it is the behavior that ultimately condemns.

So we would have to be just as reasonable with homosexual individuals and ask whether people with same-sex attraction can also be chaste and refrain from what Christians believe God deems immoral sexual behavior, just like heterosexual fornication and adultery, especially when it concerns God-fearing Christians that may struggle with homosexuality. This is the real conversation about choice.

This is important because many people denigrate homosexuals and feel they are people fully given to philandering and are pedophiles and should be kept away from children, which is simply not true. This is a stigma. Homosexual people are not monsters. We must learn that mere same-sex attraction, although it stems from spiritual depravity, like all sin, is not condemning. Many people may experience these feelings to some degree, but just as many people, indeed more, feel inclined to do drugs and steal and do violence. All of these feelings are bad and must be curbed; however, it is the act that convicts.

Christians must avoid risking becoming graceless and unloving for lack of real dialogue and opening their hearts to hear another’s.

♦♦♦♦

Second, gays inflame Christians when they attempt to reinterpret the scriptures to be more condoning of their feelings or behavior. Christians have 2,000 years of developed teaching and doctrine—and more counting Hebrew tradition—that have already been challenged in numerous ways, from lifestyle to heresy. But there has generally been consensus about God and what godliness entails based on what he has revealed to his people through his prophets and preachers and, ultimately, through his words, now contained in the Bible.

When some gays and scholars opt for new or amended revelation from God on the matter or say that the scriptures, as have always been understood, are inconclusive or not meaning what they have always meant or attempt skewed and lackluster study and build arguments by pitting scripture against scripture—this is high offense to Christians, often seen as coming from those who have determined to live as they desire and twist God’s arm to bless it.

Specifically, the insult to Christians is the challenge made to a stalwart tradition and the sacred scriptures, even the “makeover” of a holy God.

Christians would argue that if gays wish to be part of the theological and scriptural discussion—and their insight is fully welcome—it should be inclusive of a grapple with biblical, historical, and cultural norms, customs, and definitions and not accomplished with alterations and appendages.

Gays must understand that they don’t get to glibly pass over two millennia of solid tradition and teaching.