Preach it Brother Bono!

The problem with Utah politics

Multiple times the people of the Valley said no to a public funded soccer stadium. But big business wanted it, so the legislators ignore the people and give it.

Few in Utah want public money to go to private Ed. But an out of state lobby group throws around some money, and bingo, here it is.

I have been meaning to write a blog on the corruption of Utah's mono-powered legislature, but this editorialist from the Deseret News did a much nicer job than I could.

Click to read:
Must Citizens Fight their Government?

I have a confession

I would have, at one time in my Christianity, written a blog exactly like this one (Click here). I relished reading scripture about judgement (everyone else's, not mine). Mine was a theology of hell, fire, and brimestone. Sure, I loved people - I loved them with the TRUTH! Scripture in my hands was a weapon and you would have to be damn sure of your orthodoxy and righteousness in my prescense.

Thank God chinks began to develop in that armor over time (it pains me to think of the damage I caused back then). I remember one of the first chinks. A friend of mine popped in a Leslie Phillips cassette and she sang out, "It's your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord".

"What a stupid thing to say", I retorted. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Her sin being revealed will cause her to repent".

Later that night I read in the Psalms - It is your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord. I sat there stunned... what a wimpy thing... this sounded almost liberal. I knew then that God was kind enough to reveal to me something about his nature that I was choosing to overlook.

Looking back now, I realize that it was my own insecurities that were driving my hard-nosed theology. Being right and using God as your trump card gives one a great sense of power and satisfaction. Thank God that, as Malcom X said near the end of his life, "I am more flexible now".

I responded to the blog mentioned above and I will paste it here. It is interesting that, as I re-read it, I still hear my own sense of "I am right, you are wrong". I wonder if that need will ever be fully exercised from me?

I have to disagree with the over arching view of the author's point.

Paul's main rivalries in the faith were those Christian's who wanted to maintain the law and thereby make of the gentiles a second class citizen in the faith (or better yet, not a citizen at all). He was encouraging the Romans to avoid those who would say "my Christianity is better than yours and you need to be like me". The ones he was telling them to avoid were, in effect, trying to place a monopoly on the Grace of God, so that others would have to come to them in order to be judged qualified. Paul encouraged the new converts to avoid them because, like the Pharisees, they were right and everyone else was wrong, and it is impossible to hold a conversation with someone caught up in that kind of thinking.

I am sure there was some arrogance driving the Pharisees and later the Christians who wanted to be on the top tier, but mostly I see it as fear. They say most bullies do what they do out of a need for control. The Pharisees ran around pointing out where everyone else was wrong. Like bullies, it gave them a sense of security to put others beneath them. Paul later dealt with the Christian version of the Pharisees (they never really go away).

The thing is, the Pharisees were not wrong. In a technical sense, they were not wrong to say many of the things they said (even against Jesus). However, they had a horrible attitude about people. I am sure they would have said, "Hey, we are just showing we love them by telling them the truth!" Jesus didn't buy that line then, and I think we should reject it now.

Jesus probably would be judged a heretic by many of today's Christian churches. He would probably fail at many points of orthodoxy, and he would enjoy the company of people who annoy most Christians.

We would be like the Pharisees and Zealots of his time. We would want him to fight against the immoral structures, speak out against an ungodly society, help us separate wheat from the chaff. Join us in the battle of us vs. them. Stand for truth!

He would look at us with loving bewilderment. "Umm... I was just gonna head down to the park to spend the day talking to the homeless, but I would love to have you join me".

We would shake our heads as he walked away. Slowly, we would convince ourselves that it was not him but a false Christ that was trying to deceive us. Having ferreted out another false Christ, we would walk away a little deeper in our pride than we had been formerly.

I don't think Paul was telling us to avoid people who did not believe rightly about doctrinal points such as the trinity. Remember Paul's core point was "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.” The people Paul was telling them to avoid were those Christians who thought they were better than everyone else (they did not see themselves as foremost among sinners... they were sure they had it together). He wanted us to avoid those who felt we had to measure up to their standard in order to be acceptable to Christ.

Jesus dealt with these people, Paul dealt with these people, and we are still dealing with them today.

Is God's goodness objective or subjective?

I have been wrestling with a thought that I want to throw out there. When I say wrestle, I mean I have not come to any conclusion yet… it is just an idea I want to state, but I don’t want to defend it.

I am wondering about the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac. I am questioning whether the goodness of God is objective or subjective. Is good such because God has declared it so, or is goodness a standard outside of God to which he aligns himself?

I have heard from the lips of many believers in Christ this year various forms of this phrase - “If God declares it… then it is right”.

The immediate danger I see in such a paradigm, is that one could begin to justify a myriad of questionable and evil acts under the phrase “God told me to do it” or “It is His will”.

Beyond that, I wonder what it says about the nature of good. If God tells you to do something that would normally be defined as evil, does that make it good? Do normally abhorrent acts become acceptable if God does them?

I think many believers (me included) would be uncomfortable stating that there is an objective standard of goodness, because that would imply that goodness is something that God must, or chooses to, submit to. Implying such a thing would seem to lessen God ... make him penultimate.

However, if I were to take the subjective notion of goodness (dependent on God calling it good) to its logical end, I would have to ask the question, “If God told you to rape someone, would it being his command sanctify the act?” If your answer is no, because God would never tell anyone to do such a thing – then you are stating that there is a standard outside of God by which he judges right and wrong. The act is inherently evil and God could not deny his goodness.

If you are determined that it is God who sets the standard of goodness, then one would have to be willing that good and evil are ambivalent terms and are set by God based on the fact that he has all the power.

This makes me wonder if Abraham gave the best response to God regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Here is the quick version: God tells his servant Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Abraham proceeds to do this without question. At the final moment, the Lord stays Abraham’s hand and says, “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

I tend to feel that most word choices in scripture are not accidental. So my eyes really gravitate to “Now I know that you fear God”. I know God considered Abraham’s actions righteous, but could he have been hoping for a better response than fear?

I read a book to my class every year that involves the biggest and toughest kid in school gaining some insight. He realizes at the end of the book that all of his peers praised him and did what he said because they feared him. Based on this new knowledge, he realized that he didn’t have any real friends.

Most people would not do an immoral thing if instructed to. Stick a gun to their head and they might reconsider. Put their loved one in danger, and they might do almost anything.

Fear can be a powerful motivator. At an outward glance, it might resemble obedience.

I can’t look in to Abraham’s heart, but it makes me wonder if God was satisfied with the events of that day. Abraham seemed ready to do an immoral thing – a very immoral thing – because he feared God.

Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But it is only the beginning. Perhaps only a first step.

I wonder if God was disappointed that the relationship he had with Abraham had not moved on to something a little deeper.

Just thinking out loud……

K2 The Church gets major TV coverage!

K2 the Church in Salt Lake City got three stories on TV this week. Nice!

#1 here

#2 here

#3 here

NFL Clotheslines Churches

Many church Superbowl parties were shutdown by the NFL just prior to game day. Claiming copyright violations, cease and desist orders were sent out. Most churches never got an official warning, but did not want to cause trouble so they shut down.

I am wondering who sat in the meeting where it was decided to move on this. Aside from being unnecessarily rude, I would think it would not be helpful to their advertisers. Although a minority, I am sure there are many people around the country who have no compelling interest in watching the Superbowl. However, if it is a happening within a community, they will watch. Why would the NFL want to remove a community from watching the Superbowl?

I am not a sports watcher, but when my church has done Superbowl parties I have gone and had a great time. What does the NFL gain by making sure these parties do not happen?

Evangelical Exaggeration

Every month I get a letter from Focus on the Family. I rarely open it. The alarmist statement on the outer envelope usually prompts me to aim it straight for the garbage. How I got on their list I am not sure. Each month there is some hype about Christianity being under attack by gays / liberals / public schools ... etc. Each month there is a new boogie man.

I got an email from a friend once. She had been informed about how the "Public Schools" were up to something evil, and she wanted to know if she should be concerned. I don't remember the issue, but here is my reply:

___

Heh, don't worry; everything is going to be OK. I remember when I started teaching 15 years ago, the big panic in the Christian world was the book - "Heather has two mommies" ( a book about a child living in a lesbian family). Supposedly every classroom was going to be given copies of this book, there would be classes about it, your kid's teacher would make them read it, and soon all children everywhere would be gay and the world would blow up. 15 years and 3 schools later and I have yet to even see a copy.

The reality is that these "ministries" rake in big cash every time they run a report saying "Homosexuals and Atheists are beating children while the public schools cheer them on!" A friend of mine who used to work for the 700 Club told me about their "7 Days Ablaze" fund raising drive. He said they did more gay and atheist tie-ins to the public schools that week than any other time because it generated tons of phone calls. Around the office he said they called the drive, "Seven Gays Ablaze".

School systems are primarily community driven. Rochester Schools were pretty much what they were because the community wanted them that way. The same is true out here in Salt Lake. I think the question should always be, "Am I happy with what is happening at my child's school?" If one scourers the schools of the country, it would be easy to find oddball things to report about.

I want accurate information about schools as much as anyone, but I am suspicious of groups who intake a greater income of money on bad news rather than good. Plus, I think the time has come for our Christian communities to start loving goodness more than they hate evil.

Plunk, Plunk. My two cents.

____

It has always been in the back of my mind to write a blog about the use of exaggeration and overstatement in the Evangelical community. So many ministries preying on fear. However, this author beat me to it and wrote about it much better than I ever could. Click HERE for a great read.

Tithe? Why?

Tithing is a hard thing for churches to bring up. First, because people generally abhor discussing their personal finances and because the church has not always been able to keep its hands clean while handling money. As Winkey Pratney puts it "Most churches fail the test when it comes to being impressed with money". Pratney proposes that since God is not impressed by money, his children should not be either.

I believe tithing is an unbiblical topic that churches try to slide into our ethos because it is convenient. I don't say beneficial, because that would imply that there is a nefarious motive and, except for televangelists, I don't think that is usually the case.

So what is a tithe and where do we get the idea? Simply put, it is the notion that 10% of one's income should be given to God in some way. Some churches teach that it is a general number to be given charitably overall, while others teach it should be given directly to the church (anything you give outside of the church should be a gift above your tithe).

In the old testament, tithing was the way given for supporting the priesthood, the holy places, and the poor. At the time, there was no king so the priesthood served many of the functions of a government. Most notably, it was their responsibility to care for the poor (Churches have mostly abdicated this responsibility to the government... yet they still want a full tithe). In addition, tithe usually didn't refer to income... it was crops (to feed the priests and the poor). A person didn't sell his crops and then tithe the money, he just gave a portion of his crops. So is a person contributing his talents still tithing?

How does tithing apply to the New Testament? I would submit that it does not.

First, if God wanted tithing to be established in our churches, the apostles would have taught it. However, for all of their instruction, Paul never brings it up, Peter never brings it up, James never brings it up, John never brings it up.

Second, tithing was to maintain the priesthood. Who is the priesthood now? Peter says that all believers are now priests before God with One mediator. The veil has been torn in two and the temple now resides within the believer. There is no longer a specific priesthood to maintain.

So what is the pattern for giving for the church? There are principals given, but I think the apostles were intentional when they gave no number.

The ideal was set in the beginning of Acts where no believer considered anything his own and gave to everyone as he had need.

Whew! Anybody ready to rev up to that one?

However, you do not find Paul repeating that ideal as he established churches. What he did indicate was that:

• There should be financial equity between the churches. If one church had plenty, they were to share with any churches in want.
• People who preached the Gospel had a right to earn a living from the Gospel. Paul at times chose not to use this right, and supplemented his living by working. However, people who received a spiritual blessing had a duty to provide a material blessing to the giver.
• Generosity had spiritual benefits. Sparing sowers would reap sparingly, generous sowers would reap generously.
• Every believer would choose their own amount of giving.

It is that last point that I believe tithing runs contrary to. Paul said, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver". How can a person decide in their heart to give a certain amount if their church has already proclaimed that amount? If tithing were to be for the church, then Paul is contradicting this. In addition, proclaiming that people are obligated to give 10% is defacto compulsion. You cannot dictate an Old Testament tithe without running contrary to this scripture.

So why do churches encourage their members to tithe?

• 10 percent is easy to remember
• 10 percent is easy to calculate
• 10 percent is a great number to push folks toward... it would make for a fairly large church budget. (In fact, few churches contribute anywhere near 10 percent. Most move along at 1 to 3)
• If you don't put a big goal out there, church giving will shrink.

So what is the alternative? If churches want to ask for 10 percent because that is truly what they feel they need, fine... just don't try to bring God in as muscle. Remember "decide in your heart...not under compulsion".
Second, I have always wondered why churches don't spend a Sunday as a body looking at the budget. What if the finance guy got up and said, "Here is what we spend on this, this, and this. Here is what it takes to presently run our church. If we want to add this or this, we would need to increase our budget. So, based on that, we would need everyone making roughly this much to contribute this amount to maintain and this amount to grow." Give everyone an idea of how much they would need to contribute "in keeping with his income" to maintain and/or to grow.

Paul said to contribute "in keeping with [your] income". He wanted people behaving responsibly. Should a single person living alone making 50 thousand and a family of 6 making 50 thousand be held to the same standard of monetary giving? Where does Paul state that any church is given authority to hold anyone to a financial standard?

In conclusion, I believe even a cursory study of scripture works against the modern church view of a tithe. I know tithing is mentioned in scipture, but I feel modern churches pull it out of its context. There are dozens of Old Testament vows, behaviors, and callings that would be out of place to put on a Christian. Why do we grab tithing while stepping over so many others? Our overall unquestioning acceptance points to a bigger issue in our churches... scriptural illiteracy.

Forget poor kids, sponsor a rich child!

My Pastor did a really worthy message on our slavery to money and status. To hear it, click here.

One of the ways to break the cycle of endless affluence is to make sure we do not pass our dysfunction on to our children. In that spirit, click here to sponsor a rich child.

I support Bart and Tony Campolo!

I think I need to separate myself, once and for all, from the term Evangelical. Not because it is so bad, but because it mis- communicates as much as it communicates. Anyone from Tony Campolo to Jerry Falwell could be called an Evangelical. It is too broad.

To be honest, it has also become too negative. Evangelicals are often associated with being obnoxious and unkind. As I look at the attitudes and rhetoric of many Evangelicals, I am struck by how much they resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.

For example, Tony Campolo recently had kind and hopeful things to say regarding prostitutes and homosexuals. This made a lot of Evangelicals uncomfortable. Here is a response from one of the naysayers:

"What does [Campolo] mean by referring to prostitutes and homosexuals as "precious children of God"? The bible calls people who love worldliness and reject Him his enemies (John 3:18, James 4:4), they are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Also it says in Psalm 7:11 that God is angry with the wicked everyday. The bible also says that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Eph. 5:3-6). These are hard truths found in scripture. I find no pleasure in this. I guess I just do not understand what Campolo means here."

The thing is, technically, the Pharisees were not wrong; but they had a horrible attitude about people. Jesus was willing to put the rules on hold for the sake of people. The gentleman I quoted above would have been the first to pick up a stone and throw it at the prostitute. Did Jesus consider prostitutes his enemy? Did prostitutes consider Jesus an enemy?

I have been following the reactions of Evangelicals about Bart Campolo's article "The Limits of God's Grace". I loved the article, but there are MANY who hate it. They call Bart a heretic, an idolater... and then they get nasty. Personally, Bart has become my spiritual hero. (Click here for a great message by him)

The reaction of much of the Evangelical community toward Bart and his father Tony, is similar to how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. The Campolos befriend the untouchables and sinners... just like Jesus. They put people over dogma... just like Jesus. They irritate the religious community... just like Jesus!

Heh! Keep it up boys! You Rock!