Thinking-Christianly

How does the growth of the welfare state impact churches? In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, W. Bradford Wilcox suggests that as the government socializes services for its populace, people become less engaged in religious activities. (See “God Will Provide—Unless the Government Gets There First,” WSJ 3/13/09, p. W11.) Among other things, Mr. Wilcox notes that charitable spending by churches declined during the new deal and that there is an inverse relationship between welfare spending and religious observance.

It seems logical that when many of the social functions provided by the church are available by the state, people turn to the state. If their tax dollars are already going to food programs, job training, and counseling services, why not tap into the state rather than the church? Many apparently do so, and with some good results.

But there are several problems with state-based services. One is inefficiency. Since they do not compete in the marketplace they tend to improve simply by growing in size and complexity. I have some friends who are wrestling with a mistake by the Social Security Administration. It has been months and no resolution of the problem yet. A second problem is that state programs are designed around a materialistic world view. They treat the individual as a human machine. Like churches, they provide tangible resources like food, shelter, and utilities. But unlike the church, they attempt to ‘fix’ by relying on tools like drugs, behavior modification, and various forms of mechanistic therapy. Their conversations about meaning and purpose are shallow, and they seldom venture in to the spiritual component of humanity.

Yet this distinction offers a great opportunity for Christ’s church. Those who follow Christ have the opportunity to address the non-material issues of life as they offer help in practical ways. In Matthew 9:2 Jesus was confronted with a paralytic. His first words to the man focused on his need for forgiveness. Though Christ subsequently healed him physically, that was the lesser miracle. The paralytic’s body would eventually fail him completely. But the benefits of God’s pardon endure.

Not only do we have the opportunity to speak to the spiritual, we have the opportunity to care in a personal way. We may not be able to match the massive appropriations of our government, but as ambassadors of Christ we have the privilege of reflecting his justice, love, and kindness in the process of touching those around us. Though the growth of the welfare state may seem to threaten the impact of the church in a statistical sense, it need not diminish our influence in the culture.

What would you think about a biography of a national leader who guided a country for over two decades that had less detail than a baseball card of Babe Ruth? How about an account that summarized 23 years of leadership in 42 words?

Such an account would never make it to any best seller list I can think of. It would also leave a mountain of unanswered questions. We would not understand his background, his family life, his struggles, his motivation, or his style of leadership. We might wonder about how he influenced domestic spending, international relations, and the culture in general.

In Judges 10:1-2, we have such an account of a man named Tola. We’re told the name of his father and grandfather. We’re told where he lived. The Bible records how long he ruled and the place of his burial. That’s it. He does not receive the attention paid to other men of the period like Samson or Gideon. The record is exceedingly brief.

So why is it in the Bible at all? I would not presume to know all of God’s motives, but this account does remind me that God works in quiet ways in the lives of ordinary people. He never forgets the efforts that you or I make to follow him and honor him with our lives. He is not too busy with the prominent people of the world to pay attention to any of our efforts, strivings, struggles, and victories. The people of the Bible who seem like footnotes in the narratives remind us of God’s delight in all who seek to partner with him in life and participate in his plan. The brief account of Tola reminds us that you and I are significant to him.

A nearby institution of higher learning has begun to promote itself as a YOU-niversity. The implication is that the student is king, and that the programs are designed to satisfy the individual’s need for recognition, affirmation, value, and significance. The implication is that the individual student is at the core of the program. In reality, modern public universities are complex bureaucracies shaped by government regulations, traditions, administrative policies, state governments, and the proclivities of tenured faculty.

Despite the realities underlying university life, the advertising appeals to the modern mind because it holds out the prospect of recognition for the individual. The irony of today’s world is that as the self moves to the center of our thinking, it becomes weaker, not stronger. The egocentrism that characterizes our post-modern culture breeds people who are less secure at the center, less stable inside, less capable of heroic acts.

Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his 1life shall lose it; but whoever loses his 1life for My sake shall find it.” (See Matthew 16:25.) Christ understood that the feeding, preservation, and fixation on the self actually diminishes who we are. It dooms us to bow down to the tiny god who bears our name and dwells within our frame. This tendency toward self-absorption attempts to define the entire world around us in relationship to ourselves. But we are not big enough to be the integrating point for all of life. Reality is so massive and glorious that it cannot be defined by its relationship to any one of us.

The modern cult of the self also has no room for the transcendent. Though some try to shape him after their own likeness, he does not orbit the planet we try to create from our personal tastes, values, and preferences. Christ rightly understood the poverty of self-absorption. It shrinks our world to something petty and arbitrary. It detaches us from the grand plan of our creator and a significance that is far beyond ourselves. It abandons us to small thoughts and inconsequential achievements.

Jesus offers significance—not in the perfection of the self, but in the abandonment of ourselves to his grand purposes.  

Skeptics like to pretend that the historical accounts of the New Testament gospels are collections of ancient myths and legends that were compiled and attributed to Jesus. Bill Mahr used this approach in a segment of his film “Religulous.”

Mahr claimed that the accounts about Jesus were a rehash of a much older story involving a deity known as Mithras. He contends that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher, had 12 companions, promised immortality to his followers, was crucified, rose after 3 days, called himself “the way, the truth, and the life,” and was worshipped on Sunday. If these claims are true, it makes Jesus look like a cheap knockoff.

So what do we know about Mithras? Does the evidence match Mahr’s claims?

 The Mithras legend states he was born out of solid rock, not from a virgin. The Bible does not give a birth date for Jesus. Both the Roman Catholic church and the Roman Mithras mythology borrowed this celebration date from the winter solstice more than a century after the New Testament was written. There is no evidence that Mithras had 12 companions.  A post-Christian mural shows him with 12 signs of the zodiac. There is no evidence that Mithras offered his followers immortality. Some may have believed he did, but that is a common claim for all supposed deities. Mithras killed a bull. There is no documentation about him being crucified. There is no evidence in the Mithras tradition that he died or rose from the dead. Tertullian mentions Mithras believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but this is well after the time of the New Testament, suggesting a borrowing from Christianity.  There is no evidence that Mithras claimed to be “the way, the truth, and the life.”

The claim that the gospel records reflect earlier mythology has no basis in fact. It’s like asserting that the major events of Abraham Lincoln’s life are fictitious on the grounds that George Washington drafted the emancipation proclamation, wrote the Gettysburg Address, and grew up in Illinois. It’s like portraying Lincoln as an inconsequential President whose followers embellished the account of his presidency to include those incidents. The only problem with such a claim is that the historical facts disagree. When Bill Mahr and others regurgitate unsubstantiated claims to discredit the New Testament accounts, they ignore the logic and reason that they claim to embrace as central to the thinking process. A few hours of research in a library would have shown them the historical facts. When the agenda hijacks the facts, the results are anything but impressive.

When you’re in the middle of a massive challenge, the idea of living in a world with little stress becomes very appealing. We daydream about a place of tranquility where everything goes our way, expectations are manageable, and where we have time to breathe and refresh ourselves. We accept some stress as natural, but recoil at the hailstorms of difficulty that can come our way.

Why does God allow challenges into our lives? What is his strategy for such things? There is no single answer that can apply to all challenges any of us face. But Judges 3:1-4 records one incident where God placed a daunting task in front of his people and tells us why he did it.

Consider the historical context. Joshua and his generation have died. Yet there is much left to do. A large percentage of the tribal lands are not fully occupied. Territory within the promised land is still under the control of groups like the Canaanites, Amorites, and others. The emerging generation after Joshua faces the task of driving the inhabitants out one valley or one city at a time. In Judges 3:2 the Bible says of God, “he did this…to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience.” God could have removed the challenge altogether, as he did in the destruction of the Egyptian army in the time of the Exodus. But he allowed the challenge to teach his people how to fight. The land was there for the taking, but it would require active effort and real learning.

In verse 4 we see a related objective. God states this situation was crafted, “to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the Lord’s commands.” He used the challenge to invite them to trust in him. It’s a way to recognize their inability so that they realize their need for God and his willingness to guide and empower them as they trust in him. Had God destroyed the occupants of the promised land through a plague or driven them out through a supernatural act (See 2 Kings 7:6), the Israelites would not have learned how to trust him when faced with adversity.

You and I may not need to learn how to engage in military warfare. But God may allow challenges into our lives so that we can learn how to face adversity, difficulties, and stressful situations with a spirit of adventure and optimism. He wants us to avoid the passivity of our time that would turn us into victims and to be aggressive in the way we live our lives. He wants us to trust in his promises and embrace the hope that is ours because of his character and his faithfulness.

The state of Minnesota is debating the reversal of a policy prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sunday. One of the most interesting dimensions of the debate is the flawed reasoning that comes from this kind of discussion. Issues that have no relevance to the current law or its potential replacement are presented as arguments in favor of a change. Here are some examples:

One argument is that the law should be changed because Minnesota is only one of 15 states with this kind of law. That is not a logical argument. The popularity of a principle does not determine its value. It only tells us whether or not the idea is currently embraced by a large or small number of people. Most of the leaders in Islamic countries that practice Shaira law do not extend voting to women. Their belief is popular—especially with Islamic men—but that does not mean it should be universally endorsed.

A second flawed argument is that the law should be changed because the statute is old. This follows the modern trend to dismiss anything that isn’t fresh and new as obsolete and useless. But argument on the basis of age is not a legitimate argument. Some great laws—like the Bill of Rights—are quite old by modern standards. Prohibitions against murder, theft, and incest go back 3,000 years and more. The date when a law was enacted is irrelevant to its value.

A third flawed argument is the statement, “We can’t legislate morality.” The vast majority of rules and regulations at the city, state, and national level are attempts to do just that. Smoking restrictions are enacted to prevent damage to others. That’s a moral issue. Laws against false advertising and false financial dealings on the part of businesses flow from property rights that have moral underpinnings. Fines for cheating on taxes are grounded in a sense of fairness where people in similar situations are expected to pay a similar proportion of their income to the government. Those principles of equal responsibility are inherently moral. We legislate morality all the time. (The accurate form of this statement is that we cannot enforce morality.)  People do choose to violate preferred standards, regardless of the consequences, but that does not require an organized society to replace law with anarchy.

Is it true we don’t have enough access to this product? I’m not aware of situations where people who desire alcohol are waiting in long lines somewhere trying to obtain it.

Is it in society’s best interest to increase the consumption of this national drug of choice? I’ve spoken with police officers who know first-hand the damage that alcohol abuse causes in society. As consumption has risen, so have statistics about domestic abuse, crime, highway fatalities, etc. I’m saddened that some believe it should be even more accessible. Instead of using flawed logic, perhaps the discussion should factor in the impact on the culture.

In some circles Christianity is dismissed. Modern day skeptics cast the spotlight on those who carried the label of “Christian,” but whose behavior mocked the moral and spiritual principles Jesus taught. Every religion, cause, or movement has its unfortunate share of fools and scoundrels. But they are not the driving force behind biblical Christianity through the centuries. Unlike other world major religions, Christianity led the way in the education of the third world, health care reforms, and the elevation and care of women and children.

Sometimes Christian history is simply ignored. The role of people who sincerely tried to follow the teachings of Christ as best as they could is overlooked. Silence rules.

Unfortunately, sometimes silence is replaced with distortion. A recent article posted by Fox News on 3/7/09 and written by Lauren Green gives evidence that textbooks can include outright falsehoods. In “Authors Warn That Many Textbooks Distort Religion,” Green cites one teacher guide that declares the following statement to be true: “Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus.” This is a huge confusion of categories. Even if the textbook author confused modern Palestine with ancient Philistia, the statement is still historically wrong. Jesus did not frequent that part of ancient Israel. Jesus’ homeland and life was centered in Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem.

Is such a goof an honest mistake? Perhaps. Sloppy research is not uncommon in the publishing industry today. But it may also reflect a cavalier attitude toward Christianity that perhaps reflects either ignorance or indifference. (Such a statement would likely have triggered a significant protest if it contradicted the Qur’an.)

Those who follow Christianity should not be too proud to acknowledge the shortcomings of those who professed to be followers of Christ but who misapplied or ignored his teaching. But at the same time we need to know our history so that we can dialogue with the culture and demonstrate that Christianity is not a vague philosophy that can be stretched to fit the times. It is grounded in the historic interaction with the one true God and the human race as revealed in Scripture and most clearly in the person of Christ. This was at the core of the historical record of the apostles. John wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” (See 1 John 1:1.) The more we know about Christian history—biblical and otherwise—the better our ability to bring clarity into our interaction with the culture.

Sometimes aggressors destroy nations. Their armies cross borders, crush opposition, and destroy everything in their path. At other times nations simply crumble from within. They appear strong, but implode under the pressure of expected or unexpected forces.

What does it take to unravel a culture? What forces are deadly to a healthy nation? Many would answer that question by pointing to factors like inflation, social injustice, mismanagement of natural resources, poverty, corruption, poor leadership, lack of education, or an absence of technology. Such factors no doubt play a role in the decline of a nation, but analysts often overlook another reality that was critical in the demise of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament.

Unlike neighboring countries, Israel enjoyed a covenant relationship with God. But with the promise of divine blessing came responsibility. The book of Lamentations reflects grief over the destruction of Israel. Lamentations 2:14 links the collapse of the nation to something as simple as embracing a lie. It states, “The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading.”

From God’s perspective, self-destructiveness begins with a lie. The lie embraces values and ideas that do not correspond with the world God made. It conceals sin and invites the judgment of God. The lie reinforces what we want to hear, not what we need to hear. And so the corrective measures are not taken. The moral debt to God grows (like our national debt). And there comes a time when God demands payment on a people.

The response from the spiritual community in Jeremiah’s day was largely silence or distortion. They lacked the courage to deal with the moral reality of sin. They masked the cancer instead of exposing it. They declared part of the truth and refused to speak of all that God had said. The fault was only partly that of the society. A large share of the blame lay with those who were custodians of the truth.

Declaring the moral truth to a nation is the responsibility of those who claim to know the God of the Bible. Whether it is welcome or unpalatable, it is the means of reaching into the lives of a populace and bringing them to a place where they can be reconciled to God and receive his blessing. The church in our day faces the same divine expectations. We must devote ourselves to understanding God’s full revelation and then tirelessly, winsomely, and graciously sharing that redemptive message to our world. Failure to do so makes us culpable in the internal national decay that will otherwise follow.

Sometimes we find it difficult to talk to people. They can be preoccupied with themselves and not seem to hear a thing we say. They can be like some teenagers who like to pretend they can’t hear us. They can be people of power, eloquence, or prominence, who are difficult to talk to because of their status. Sometimes the barrier is our insecurities. Sometimes it is their inability or unwillingness to listen. Sometimes circumstances get in the way-like noise or a poor cell phone connection. Try as we may, there are many times a day this reality we call communication breaks down.

  The task can seem even more complicated when you and I try to talk to God. Talking to God is in some ways a strange thing to do. He knows not only what we will say, but what we think. Psalm 139:2 notes, “You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.” He more compassionate than the best therapist. Psalm 103:8 assures us, “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.” Yet at the same time he is holy beyond measure and to be feared. Psalm 76:7 adds, “You alone are to be feared. Who can stand before you when you are angry?”

Eastern religions, being monistic, have no one to talk to. Since everything is part of God we wind up talking to ourselves. Islam points to a God who is never called “Father,” who can be as indifferent as he chooses toward us. To the secular mind, a conversation with God makes as much sense as one to the tooth fairy.

 Biblical Christianity insists that authentic communication with God is possible. Though he is omniscient and holy, the God of the Bible cares and enters into true dialogue with us. That is great news. But it doesn’t mean that this kind of communication cannot be awkward at times. What do you say to someone who knows you so well? How can your words be meaningful? What does God think when you say something that sounds stupid to you, when you find yourself muttering more than talking, when you can’t seem to find words that make much sense? 

Paul apparently knew such moments. But he took comfort in the fact that God through the Holy Spirit enables us when our prayer seems repetitious, arcane, or nebulous. In Romans 8:26 Paul writes, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” Though the task of communicating with an infinite personal God can seem impossible at times, God empowers us when we need his aid. I suspect it’s because he does not want us to give up, but to persist in bringing our hearts and minds before him as his children.

Critics of Christianity rarely celebrate the legacies of prominent Christians. It is easier to focus on individuals with glaring weaknesses who would be an embarrassment to any family, and especially the family of faith.

I was impressed by an editorial by Jack Zaleski the 1/1/2009 edition of the Fargo Forum.  He wrote about stumbling across ‘Amazing Grace’ while channel surfing. Though skeptical at first, Jack described the film as ‘a compelling story brilliantly told.’ The main character in the movie is William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery pioneer who spearheaded the end of slavery in the British Empire.

Wilberforce, a devout Christian, did not fight this lengthy battle in order to win acclaim, but because it was the right thing to do. In his own day he was derided and mocked by many. His campaign was regarded as unworkable and economically destructive to the economy of the day. But Wilberforce would not yield. He found in scripture a dignity for all men that should not be denied by a system of slavery based on race. He risked his health and his political future to fight for the abolition of the slave trade.

Jack Zaleski’s remarks say something about the craft of the filmmaker and the performance of the actors. But behind those components there is a compelling story of an man whose faith led him to make a difference in his world.

Your life and mine may not be any more glamorous than Wilberforce’s was on any given day. But by focusing on the character of God, and reflecting His values in our daily lives, the cumulative effect of our obedience can make a significant impact on the world around us. And the consequences of that kind of behavior are difficult to ignore.