Christians are Wrong; Atheists are Right

    This week, in the span of twenty four hours, I received two invitations; one from an Atheist friend, and a second from a good Christian friend.  The atheist invitation was for International Blasphemy Rights Day (held on September 30^th of each year) which “is a day to promote the rights to freedom of belief and expression and stand up in a show of solidarity for the liberty to challenge reigning religious beliefs without fear of murder, litigation, or reprisal.”  The Christian invitation was to sign a petition to force Youtube to stop a video that was blasphemous to the name of Jesus Christ. 

Wow.  

    It isn’t often that this sort of thing drops into my lap.  What's more rare, is a situation in which I agree so strongly  with the atheists and so clearly disagree with the (well-intentioned) Christians.  To me, the atheists ‘get it’ and these particular Christians just don’t (however well-intentioned) particularly in light of recent events in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.

   
    The United States is an amazing place.  Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech like nowhere else in the world and that gives us, as Christians, an unprecedented opportunity to compete in the arena of ideas.  I believe, as the Apostle Paul did, that Christianity is absolutely able to stand on its own in any such competition if it is given the ability to speak clearly.  Our freedom allows us to do exactly that.  My atheist friends may disagree with me on matters of faith but they understand that this same freedom allows them to disbelieve without fear of punishment or reprisal, whether from Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else.  My Christian friends want someone to protect Jesus from being defamed when, I believe, Jesus doesn’t need protecting.  First of all, Jesus is completely able to defend himself if he chooses to do so and second, Jesus chose not to defend himself when his accusers defamed him face to face.

  
    In recent days the entire Middle East has been in an uproar over a video produced by an American and released on YouTube.  In it, the Muslin prophet, Mohammad, is presented in a negative light.  This, the Islamists claim, is blasphemous.  They demand that YouTube remove the video, that the United States government require that the video be removed from the Internet and pass blasphemy laws preventing such things from happening in the future (sound familiar?).  Free speech on the other hand requires that none of this happen.  Free speech allows any of us to say things, to present a range of ideas, even offensive ones, without fear of punishment or reprisals.  If the government were to prohibit us from blaspheming Jesus, then why not do the same for Mohammad? 

    Already our friends in Canada have passed hate speech laws that make it illegal for Christian pastors to preach what the Bible says about homosexuality (even if preached compassionately and not being deliberately inflammatory)  but that same speech, unpopular or not, is still legal in the United States.  If free speech is constrained to protect Christians today, it may very well be used to harm us tomorrow.  I don't like it when people burn flags, but I believe that it is a protected form of free speech that I am willing to protect.  I don't like it when the KKK or other hateful groups march and spout their venom from the public square, but it too is an important example of free speech.  Just because I don't like it isn't a good reason to make it stop.  After all, I have things to say that other people don't like very much and I wouldn't want someone to decide that my speech was no longer legal.

 In this case, I think the Christians are wrong and the atheists are right.

 
Jesus is not threatened by the people who oppose him.  Christianity doesn’t need the law to protect us from blasphemy.  Jesus is more than able to compete in the arena of ideas.

The atheists are right. 

Free speech is far more valuable...
                                                           ...for all of us.

The Politics of Falsehood

    I try to guard my personal opinions from the members of my church because their knowledge of my opinion may interfere with my ability to communicate a far more important message.  I hope that no one in the congregation of our church ever feels that they cannot objectively hear what I am teaching about the Bible because of some perceived political disagreement.  Even so, I have grave misgivings about our upcoming election and it isn’t just about the candidates.  My problem is that, perhaps now more than ever, the truth is taking a beating.

    In the television series “House,” Dr. Gregory House is fond of reminding his staff that “Everybody lies.”  Never has this been truer than during this election.  Each candidate has been caught stretching the truth, or worse.  It seems that after every speech or public appearance the fact-checkers are out in full force pointing out what was incorrect or misrepresented.  Even the media have been caught being “inventive.”  Sadly in the decades since the Watergate scandal, we’ve grown accustomed to “media bias” and understand that each news outlet allows their particular worldview to color their reporting, but now we’re seeing media outlets create their own news or creatively editing audio and video without revealing what they’ve done.  Heck, even the fact-checkers can’t be trusted.  After a recent speech by Paul Ryan, one set of fact checkers went wild pointing out his apparent “lies,” followed by another that pointed out the flaws in the “facts” presented by the first set of fact-checkers, and so on… for nearly a week.  

(Sigh)

    The television show, The X-Files” told us that we should “trust no one.”  This election certainly seems to make us think that this is true, but if we take a look at scripture we might regain a better perspective.  Our problem is that we expect our leaders to tell the truth, and our anger and disillusionment grow out of their failure to live up to our expectations.  We often think of the Bible as being full of love and grace, but in this regard scripture cautions us to be far more cautious, perhaps even downright cynical.  Psalm 20:7 reminds us that while “Some trust in chariots and some in horses… we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”  Whenever we think that the government or the military or any human authority is our salvation, we are in deep trouble.  Isaiah goes farther saying, “Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem? (Isaiah 2:22)  Particularly when we expect government to be trustworthy, our trust in is misplaced.  Psalm 118:8 teaches that “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans.”

    The clear theme here is that whenever we put our trust in human beings, we are sure to be disappointed but there is one upon whom we can safely place our trust.  Psalm 119:138 declares that “The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy.” And Proverbs 3:5 says that we should “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

    So does that mean that we as Christians should give our elected representatives and our media pass?  Should we simply overlook their self-serving dance with the truth?  Clearly, no.  Proverbs 12:22 says that “The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.” What’s more, Paul declares that “…it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.” (Romans 12:21)  We should not overlook what our elected officials and the candidates for office are doing to the truth, but we should do all that we can to hold them accountable.

    As we move ever closer to our next presidential election, the followers of Jesus Christ need to hold fast to the truth that we have been given.  We cannot be content to choose the “lesser of two evils” but instead remember our calling to be agents of truth and good in the world around us.  The apostle Paul put it this way, “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.  (Romans 12:9)

    Instead of giving anyone a pass for playing fast and loose with the truth, or making excuses because “everybody does it,” let us instead recommit ourselves to love, hope, and goodness.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  (1 Corinthians 4:2) 

Does the Jesus' Wife Fragment Destroy Christianity??

If you read the papers, watch television or get your news from the Internet, you have probably seen or heard something regarding the recently announced 'discovery' of a papyrus fragment claiming that Jesus (yes, Jesus of Nazareth) was married.  For all the fuss, you'd think that this was the first time anyone had ever suggested that Jesus might have had a wife but clearly it isn't (I'm still sure he didn't).  So what does this mean?  Is it interesting? Certainly.  Does it cast doubt on Christianity and the Bible?  Uh, no.  Currently, most scholars who study ancient Coptic (that is, Christian Egyptian) writing believe that this is a total fake, but even if it turns out to be real, there isn't much chance that it changes much of anything at all.

For a quick run-down of some excellent blogs, you can look at The Biblical World, written by Dr. John Byron at Ashland Seminary.  Dr. Byron presents reminds us to use caution in jumping to conclusions before the scholarly community has even had a chance to look at the fragment and respond.  He then provides a healthy collection of links to other blogs where you can learn more, if you are so inclined.

You might also go to Dr. Ben Witherington's (Asbury Seminary) blog where he quotes from an analysis by Simon Cathercole, an expert on such documents.  If you are really interested, the link to Cathercole's blog and the complete text of his comments is among Dr. Byron's links.

Ben Witherington quotes Simon Gathercole 

If you aren't really much into reading you can see and hear Dr. Witherington's comments here.

Long story short, as much as the media seems to be in a feeding frenzy over 'Jesus' Wife', it really isn't likely to a big deal at all.

 I follow Bobby Capps on Twitter because he has learned about missions and is in mission on the front lines of ministry with the people of his own community in Mississippi.  In his recent blog he describes meeting a woman who has taken love to "a 'whole nuther level' , sublime, love filled, over my head..."

All I can say is wow.  Just... wow.

You can read about it here:  Amazing Love

How to Become an Olympic Athlete by Training One Day Per Week!

    My good friend Tod Huston recently wrote a blog post that caught my attention and whose title has stuck with me for a while.  Particularly in light of last week's message here at Trinity Church (Garbage In- Garbage Out) about the importance of what sorts of things we fill our lives with, I thought that some of you would also find Tod's words to be timely.

In his Blog "Traveling Music," in an entry entitled "How to Be an Olympic Athlete by Training One Day Per Week," Tod Writes:

Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it?  I am pretty confident that no athlete who participated in the recent summer olympics in London made it there on such a training regimen.  equally unlikely is the potential of keeping a marriage alive on the basis of the following; “I told you I loved you the day we got married and if it changes I will let you know.”  i also doubt that reserving the words “I Love You” for a single day of the week, in a specific room in your home, at a predetermined time will keep the fires of relationship lit.

In the world of worship do we not find ourselves adopting a similar approach?

Read the rest of Tod's blog here:

How to be an Olympic Athlete by training one day per week!

Ahimaaz - Patron Saint of Cross Country Running?

    I have two children who run.  Not just a little, they run a lot.  During this time of the year my son and daughter are training for the upcoming Cross-Country season in which they will race other students and other schools in races that are 3.2 miles long.  Each day they can run six to eight miles during practice and often, added to that, they work out in the weight room or do yoga core exercises.  They make me tired just hearing about their workouts.  This past week, as I prepared for Sunday’s message I discovered a man who is, perhaps, the first cross-country runner named in the Bible. 

    Of course there were many runners before him.  Before cell-phones or radio, the way that battlefield commanders communicated with their kings and their armies was by sending runners or riders.  In the time of Samuel, Israel wasn’t known for having many horses so they would send runners back and forth carrying important messages and news.  In 2 Samuel 18, as the king’s armies pursue David’s traitorous son Absalom, David’s General, Joab captures Absalom quite by accident (Absalom’s hair got snagged in the low lying branches of a tree) and plunges three javelins through his chest despite David’s orders to treat him gently.  

    A man by the name of Ahimaaz son of Zadok volunteers to carry the news to David but a Cushite runner is selected to carry the news instead.  Undeterred, Ahimaaz again asks Joab for permission to run to Jerusalem saying, “Come what may, please let me run behind the Cushite.”  Joab the general is puzzled by this and asks why Ahimaaz would want to go especially since this is not good news and there will be no reward at the other end.  To this Ahimaaz replies, “Come what may, I want to run.”  At this Joab allows the young man to run but Ahimaaz, despite giving the Cushite a significant head start, runs a different route and arrives in the king’s court first.

    The notable thing about this story is not only that Ahimaaz liked to run and was evidently pretty good at it, but that he honors Joab and despite arriving first, does not announce the news of Absalom’s death.  The official message was given to the Cushite and Ahimaaz allows him to give the news to David.  When he is questioned about the welfare of Absalom, the king’s son, Ahimaaz says only, “I saw great confusion just as Joab was about to send the king’s servant and me, your servant, but I don’t know what it was.”

    The patience and self-control of Ahimaaz shows, I think, a stark contrast from the impatience and self-importance of Joab.  Joab heard the king’s command not to harm Absalom, and one of Joab’s lieutenants even reminded him of their orders but Joab insists that he is not going to wait and kills David’s son immediately.  Ahimaaz is known as a good man by the watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem and he shows it through his obedience, patience and self-control.  

    I think that it is fitting that Ahimaaz is perhaps the first man in the Bible who is said to love running.  Cross Country is not a quick dash to the supermarket.  Cross Country athletes often train all year long, they run miles and miles every day and their races often take 20 to 30 minutes to complete.  Cross Country is a sport that requires an abundance of patience and self-control and Ahimaaz, I think, is a fitting role model.

Is It Time to End Spousal Benefits?

    This week there was yet another blow-up about spousal benefits for domestic partners.  Specifically, sparked by the recent death of astronaut Sally Ride, many have been talking about the unfairness of how, even though they were together for 27 years her partner will receive no benefits whatsoever because they weren’t a “family” in the way that our society (and her employers) have defined it.  Look at this idea of family, or birth family, as we currently define it, and the benefits that we receive from our employers and, later, from the government.  

    Many will frame this as a homosexual issue, but it is not.  It is a fairness issue that just happens to affect homosexual partners as well as many others who do not “fit” the current definitions of “family.”  In my opening, I deliberately chose the words “domestic partners” because there are many in our society that share their lives but cannot claim possession of benefits that should, rightly, belong to them.  Obviously, this affects the lifelong partner of Sally Ride and others like her but it also affects heterosexuals. 

    Before I was married, I shared a house with my brother.  At the time we lived together, my brother had a good job but he has been unemployed (and as far as I know, without insurance) for three years.  He is, by birth, a member of my family.  But if we were two bachelors with no other family in the world, neither our health benefits nor our pensions, nor our Social Security benefits in retirement would allow us to care for one another.

    When my wife and I were first married, we moved in with our Aunt Gladys and we lived there for a couple years until we could afford to buy our own home.  Years later, Aunt Gladys came down with a serious and life threatening illness.  Thankfully, Aunt Gladys has good insurance, but what if she didn’t?  We owe her a lot and over the years she’s been good to us, but none of our benefits could be extended to her, ever.  

    What about unmarried, retired couples?  Both are retired.  Both have lost a spouse.  Both receive a pension from a deceased spouse as well as Social Security benefits.  Both would lose so many benefits from legally marrying that they would be destitute.  I have heard serious discussions among pastors about performing church weddings without any legal paperwork so that couples like this can be married in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the church regardless of the opinion of the state regarding the legality of their marriage.

    The problem that we are having with benefits is a fairness problem and an ownership problem not simply a homosexual problem.  Homosexuals are clearly caught up in this, but even an official or legal recognition of homosexual relationships would only fix a part of the problem.  Regardless of our sexual orientation, we need to reassess who “owns” our employee and government based benefits.  Perhaps the idea, as old as it is, of ‘spousal’ or even ‘family’ benefits needs to be redefined to better reflect the way that we live today.  The era of the nuclear family, where three (or more) generations live together as a family unit and care for one another is long past.  Perhaps pension and retirement benefits should be redesigned so that they are more like an IRA, where your employer (and government) makes deposits into an account in your name and the funds in that account belong to you and to your heirs, whomever they may be.  Perhaps health benefits should just eliminate the idea of spousal benefits entirely and instead just allow you to list persons that ‘belong’ to your ‘family.’  I know there would have to be some practical limit, but if employers will cover a family with twenty biological children, surely there is a viable solution somewhere.

 

What do you think?