Discussing Nothing

February 28, 2007

A Brief Report from Truth and Grace Ventures:

Last Thursday, the Servants Quarters community gathered to discuss 40 Days of Nothing, our walk together through this season of Lent.  In undertaking 40 Days of Nothing, we have entered a season of intense, deliberate reflection, self-denial and, hopefully, transformation.  We are striving to limit our consumption to the basic necessities, resisting the empty promises of the world that we can find well-being through indulging our endless wants and instead focusing on God’s promise that His grace is sufficient. 

The spirit of our discussion and the character of my new friends impressed me greatly.  Our discussion topic, revolving as it did around radical self-denial, is not particularly attractive on its face.  On the contrary, it seems to possess significant potential to generate feelings of depression and self-pity.  In my opinion, though, our time together could be best characterized as joyful.  Despite the nature of the material and its serious implications, the room was filled with laughter and joking and a sense of hope.  Perhaps some would suggest that it was nervous laughter, but I believe the atmosphere was born of a common sense of peace not unease.  These young leaders shared thoughts and stories evidencing not only a commitment to allow God to transform them, but a willingness to share that blessing with others.  I believe that was the immediate reason for the hope permeating our time together. 

Read it all

Amazing Grace

February 16, 2007

40 Days of Nothing

February 09, 2007

From the Truth and Grace Ventures Blog 

When Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, February 21, the Servants Quarters community will embark on 40 Days of Nothing.  As described in the Book of Common Prayer,

The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord’s passion and resurrection, and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting.  [Likewise, we are invited] in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God’s holy Word.

The Litany of Penitence for Ash Wednesday calls on us to confess, among other things,

the pride, hypocrisy and impatience of our lives, [o]ur self-indulgent appetites and ways, . . . our exploitation of other people, . . . our envy of those more fortunate than ourselves, [o]ur intemperate love of worldly goods and comforts, . . . our blindness to human need and suffering, . . . our indifference to injustice and cruelty, . . . our waste and pollution of [God’s] creation, and our lack of concern for those who come after us . . . . 

Having confessed, we turn to the Lord, praying that He would restore us and accomplish in us the work of His salvation so that we may reflect His glory in the world.  This is why we will undertake 40 Days of Nothing, so that we may honor our Lord by deliberately and systematically identifying and removing obstacles that impede our relationship with Him. 

Read it all

Everything and Without Ceasing: A Brief Reflection on Prayer

February 03, 2007

A couple weeks ago, I participated in the third and final weekend residence of the 2006 Centurions Program.  Like the two prior residences, the time was marked by intense, humbling intellectual challenge and spiritual conviction, as we heard – and hopefully learned – from the likes of Peter Kreeft, Chuck Colson, Gary Haugen and Ken Boa.  (Unlike before, my bride was allowed to accompany me, making for special, if not particularly romantic, memories.) 

With the passage of a little time, it’s interesting to reflect on what ideas from that weekend hold fast within me.  To this point, one question posed by T.M. Moore rings more loudly and regularly in my head than anything else:  “What is it about ‘everything’ and ‘without ceasing’ that we don’t understand?”  He was referring, of course, to St. Paul’s instructions that we pray about “everything” (Philippians 4:6) and “without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).  Undoubtedly, T.M.’s question haunts me, because I pray sporadically not continually.  And on the continuum between nothing and everything, my prayer life lies closer to the former than the latter.  I know better.  Now I have to do better.

Praise the Lord, Punch in Your PIN

January 28, 2007

The Orlando Sentinel had a story yesterday about Stevens Creek Community Church in Augusta, Georgia, where “God takes credit cards.  Debit cards, too.”

Two “giving kiosks” sit just outside the church’s chapel, next-generation collection plates that allow churchgoers to swipe their credit or debit cards and instantly send donations to the church.  . . .  Pastor Marty Baker has renamed the black terminals “automatic tithe machines.”  “We’re just trying to connect with the culture,” Baker says. “And that’s how the culture does business. It’s more than an ATM for Jesus. It’s about erasing barriers.”

The giving kiosks do seem to have erased some barriers to giving.  Since their installation in early 2005, Stevens Creek has experienced an 18% increase in donations.  And they are, in some sense, helping the church “connect with the culture.”  One woman “says she knew the church was the right fit for her the first time she saw the kiosks. ‘This church gets how I live,’ she says.” 

As a Christian committed to helping others understand the joy of giving, I’m intrigued by Pastor Baker’s success in leading his flock to a higher plane of generosity.  As a Christian trying to help the Church and the wider society understand each other, I’m encouraged that Stevens Creek is looking for ways to connect with the culture.  Yet, I wonder whether there is reason for the Christian mind to be concerned with Pastor Baker’s giving kiosks.

Continue reading "Praise the Lord, Punch in Your PIN" »

Worldview Theater: The Shawshank Redemption

January 20, 2007

The following entry is cross-posted from the Truth and Grace Ventures (TGV) Blog.  TGV is a charitable organization aimed at equipping people to live joyfully as faithful stewards and servants.

 

Servants Quarters 2007 is in full swing.  We convened last night for the third time to continue our year-long dialogue exploring the implications of biblical stewardship principles for living in a culture captive to materialistic ideals.  During this latest gathering, we planned to discuss the worldview perspectives reflected in a specific product of American culture:  the critically-acclaimed and highly popular film, The Shawshank Redemption.  God had other plans. 

I hope and trust we were following His lead, as we shelved our Shawshank examination in favor of a spirited discussion concerning the crisis facing The Episcopal Church (TEC).  In particular, we explored what it means for The Falls Church (and other parishes who only recently disaffiliated from TEC) to be wise and faithful stewards of the property with which they have been blessed – as the Diocese of Virginia and TEC press headlong into litigation aimed at reclaiming that property.

Given the dynamic and volatile nature of the situation, I abstain, at this time, from sharing my specific thoughts on the matter.  What I will say is that we are striving to approach the situation with not just a Christian ethic and Christian spirituality (which no doubt are important) but also a Christian mind.  We are striving to help each other “think christianly” – “to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God” (Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind:  How Should a Christian Think? p.44).  We are striving to “set[ ] all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, . . . see[ing] all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell” (id. at 4).  In one sense, that’s the primary business of Servants Quarters.

Because of that fruitful detour, we’ve decided to hold our Shawshank discussion here in this forum.  All are welcome to pose questions, share observations or take issue with what I’ve written previously.  (In short, I observed that (1) Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) reflected in important ways the biblical notion of how important it is to maintain an eternal perspective, while living here and now;  and (2) the redemption of Andy’s best friend, Red Redding (Morgan Freeman) was suggestive of a Christian-like process of repentance.) 

If you prefer specific to open-ended questions, let’s begin the discussion with the subject of beauty.  What is attractive in the film?  What people, places, behavior or ideas?  To whom?  How is it made attractive?

 

How Far Is Too Far: When Is It Time To Leave A Church?

January 19, 2007

John Yates and Os Guinness discuss the decision of The Falls Church to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church on the Albert Mohler Radio Program last Friday.

 

 

Bishop Schori on Evangelism: Let’s Assume for the Moment that She Does Believe that Jesus Is “the” Way

January 12, 2007

In a brief New Year’s Day essay, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, shares her perspective on how Christians ought to “reach the unchurched.”  As a Christian, I think it’s great that Bishop Schori is seeking to teach the importance of not just evangelism but effective methods for it.  I agree that “to begin in listening” can be effective.  And I agree more generally, to some extent, that “we must learn new words and ways to tell our story” to “reach the unchurched” in this postmodern culture.  That said, Bishop Schori’s essay begs the question:  what exactly is “our story?”  Moreover, it raises the question:  might some “new words” that we use to reach the unchurched actually undermine “our story?”

Continue reading "Bishop Schori on Evangelism: Let’s Assume for the Moment that She Does Believe that Jesus Is “the” Way" »

Bigotry or Obedience?

January 11, 2007

Not surprisingly, Chuck Colson can grasp why I and many others have left the Episcopal Church.  

This is not front-page news because the New York Times editors are concerned about church splits. I doubt they would have covered Martin Luther if the Reformation were going on today. This is front-page news because the Times can use it to make Christians look bigoted.  . . .  What I . . .  take issue with is the Times and other critics telling us we are bigots. I have been in those prisons and seen our people ministering to AIDS victims over the years. I don’t see these critics there. I see our people doing this day in and day out.

In any event, it’s telling that the Times would choose to draw attention to something like this rather telling you what is really behind it. In leaving the Episcopal Church, many of these congregations are enduring public scorn and potentially devastating financial loss—including the loss of their church buildings, pastors’ pensions, and so forth. Why? Because, in conscience, they must remain true to Scripture and their convictions. The issue is orthodoxy, not homosexuality.

Read it all.

Why We Left the Episcopal Church

January 08, 2007

Today’s Washington Post carries an essay by The Rev. Dr. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church (TFC), and Os Guinness, Christian author, speaker, apologist and sociologist and TFC parishioner.  In it they explain why they left the Episcopal Church.

Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.  . . .  The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world.  It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow.  The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers.  Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith -- saying that traditional theism is “dead,” the incarnation is “nonsense,” the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is “a barbarous idea,” the Bible is “pure propaganda” and so on.  Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.

Read it all.

Apostles Creed

January 01, 2007

A video demonstration of the Apostles Creed

 

 

Full of Grace and Truth

January 01, 2007

In an uncommonly great Christmas sermon, Bishop N.T. Wright addresses the arrival of grace and truth in the incarnation. 

The great revolution of thought which happened in Europe over three centuries ago, associated with Descartes in particular, was the attempt to grasp truth as it were from scratch: by doubting everything, we would see what we could be sure of and build out from there. We would know the facts, and the facts would set us free – free from God, free from any responsibility except to our own self-interest. There’s a straight line from Descartes to Dawkins: we can doubt God, but we can’t doubt the facts, the empirical evidence. And the results of that arrogant attempt to possess truth are all around us, etched in the horrors of the twentieth century and now already the multiple follies of the twenty-first, as we in the West blunder blindly on . . . .  And meanwhile the worm in the apple has hollowed it out more or less completely: the ‘truth’ which we thought we knew has been eaten away not just in theology and philosophy but in its heartland of physics, by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and in its deeper heartland of the human being, where Descartes began. We have become a society paranoid about truth: so we make each other fill in more and more forms, and set up more cameras to spy on each other, to check up on one another because we want the truth, we want an audit trail, we want more and more Enquiries and Judicial Reviews and Investigations, but we can’t get at truth because Descartes’ experiment has itself made it impossible, has generated a world of suspicion and smear and spin.

But if the world has tried to have truth without grace, the church has often been tempted towards grace without truth – as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, ‘cheap grace’. God has become a benevolent old softie, ready to tolerate everything, to include everyone, to throw away all those unpleasant old moral standards and say it’s all right, do your own thing, if it feels good it must be OK.

Read the entire sermon.

The Son of God Enters Human History

December 25, 2006

[God] is no longer distant.  He is no longer unknown.  He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart.  He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt.  He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love.  For us, God has become a gift.  He has given himself.  He has entered time for us.  He who is the Eternal One, above time, he has assumed our time and raised it to himself on high.  Christmas has become the Feast of gifts in imitation of God who has given himself to us.  Let us allow our heart, our soul and our mind to be touched by this fact!  Among the many gifts that we buy and receive, let us not forget the true gift: to give each other something of ourselves, to give each other something of our time, to open our time to God.                        – Pope Benedict XVI, December 24, 2006

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.  (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)  And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.  While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.  But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.  When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.  But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.  The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

 

“Jailing Gays” in Nigeria: My Answer to Charges of Bigotry

December 23, 2006

Dubious accusations abound in the wake of the decision of many Virginia churches, including mine, to sever denominational ties with the Episcopal Church.  The harshest criticism has been saved for those churches’ simultaneous decision to affiliate instead with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Church of Nigeria.  The critics’ objection:  the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, is an alleged “advocate of jailing gays.”  In particular, he allegedly “threw his prestige and resources behind” proposed Nigerian legislation that would criminalize same-sex marriage and “make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant,” says the New York Times.  By choosing to affiliate with CANA, critics contend, these Virginia churches have implicitly endorsed jailing homosexuals for exercising freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion.  (The full text of the legislation is reproduced here.)

As someone who voted in favor of separating from the Episcopal Church and affiliating with CANA, the critics’ sweeping accusations include me within their aim.  Harold Meyerson accuses me of deciding that not “all men were created equal.”  A writer for the Diocese of Washington has hypothesized that I may have been motivated by “naked bigotry,” and he seeks an explanation of why I “favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy.”  Father Jake says that I “probably” am a bigot and issues the following challenge:  “Please explain how ordaining gays and lesbians can trouble your conscience, yet throwing them in jail does not.”

I suspect that these gentlemen would prefer to hear a response from someone in a position of formal leadership at my church.  I am in no such position.  As is true with respect to all I write but bears emphasizing at a time like this, I speak only for myself – not for CANA, The Falls Church (TFC), my friends, or my wife – just me. 

To characterize my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA as an act of bigotry is to miss the point entirely.  The overriding purpose of the vote called by my parish leadership, as I understand it, was to hold a referendum on the state of the Episcopal Church – to decide whether the denomination has so parted ways with biblical Christianity that we, in turn, must part ways with the denomination.  As explained in Part I of this essay, my vote in favor of leaving the Episcopal Church is my witness to the supreme authority of Scripture for all of life and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  Choosing to leave, of course, raises the ancillary and less important question of where to go.  My parish leadership thoroughly reviewed the options, recommended that we affiliate with CANA as a transitional entity, and presented to the congregation the question of where-to-go in the same resolution as the question of whether-to-go.  Part II explains why I voted for this package resolution, despite concerns about the Nigerian bill.  In short, these concerns were insufficient to overcome my concerns about the Episcopal Church’s leadership’s abandonment of core tenets of the Christian faith. 

I.  Whether-to-go:  Why I voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church

Before implicating me and the great majority of my fellow parishioners in a parade of horribles, let’s consider the specific resolution put before us by TFC leadership.  It stated, in relevant part, that:

[1] The Episcopal Church has departed from the authority of the Holy Scriptures and from historic Christian teaching on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of humankind; [and thus 2] The Falls Church shall sever its denominational ties with The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia and [3] affiliate with [CANA].

As I briefly explained in another essay, I accept the premise:  there is plentiful, sobering evidence that the denomination’s leadership not only has effectively abandoned Scripture as the supreme authority for life, but seems to have no reservations about denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  These are not inconsequential matters at the edges of Christian doctrine about which the church – even those of us from the Anglican tradition – can agree to disagree.  Reflecting the biblical understanding that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), all Christians confess, through the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets.  For the same reason, our Book of Common Prayer repeatedly refers to the Bible as the “Word of God” or the “Word of the Lord,” and the Episcopal catechism (BCP p.853) teaches that Scripture – not man – defines truth:

Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy Spirit?

A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures. 

See The Falls Church, Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?, pp.3-4.  Nonetheless, the Episcopal Church’s 2003 and 2006 General Conventions rejected resolutions that would have affirmed that Scripture is the Church’s supreme authority.  See id. at 12;  The Falls Church, I Will Welcome You: Finding a New Home in the Anglican Communion, p.2.

From its outset, Anglican teaching has clearly accepted the biblical understanding that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior of humankind.  Affirming the words of Jesus (John 14:6 and Matthew 11:27) and the teachings of Paul (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 3:21-22) and Peter (Acts 4:12), Article XVIII of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles proclaimed:

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Even so, the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention rejected a resolution that would have declared a “commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved,” and would have “acknowledge[d] the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”  See I Will Welcome You, p.9.  In two subsequent interviews (summarized here), the denomination’s recently elected leader certified the convention’s rejection of this non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith. 

I understand that many sincere people of faith disagree with my assessment of the evidence.  But for those of us who have concluded that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has unrepentantly forsaken core matters of Christian faith, separation from the denomination becomes imperative.  We are not to “be yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). 

About those who depart from “the teaching of Christ,” we are warned: “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.”  (2 John 10-11.)  The Apostles’ instruction is eventually to keep away from him and have nothing to do with him.

Can Two Walk Together, p.16 & n.14 (citing Romans 16:17;  2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14;  2 Timothy 3:5;  Titus 3:10).  Yet there are those, including Bishop Lee of Virginia, who would have us ignore this teaching as well, all in the name of maintaining unity in the church.  See, e.g., Statement from Bishop Lee, Unity through Diversity, Dec. 10, 2006 (urging congregations contemplating leaving the diocese to preserve, defend and maintain unity within and through diversity), available at the diocese’s press room;  Letter from Bishop Lee to Truro Parishioners, Dec. 6, 2006 (“ vote for the unity and mission of the church, therefore remaining one with your diocese . . . .  Until the Day of Judgement, the wheat and the weeds will grow together as Jesus promised in the Gospel”).  A resource published and commended by the Diocese of Virginia claims that: 

A great variety of interpretations of Scripture has coexisted in the Anglican Communion.  Unity has been based rather on common discipline, common worship, common prayer, shared reverence for and discussion of Scripture, and common allegiance to the Bishop.

This notion bears little resemblance to the unity in Christ of which Paul spoke – “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13), unity with “one faith” (v.5).  As the leaders of The Falls Church put it, the unity envisioned by the diocese – “unity through the ‘yoke’ of denominational affiliation – without regard to shared belief, and even in the face of obvious disbelief”:  

is neither Anglican nor Christian.  It would transform the Church into a less-than-Christian organization, which we perceive that the national Episcopal Church has now become . . . (I Will Welcome You, p.15).

To remain affiliated with the denomination is to be complicit in its serious doctrinal error.  It is to submit to, if not endorse, teaching that rejects Scripture as supremely authoritative.  It is to submit to leadership that denies Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  For evidence of complicity, one only need look at the accusations of bigotry that triggered this essay.  Critics explicitly or implicitly accuse those of us leaving the Episcopal Church for CANA with complicity in every word uttered and deed done by the Archbishop of Nigeria.

Consider also the denomination’s response to news of our votes to disaffiliate.  “This is a handful of congregations of a total of nearly 7,200, the vast majority of which are engaged in healthy and vital ministry,” said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Paragraph two of the Episcopal News Service press release highlighted the fact that Sunday’s defection involved “eight of Virginia’s 195 congregations” and “about 8,000 of the diocese’s roughly 90,000 Episcopalians.”  The implication invited by the presiding bishop and her news service:  the other 187 Virginia congregations and 82,000 Episcopalians support the denomination’s leadership and teaching.  I refuse to be counted in this way as one of the denomination’s supporters.

II.  Where-to-go:  Why concerns about CANA were insufficient to lead me to vote to remain a part of the Episcopal Church

This discussion may seem like the long way around to answering accusations about my vote to affiliate with CANA, but it is the only way around to the question.  There really is no other way to provide an accurate account.  This is the context in which the decision to affiliate with CANA was made.  This was the source and urgency of my conviction to dissociate from the Episcopal Church.  The issue of where-to-go, while not unimportant, was minor compared to the issue of whether-to-go and why.  Issues of sexuality and civil rights, while important, are lesser than questions concerning the nature and authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures.

Contributing to the lesser importance of where-to-go is the fact that our destination, by nature and design, is impermanent.  Regardless whether The Falls Church were to affiliate in the immediate term with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, etc., that relationship will be temporary, lasting only until a new US province of orthodox Anglicans can be formed.  See Mary Springmann, Vestry Registrar, Truro Church, Why CANA? (describing CANA as a “transitional entity with built-in flexibility to move to a permanent orthodox American structure”).  TFC’s rector, John Yates, paints this picture:

Ages ago, before the world was born, the great battle began when the Prince of Darkness rebelled against the one, true king.  It has raged ever since.  Among the many vessels commissioned by our glorious king to engage in this holy war, was our own good ship “Episcopalian.”  Not nearly as large or conspicuous as many, still we have admired her beauty and been proud to serve in her crew.  

Tragically, now, she is sinking.  Great leaks have developed, she has rusted and rotted.  The captain and officers seem unaware.  “All is well,” they cry as the waters rise, the ropes give way and the rudder comes loose.  . . .  Now, look!  Other ships in the great Anglican fleet have noticed our perilous condition and sent little lifeboats with supplies and fresh materials – little rafts from the ship Rwanda (A.M.i.A.), Nigeria (C.A.N.A.), Bolivia, Kenya, Uganda, and elsewhere.  Their ships are led by strong and able captains.  “We will help you,” they shout to us.  “Let us carry you for a brief time to a sheltered place where we will help you build a new ship that will bring great joy to our king.  Bring whatever tools and supplies you can, but don’t be encumbered.  This is a moment for courage and faith!”

In evaluating the available lifeboats, my parish leadership considered ten or so factors similar to those set forth in this summary by Truro’s vestry registrar.  Our senior warden’s explanation of the leadership’s rationale for seeking shelter in CANA, the lifeboat offered by the Church of Nigeria, was thorough and reasonable.  I do not repeat his explanation or defend their decision in this essay, which is intended to provide my perspective as a member of the congregation of The Falls Church.  Although the accusations against Arbishop Akinola gave me serious pause, I ultimately found those accusations to be an insufficient basis to reject my leadership’s recommendation.

I am disturbed by the Nigerian bill’s proposals to curtail the freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion – freedoms so critical to the health of a democracy.  Governments ought not restrain their citizens’ freedom to advocate in favor of – or against – homosexual practices – in Nigeria, Britain, Sweden, Canada or elsewhere.  After our congregational vote, Archbishop Akinola explained that the Church of Nigeria, likewise, believes that “there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation.”

Even without the benefit of this later clarification, I was not convinced, at the time of my vote, that Archbishop Akinola supports such restrictions.  Claims that he does originate from two reports of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee (here and here), each of which contains one line generally supporting the proposed bill.  It is true that the archbishop signed these reports.  It is also true that the reports fail to qualify the church’s support for the legislation in anyway.  Before condemning the man, though, let’s consider what else we know about him that might enhance our understanding of the situation.

We know that Archbishop Akinola is respected as a “man of peace [whose] leadership is a model for Christians around the world” (Time Magazine, April 30, 2006).  We know that he “is primarily an evangelist and a pastor whose desire is to see all people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Letter from Martyn Minns, March 3, 2006).  We know that he “face[s] burdens of ministry at home both ponderous and persistent” (World Magazine, Dec. 16, 2006), burdens of a nature unknown in our country.  In northern Nigeria, Islam and Christianity are “at war” (id.).  As northern states began adopting Sharia law – law that calls for the stoning of homosexuals – Akinola “called on the government to suspend oil receipts and supplies.  ‘Time has come to call the Shariah governors to throw Shariah off our land,’” he said (id.).  When Muslims rioted in February 2005 in response to Danish cartoons unflattering of Mohammed:

Nigeria was hit hardest: In the north rioters killed more than 120 Christians, burned about 40 churches, and destroyed hundreds of shops and houses.  Reprisals by Christians in southeast Nigeria killed about 100 Muslims and left perhaps thousands homeless (id.).

We know that Archbishop Akinola, ministering in this alien cultural milieu, is “working overtime to lower the religious and ethnic tensions in Nigeria and to care for those who have been traumatized in the recent strife” (Minns Letter).  The very Standing Committee reports upon which Akinola’s opponents rely demonstrate a breadth of ministerial concerns that belies any claim that this is an intolerant homophobe obsessed with oppressing people based on their sexual orientation.  These reports express the Church of Nigeria’s concern with  child trafficking; the riotous “destruction of lives and property” triggered by the Danish cartoons;  “attacks on and assassination of clergy”;  “frequent . . . hostage taking . . . in the oil producing area of the Niger Delta”;  the unethical diversion of funds away from HIV and AIDS patients;  fighting bird flu;  the obedience of all citizens, “especially the three tiers of Government,” to the “rule of law”;  the efficiency and trustworthiness of the police force;  educational policies;  administration of the census;  corruption of the electoral process;  the care of Nigerian pensioners; etc.

Finally, we know that, prior to our congregational vote, the archbishop attempted to clarify his position on the proposed Nigerian legislation, explaining that:

he believes that all people – whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation – are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect.  “We are all broken and need the transforming love of God . . . .  Jesus Christ is our example for this.  He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery [and] instead . . . said, ‘Go now and sin no more.’  That is an essential part of the message of the Gospel and the teaching of our congregations.”

CANA statement, Dec. 7, 2006.  Some who disagree with Akinola’s adherence to biblical teaching on the underlying issues of same-sex conduct construe this clarification as non-responsive, Orwellian doublespeak.  I find this interpretation untenable when one more fully considers the reputation and past performance of the man who is speaking and the circumstances in which he ministers.  When looking through that lens, one can reasonably and fairly conclude that the archbishop does not offer unqualified support for the proposed Nigerian legislation.  Pointing to Jesus’ refusal to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) as an example, Akinola indicates a reluctance to condemn those who practice homosexuality.  He observes that they “need the transforming love of God,” implying that compassionate healing – not jail sentences imposed through the criminal justice system – would be the proper response of the Nigerian people.  He embraces the biblical understanding that “all people – whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation – are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect.”  By this statement, did the archbishop intend to imply opposition to the proposed restrictions on homosexuals’ fundamental rights of speech and association?  Detractors, I’m sure, would vigorously dispute such an interpretation, perhaps attributing this sentiment to nothing more than political expedience.  I admit that he was less clear than I would have hoped.  But when the time came to cast my vote, I chose to take into account what we know about Archbishop Akinola and the dangerous circumstances in which he ministers so faithfully, and give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.  I trust and hope that this was the correct decision.  The archbishop’s more recent statement, in which he acknowledges “genuine concerns about individual human rights” being threatened by the proposed law, suggests that it was.

*          *          *

In summary, to those who claim that my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA is a vote for bigotry:  you’re missing the point.  My vote was cast in support the primacy of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – not against sexual practices, in the United States or Nigeria.  While the attention given to this issue no doubt is a product of our cultural obsession with all things sexual, it should be equally clear that our decision to leave the Episcopal Church and join CANA is rooted in our fidelity to the Word.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Matthew Thompson has amassed an extensive collection of resources on the proposed Nigerian legislation.

Bishop Lee, Please Defend the Faith Entrusted to the Saints

December 16, 2006

My local church, like several others in Virginia, convened last Sunday to vote on whether to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church.  The call to consider walking apart, as I understand it, was precipitated by the denominational leaders’ unrepentant abandonment of Scripture as the supreme authority for life.  Twenty-four hours from now, we should know the results of the vote.

Speaking of the prospect of losing 17% of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s Sunday attendance, Bishop Peter James Lee said, in an interview with the Washington Times:

The diocese owns their property.  . . .  It was developed by generations of people who were faithful Episcopalians and who are buried with these churches. We have a fiduciary responsibility not to let a current generation of leaders -- who are mistaken -- to take away the property of the church.  [But] I do not want to go to court if we can avoid that.

I pray that Bishop Lee would “stand firm” (1 Corinthians 16:13) and “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3) with at least as much conviction as he seems to have concerning his fiduciary responsibility to care for church real estate.

UPDATE:  The congregation of The Falls Church voted 1,228 to 120 to sever denominational ties with the Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia.  (Press Release)

Cultural Renewal: A Christian Calling?

December 13, 2006

Last week, Republican Senator Sam Brownback, “favorite of the religious right” according to CNN, announced that he is formally considering running for president in 2008.  What interests me about Brownback’s announcement is his statement that one of his campaign’s primary objectives is to “renew our culture” in the United States.  Media reports cynically have tended to chalk up such rhetoric to the senator’s desire to position himself as “the traditional values candidate.”  At least one writer has observed that Brownback’s concern about the condition of the culture is likely a direct consequence of his efforts to learn how his faith ought to influence his public service.

I suspect that the notion of a committed Christian in high public office seeking cultural renewal may make many Americans nervous – professing Christians included.  I can already hear people raising alarms about the impending theocracy.  I do not intend, in this space, to address the concerns of nonbelievers.  Instead, I would like to speak to those within the Christian community who may doubt the relevance or importance of the faith to an objective as sweepingly broad as the renewal of the culture.

Continue reading "Cultural Renewal: A Christian Calling?" »

International Justice Mission: Please Give Generously

December 09, 2006

In this season of faith, hope and love – and end-of-year giving decisions – I urge you to consider partnering with International Justice Mission (“IJM”), a leading human rights agency dedicated to rescuing victims of sexual exploitation and slavery, forced labor and oppression. 

The UN’s International Labor Organization estimates that, at any given time, there are 12.3 million people around the world in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor and sexual servitude.  Other estimates are as high as 27 million people.  (See US Department of State, 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report.)  Overseas relief and development workers and missionaries often can aid by providing food, shelter and spiritual sustenance, but they lack the expertise and resources to combat human exploitation.  Undertaking that mission not only requires prompting police and other local authorities to investigate and prosecute the abuses, but oftentimes involves confronting abuses of power by those authorities themselves.  Gary Haugen established IJM “to help fill this void, acting as an organization that stands in the gap for victims when they are left without an advocate.”  (See IJM History.) 

IJM is restraining evil and saving lives all over the world.  If you have any doubt about that, take a moment to watch this October 2006 Today Show feature of their work combating sex trafficking – what Haugen calls the “global trade in rape for profit.”  Then, if you dare, plan to attend an IJM benefit dinner, where you will hear gripping first hand accounts from victims and their rescuers from IJM. 

With our support, IJM professionals will conduct investigations necessary to rescue men, women and children from forced prostitution, forced labor and unlawful seizures of property.  They will ensure that emancipated victims receive desperately needed aftercare to help them heal from the horrors of their ordeal.  They will bring perpetrators to justice, seeking jail time and fines, making clear to criminal enterprises throughout the world that they will pay dearly for their wrongs.  They also will train national authorities to investigate, prosecute and deter these types of human rights violations.

Please give generously. 

 

Additional resources:

Gary Haugen, Terrify No More (book documenting the events leading up to, and surrounding, IJM’s raids in the notorious Cambodian village of Svay Pak where their workers rescued 37 underage victims of sex-trafficking, many of them under the age of 10).

The Episcopal Church: the Nature of its Disease

December 08, 2006

The front page of Monday’s Washington Post carried an unfortunately distorted story about my local church’s impending vote on whether to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church.  The story is unfortunate, because it mischaracterizes the growing chasm between my church, The Falls Church (“TFC”), and the denomination as primarily the result of a disagreement over homosexuality.  According to the Post, the problem is that:

Some conservatives in the Episcopal Church . . . believe the church abandoned Scripture by installing a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003, among other things.  Those feelings of alienation were strengthened when Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori – who supports the New Hampshire bishop – was elected this summer to lead the national church.

The 2003 confirmation of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced father of two who is an admitted, non-celibate, unrepentant homosexual, no doubt is important to orthodox Christians in the Episcopal Church.  The importance, though, derives from the fact that Bishop Robinson’s confirmation is merely the latest in a long line of instances in which the Episcopal Church has expressed an utter lack of respect for the authority and reliability of Scripture.  As the leadership of TFC has framed the issue:

The currently conspicuous symptom of our denomination’s long slide from Biblical orthodoxy is false teaching about the issue of homosexuality, but the underlying issue is a lack of submission to God’s will as expressed in His Word, the Bible[, and] no Christian standard or doctrine is safe where the authority of Scripture has been overturned . . . .  (Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed? pp.2, 14)

Continue reading "The Episcopal Church: the Nature of its Disease" »

Faith in the Public Square: Obama’s Approach Is Fine By Me

December 02, 2006

With Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) joking on The Tonight Show about running for president, it seems like a good time to revisit his June 2006 remarks before the Call to Renewal Conference, a gathering of religious progressives. 

In that speech, Obama offered his perspective on the proper role of religious faith in public policy debate.  On one hand, the first-term senator chided “secularists” who would “ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.  To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But then, in seeming contradiction, Obama warned religious believers about how they should present their faith-based concerns in the public square.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.  It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.  I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will.  I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.  But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

Continue reading "Faith in the Public Square: Obama’s Approach Is Fine By Me" »

Faithful Stewardship: How Far Might It Take Us?

December 01, 2006

Heather Koerner at Boundless Webzine shares an interesting, and inconvenient, spiritual growth experience concerning stewardship.  (HT Catherina Hurlburt)  While listening to a sermon about the early church, Heather came to see that her stewardship habits, while admirable from a human perspective, were unduly narrow from God’s perspective.

The scripture that grabbed Heather’s attention and wouldn’t let go was Acts 2:44-45.

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”

I kept reading it over and over.  . . .  “They had everything in common?” I thought.  “Well, that’s nice for them, but that would never work nowadays. I can’t see Christian communal living working — even here in the Bible Belt.  . . .  And selling their possessions and goods to give to anyone as he has need?” I continued. “Wow! That’s awesome, but if the church can’t even get a handle on tithing, I doubt that most people would actually sell their stuff.” 

At that point, Heather found herself prompted to reexamine her incredulity.  She realized that, unless she were ready and willing to sell her possessions at the Lord’s request, she would “be clinging to [her] possessions as if they are really [her] own.”  Even if she were tithing and generously making freewill offerings, she would not be behaving as a faithful steward.  Heather tried to assure herself, “I know what being a steward is,” but she ultimately found herself unconvinced.

[S]itting there, I realized I had restricted myself to a narrow practice of the concept — that, as a steward, I should be “wise” with my money.  You know, not spend it foolishly.  Spend it where God wants.

All my life I’ve heard the saying, “God doesn’t just own 10 percent of your finances, He owns it all.”  I knew that.  But did I practice it?  Would a steward even flinch if the landowner told him to sell a field?  I doubt it.  It’s not the steward’s field, why should he care?  He’d just go do it.  Yet, here I was, flinching just at the idea of having to sell something of value to me.  . . .  Now, I’m starting to see the person that God wants — and is teaching me — to be.  The person He can trust to obey.  To do my duty in giving, yes.  But to be willing to do so much more.  To sell the field, if He commands it, without batting an eye.

While I haven’t heard God give me a direct command to sell or give away a specific possession, I can relate to Heather’s story.  Since moving back to the Washington, DC area two years ago, I have felt a deep, unshakeable desire to shed possessions.  The furniture, electronic equipment, old books and children’s toys – all of these possessions that we acquired over the years to enhance our comfort instead have become a heavy burden.  They feel like a millstone tied around my neck.  My wife and I are concerned that, if we hold onto these possessions, they easily could interfere with God’s plan for our lives.  They stand between us and a simpler, less acquisitive, lower income lifestyle, to which we may be called.

For several months now, in an attempt to right the situation and assuage this conviction, we have been engaged in a steady effort to give away the things that someone else might want and dispose of the rest.  How far will we go?  It is hard to imagine that we’ll go anywhere near as far as the believers in Acts 2, selling or giving everything away.  All I can say at this point is that the burden remains, and it hasn’t lessened appreciably yet.

How Rich Are You?

November 26, 2006

The creators of the Global Rich List are asking a good question, one that provokes some discomfort within me:  How rich are you, in terms of income relative to the rest of the world?  (HT:  Roberto Rivera)  Our family rests comfortably in the top 1%.  Your family does too if you earn at least $47,500 per year.  The average household income in Northern Virginia ($91,343), where we live, is somewhere near the top seven-tenths of one percent worldwide.

Continue reading "How Rich Are You?" »

Guarding Against Presumption

November 17, 2006

“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).  Or as Eugene Peterson puts it in his translation, The Message, “Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends.  Teaching is highly responsible work.  Teachers are held to the strictest standards.”  The reason for more strict judgment “is obvious.  The pretence of knowledge adds to the teacher’s responsibility and condemnation” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).  James

reminds us of Jesus, who condemned Jewish teachers (Mt. 23:1–33; Mk. 12:40; Lk. 20:47) and said that even our casual words would be judged (Mt. 12:36). Furthermore, Jesus taught that people are responsible for what they know (Lk. 12:47–48). The teacher claims to know and set himself or herself up as an example for the church . . . .  How responsible must such people be on the day of judgment! (D.A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition).

James’ admonition weighs heavily on my mind.  I post three blog entries on His Evidence each week.  I suspect that some readers might accuse me of presuming to be their teacher.  In addition, I find myself positioned to lead a small group of highly committed rising Christian leaders through the Servants Quarters Program, the core of which involves studying Christian worldview, particularly as it informs Biblical values of stewardship and servanthood.  That leadership role certainly looks a lot like the dangerous teaching positions about which James warns.

Continue reading "Guarding Against Presumption" »

Reflections on a Field Trip to George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate

November 14, 2006

My children had several days off from school last week, so I decided to take my own advice and “make better use of the vast historical resources readily available to northern Virginia residents.”  Late Wednesday morning, we hopped in the Bus (a.k.a. our minivan) and charted a course for Mount Vernon, the estate of our first president.  My hope was that our exploration of George Washington’s ancestral home would provide a useful opportunity to teach my girls something of “the virtues of courage, honor, sacrifice and civic duty” (id.).  Chilly, wet and muddy conditions aside, things still didn’t turn out quite as I had planned.

Continue reading "Reflections on a Field Trip to George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate" »

Amazing Grace: the William Wilberforce Story

November 10, 2006

Do you know who William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was?  If not, don’t worry:  you’re not alone.  Only one in ten Americans has heard of him, according to Walden Media.  Another reason not to worry:  Amazing Grace: the William Wilberforce Story arrives in theaters on February 23, 2007.

For twenty years, from 1787 to 1807, Wilberforce struggled tirelessly for the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire.  Year after year, as a British Member of Parliament (MP), he introduced a bill to end that vile institution.  Edmund Burke described Wilberforce’s first great speech against the slave trade, given on May 12, 1789, as “equal[ing] anything . . . heard in modern times, and was not, perhaps, to be surpassed in the remains of Grecian eloquence.”  Wilberforce and his colleagues painstakingly gathered and presented documentary evidence and testimony of the unfathomably cruel nature of the enterprise and the growing public sentiment against it.  Their efforts ensured that no MP could claim ignorance on Judgment Day.¹

Continue reading "Amazing Grace: the William Wilberforce Story" »

What Evidence Might Convince You that Christianity is False?

November 08, 2006

When presenting the faith to nonbelievers, Christians sometimes find an open door to explain “the reason for the hope [they] have” within (1 Peter 3:15).  Though some may not conceive of “the reason” for their belief in these terms, Christians are blessed with hope because they, sometimes explicitly and other times implicitly, have weighed the evidence and found it in Christ’s favor.  For example, some have been strongly influenced by creation, its beauty and order and testimony to the majesty and power of the Creator.  Others have been moved by the universal and timeless presence of the natural law, including the testimony of deep conscience and the unforgiving working out of natural consequences (e.g., “you reap what you sow”).  Still others have been brought to faith primarily by the witness of changed lives, the supernatural transformations they see in the lives of believers.  Most of us probably were carried to the foot of the Cross by a collection of these and other types of observations.

Several weeks ago, I heard an unbelieving scientist approach this issue with an interesting twist.  Like many in his position, he considers science and religion to be squarely at odds.  From his perspective, science deals with facts, religion with values (if anything);  science is driven by evidence, religion by blind faith.  Challenging the notion that the Christian faith can be and is supported or strengthened by appeals to material evidence, he asked:  if the evidence is genuinely of concern to you, what evidence might convince you that Christianity is false? 

I think this is a good question, one worthy of engagement when sincerely asked.  It’s not an easy question to answer honestly.  As we continue the process of sanctification and maturation in the Christian life, the Lord not infrequently provides additional bits of evidence that He is there, He is watching and He is faithful.  As these bits of additional proof accumulate, it becomes more and more difficult to imagine what evidence could dislodge or shake our beliefs.  This is true for me, in any event. 

After thinking over this question, in spare quiet moments during the last two weeks, I have tentatively concluded that there are at least two types of evidence that would present a serious challenge to my faith.  Specifically, compelling proof in either of the following two categories would make it difficult for me to continue believing:

1.  Jesus Christ was not raised from the dead.  As Paul so forcefully put it, “if Christ has not been raised” our faith is “useless,” and “we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:14, 19).  If Christ were not resurrected, what hope would we have to be resurrected ourselves?  I haven’t considered, at any length, what form such proof would have to take to qualify as compelling.  Clear evidence of His body in a tomb certainly would be compelling, wouldn’t it?

2.  Human beings are inherently good.  If humans at their core were good, then the Biblical story of creation, fall and redemption would make no sense.  We would not be mired in the effects of sin.  We would need no Savior.  We would thrive as individuals and a society if only liberated from – well, take your pick from any of these oppressions and their would-be liberators:  the illusion of distinction (Eastern and New Age religions);  the capitalist class (Marxism);  ignorance, mysticism, war, poverty (scientific utopians);  unhealthy learned responses (behavioral psychologists);  sexual inhibition (leaders of the sexual revolution); etc.  I suppose that, if any of these liberation ideologies were proven true – that is, if utopia or heaven on earth were realized upon liberation – that would be strong evidence that human beings are inherently good and the Christian worldview is false.

How about you?  Is there any evidence that might lead you to question the truths of Christianity?  Your thoughts are most welcome.

Restoring Culture: What Can One Person Do?

November 04, 2006

Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek wisely cautioned would-be social planners against falling into the “fatal conceit” – the belief that they can predict with any precision the complex consequences of their efforts at societal reform.  Ken Myers, a leading Christian author and cultural analyst, argues that Hayek’s

call to humility should be given to those of us who want to effect a change in culture.  Cultural engineering doesn’t work.  We can do very little to encourage or discourage cultural trends or fads.  (All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians & Popular Culture, p.32)

Careful not to say that we can do nothing to change the culture, Myers (quoting T.S. Eliot) advises that the “very little” we can hope to accomplish is to:

“combat the errors and the emotional prejudices which stand in the way” of cultural change.  That is, we can call attention to the folly or absurdity or outright sin that certain cultural phenomena encourage or facilitate . . .  “We should look for the improvement of society, as we seek our own individual improvement, in relatively minute particulars.  We cannot say: ‘I shall make myself into a different person’;  we can only say:  ‘I will give up this bad habit, and endeavor to contract this good one.’  So of society we can only say:  ‘We shall try to improve it in this respect or the other, where excess or defect is evident’” (id. at 32-33).

During the last month or two, I’ve returned several times to Myers’ advice.  It bothers me.  I want to believe – and I do think – that each of us can do more than just “very little” to effect cultural change. 

Continue reading "Restoring Culture: What Can One Person Do?" »

Halloween III: Light in the Darkness

November 02, 2006

Last week, I explained why my family reversed course from 2005 and decided to celebrate Halloween ‘06, participating in Christ’s work to redeem even this holiday.  Well, this year, Team Wilson enjoyed Halloween like never before. 

The preparations began days in advance.  While my ladies attended a birthday party last weekend, I spent several hours adorning our house with ropes of white lights.  Later, Christine hemmed Savannah’s costume, and the girls delighted in placing labels on the treats that proclaimed, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”  They also made a poster to hang by the door that proclaimed, “Jesus is the light of the world!”

And then the big night arrived.  Before settling in for an evening of handing out treats, we led our girls on their victorious candy campaign around the block.  Christine and I (dressed as Mary and Joseph) escorted our girls (dressed as an angel and one of the three wise men) and led our “donkey” (played by our 150-pound Newfoundland puppy Maximus).  Even though Maximus didn’t wear a costume, I think he may have attracted the most attention from passersby.  Wearing a Halloween costume -- which I haven’t done since elementary school -- turned out not to be as embarrassing as I remembered. 

Back at home, we sat outside to enjoy the glorious fall weather and warmly greet guests disguised as werewolves, vampires, and Bill Gates (my bride’s personal favorite, and to some just as scary as the werewolves).  Trick-or-treaters were delighted to receive full-sized candy bars instead of those mini-sized imposters.  Along with their candy, guests received booklets describing the best treat of all -- Jesus Christ.

Perhaps most rewarding were the warm greetings we received from friends, neighbors and strangers alike in response to our brightly illuminated home.  What a difference the white lights made in our little corner of the world.     

Cars slowed to get a better look.  A neighbor across the street yelled with a friendly wave, “Thank you!  The lights look great!”  One mother called out, “Your house is beautiful!”  A dad said, “I’m sensing a positive vibe here.”  A little girl exclaimed, “It’s like Christmas and Halloween all in one!”  We heard reports of children telling their parents, “Look at that house with the lights!  We have to go there!”  One young boy knowingly said, “Oh!  It’s all about Jesus,” when he saw the poster that our girls made.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m looking forward to Halloween 2007.    

Posted by Ramsey Wilson at 02:41 PM    |    Comments (6)    |    Permalink

Teens Are Fickle: Should I Care?

November 01, 2006

According to the Washington Post, there is good reason to believe that the fantastically popular teen networking site MySpace is headed for obscurity.  MySpace “functions like a cross between a diary, e-mail program and photo album where content can be shared with friends, whose pictures appear on a member’s profile.”  Since inception two-and-a-half years ago, MySpace has attracted 124 million profiles, was acquired by News Corp. for $580 million, and entered into a $900 million deal with Google primarily allowing Google to advertise on the site. 

Despite this striking success, the Post finds reason for pessimism.  First, a reporter found area teens saying that “they’re over MySpace.”

“I think it’s definitely going down – a lot of my friends have deleted their MySpaces and are more into [MySpace rival] Facebook now,” said Birnbaum, a junior [at Falls Church High School] who spends more time on her Facebook profile, where she messages and shares photos with other students in her network.

From the other side of the classroom, E.J. Kim chimes in that in the past three months, she’s gone from slaving over her MySpace profile up to four hours a day – decorating it, posting notes and pictures to her friends’ pages – to deleting the whole thing.

“I’ve grown out of it,” Kim said. “I thought it was kind of pointless.”

Continue reading "Teens Are Fickle: Should I Care?" »

Should Christians Fast from Politics?

October 28, 2006

Jeff at Mr. Dawntreader pulls together a collection of thought-provoking perspectives on the question of whether Christians should fast from politics – a question now fashionable following the publication of Tempting Faith, the kiss-and-tell book of former White House aide David Kuo. 

Michael J. Fox, Stem Cell Research and Compassion in Political Discourse

October 26, 2006

Actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, has attracted a great deal of attention during the last several days for lending his voice in support of various Congressional candidates who support all types of stem cell research, including that which results in the destruction of human embryos.  Among the campaign ads drawing attention is Fox’s endorsement of Democrat Ben Cardin in his U.S. Senate race against Republican Michael Steele.

Fox’s appeal is powerful, particularly within the context of our postmodern culture in which narrative is king.  “With so much at stake,” including “hope [for] millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s,” it could be argued that the compassionate response would be to do whatever Fox asks.  In this case, his request appears simple:  he’s asking that we support Ben Cardin and other candidates willing to do whatever it takes to relieve these types of human suffering. 

Continue reading "Michael J. Fox, Stem Cell Research and Compassion in Political Discourse" »

Halloween II: Taking a Less Safe Course

October 24, 2006

Today I offer further evidence that I and my family are just stumbling along in our own search for truth and meaning in faith and culture.  A mere two weeks ago I attempted to explain why the Wilson Family does not celebrate Halloween.  Now, I am going to try to explain why we have changed our minds, and how we intend to celebrate this year.

My previous post implicitly assumed that Christians have just two options when it comes to Halloween:  to celebrate or not to celebrate.  Within that framework, I described why I was (and remain) uncomfortable with the “celebrate” choice.  In short, we are to honor and glorify God in all that we do, and it is difficult to conceive of how that goal would be advanced by our participation in Halloween which, with its pagan origins and lingering influence, often celebrates or trivializes evil.

That analysis conveniently ignores another option:  perhaps the most appropriate way to serve the Lord in this season is to engage the culture, to bring the Light of Christ to the darkness, to serve as His hands and feet, participating in His work of redeeming all of creation.  I accuse myself of “conveniently” ignoring this possibility, because it is the most difficult path for me to take.  Not since about third grade have I been a fan of Halloween.  I don’t enjoy the attention that comes with wearing costumes.  (What are you?  Who are you?  Why did you choose to dress up as that?)  I personally wouldn’t miss it at all, if we all agreed to drop it from the calendar.  Moreover, it’s rarely easy to stand up with Christ against the current of the culture.  Being a fool for Christ takes courage, and enjoying being His fool takes practice.

Continue reading "Halloween II: Taking a Less Safe Course" »

From Rwanda to Darfur

October 21, 2006

My bride and I watched Hotel Rwanda last night.  Like the first time we watched it, the story was gut-wrenching and conscience searing.  The civilized world closed its eyes as Tutsi Rwandans were murdered by the thousands by their Hutu countrymen. 

I don’t feel culpable for or complicit in those atrocities.  The Rwandan genocide transpired while I was in college.  I was still a kid, or at least still acting like one.  I was blissfully ignorant.  The current crisis in Darfur is less convenient for me.  Evil has reigned in Darfur for three years.  Systematic acts of violence are ongoing.  As SaveDarfur.org explains:

 

Darfur has been embroiled in a deadly conflict for over three years.  At least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

So, I sit here . . . wondering . . . What can I do?  What should I do?  How can I not do something? 

Racial Inequality: Is the Church Correcting or Perpetuating It?

October 21, 2006

As I matured into and through young adulthood, my worldview solidified into a form of radical personal, political and economic individualism.  I conceived of little communal obligation other than the requirement that we all act in our own rational, long-term self-interest.  When questions of racial or economic injustice were raised, in law and business school classrooms and private discussions, I was among the more strident defenders of the American meritocracy.  I still can hear myself:  “We have no caste system.  Racial discrimination is illegal and has been for decades.  Material success is available to all who are willing to sacrifice and strive.” 

I had little to no sympathy or appreciation for arguments that there exist structural inequalities – between rich and poor, black and white – that cause our would-be meritocracy to produce unjust outcomes.  I didn’t dispute the existence of apparently unjust outcomes, or that those outcomes might be the result of structural inequalities.  I argued that structural barriers were minimal compared to the power and ability of a free individual of strong motivation and will to succeed.  “Each of us, from across the demographic spectrum, encounters innumerable barriers to success in life,” I would argue.  “Certainly, some have been born into tougher circumstances.  But can we reasonably hope to correct such imbalances through the unwieldy hand of government?”  As an educated (some would say overeducated), upper-middle-class, white male raised in a safe suburban neighborhood, these were very convenient positions for me to adopt.

Well, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere (e.g., Greed, Political Giving, Halloween), my relatively recent submission to the unbounded sovereignty of Jesus Christ has resulted in His welcome yet uncomfortable intrusion in many corners of my life.  That questions of racial and economic injustice are no exception comes as no surprise.  What does surprise me is learning that members of His Church may be unwittingly perpetuating racial inequality in America by emphasizing, in part, individualism and free will, much like I used to.

Continue reading "Racial Inequality: Is the Church Correcting or Perpetuating It?" »

Practicing Discernment in Political Giving

October 18, 2006

Until recently, I haven’t paid much attention this year to electoral politics outside of Virginia.  That changed when friends asked my wife and me to provide financial support to the Congressional election campaign of a non-Virginian Republican in the midst of a tight race.  As a way of helping me think through this decision, allow me to explain why I find it to be a difficult one. 

Not until the 1992 presidential campaign did I first consider the issue of abortion.  As I recall, I was drawn to some candidate’s explanation that, while he is personally opposed to abortion, he would not seek to make his personal view the law of the land.  As a budding libertarian raised in a churched environment, this private/public distinction appealed to me, and I made it my own. 

Continue reading "Practicing Discernment in Political Giving" »

Blind Faith: What About Thomas?

October 13, 2006

In a recent post, I mentioned that I sometimes hear nonbelievers explain their aversion to Christianity along the following lines: 

I never could be a Christian.  I just can’t believe anything based on ‘blind faith.’  . . .  There may be evidence [supporting Christian belief], but Christians aren’t allowed to examine and weigh it.  Righteousness requires that they believe without question or challenge.  I know, because this is what I was taught as a child, when my parents dragged me to church.

(An example of this line of reasoning just so happens to appear today in a post called Hans Zeiger’s Scientific Ignorance:  Christian “beliefs are tucked safely behind all sorts of protective mechanisms, particularly the notion that one must have faith that they are true no matter what the evidence says because anyone who doubts them is being influenced by Satan (I’ve been told this directly on many occasions by those who believe such things).”).

Continue reading "Blind Faith: What About Thomas?" »

Religious Freedom: Did Christianity Make Any Positive Contribution?

October 10, 2006

Ed Brayton sparked an interesting conversation yesterday with his post Historical Ignorance on Display, in which he criticizes a speech by Gary Lankford, president of the Ohio Restoration Project.  I know nothing about Mr. Lankford or the Ohio Restoration Project.  I am not particularly interested in Lankford’s speech or much of Ed’s criticisms of it. 

What interests me is Ed’s history of the formation of the U.S. Constitution, in particular its inclusion of religious freedoms. 

Religious tolerance came only with the Enlightenment-influenced founding fathers, who wrote a Constitution that forbid religious tests for office, guaranteed religious freedom, prohibited religious establishment and had not a single provision that was based upon the Bible.  . . .

[I]f religious tolerance is to be credited to Christianity, [s]urely one should be able to point to specific references in the Bible or in Christian tradition that argued for religious tolerance if that was true, but one cannot. There was no Christian society that had religious tolerance or religious freedom prior to the founding of this country, which was an explicit rejection of centuries of religion nitolerance [sic] and religious establishments by Christian rulers.  . . .

Prior to the Enlightenment, there simply was no tradition of religious tolerance in Christianity;  indeed, the movement toward religious toleration was a reaction to centuries of intolerance from Christian leaders.

Continue reading "Religious Freedom: Did Christianity Make Any Positive Contribution?" »

Halloween: Is it Just About Kids, Costumes and Candy?

October 10, 2006

Our daughters, ages 7 and 5, will not celebrate Halloween at the end of the month.  That’s right:  no dressing up in costumes, traipsing around in the dark with friends and collecting candy from the neighbors.  Why?  Because we love Jesus, and He doesn’t want us to have any fun. 

Well, that’s only half true.  Jesus did not come to stop our fun; He came that his followers “may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).  We love Jesus and are deeply grateful for His sacrifice.  Accordingly, we earnestly desire to follow Him, honoring and glorifying Him in thought, word and deed.  We cannot see how celebrating Halloween would glorify God.  To the contrary, we fear that celebrating Halloween, at worst, celebrates evil and, at best, trivializes it.

Continue reading "Halloween: Is it Just About Kids, Costumes and Candy?" »

The Contraception Debate

October 06, 2006

[Note:  In the following post, I share some of my developing thoughts concerning contraception, in particular the use of birth control pills.  I do so with some hesitation, for I realize that, as a wealthy, married, white male, many people will see my privileged position as negating my standing to join this public debate.]

Last week, I involved myself in an online discussion at ScienceBlogs.com concerning the “religious right’s” objections to contraception.  Blogger Ed Brayton launched the discussion with a rather critical perspective on pro-life advocates’ increasingly visible efforts to curtail our society’s widespread use of contraception.  Of most interest to me was the following claim by Brayton:

If you want to see an explosion in the number of abortions, all you have to do is ban contraception.  Widespread availability of contraception absolutely reduces the number of abortions . . . . 

Continue reading "The Contraception Debate" »

Faith: Does Only Christ Ask for It?

October 03, 2006

A couple of days ago, I touched on the question of whether Christ has asked followers to believe based on “blind faith.”  Today, let’s stop and think about a related issue:  whether faith is an essential component of all belief systems, including philosophical naturalism. 

The consensus among contemporary scientists is that the universe originated with the Big Bang.  Just today, two American scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics for their work in developing a NASA satellite that produced “dramatic evidence” supporting the Big Bang theory.  Per Carlson, chairman of the Nobel committee for physics, described this evidence as “one of the greatest discoveries of the century; I would call it the greatest.  . . .  It increases our knowledge of our place in the universe.”

I’m no scientist.  Nor am I particularly interested in mastering the details of the “dramatic evidence” supporting the Big Bang theory.  What does interest me is the question of what caused the Big Bang.  Accordingly, I’ve read a little about several multiverse theories.  These theories concern the origins of the universe, and either contemplate or require the existence of many different universes.  As a layperson, what strikes me about these theories of the Big Bang’s cause is that not a single one is testable.  Not one is scientifically verifiable.   

[W]hat caused [the Big Bang] is untestable.  Whether it was by a fluctuation in the quantum potential or by the command of God, either is a scientifically untestable thesis.  As a consequence, all belief systems are based on a faith statement.  The only issue we have to decide is which requires the most faith.  (Regis Nicoll, Putting on a “Bright” Face)

The next time you hear someone assert, “Science is about facts, and religion is about faith,” ask them:  (1) what they believe caused the origin of the universe;  and (2) whether that belief is based on fact or faith.

Blind Faith: Does Christ Require It?

September 30, 2006

When I talk with or listen to nonbelievers, particularly atheistic scientists, about Christianity, it’s usually not long before they explain:  “I never could be a Christian.  I just can’t believe anything based on ‘blind faith.’”  Inevitably, I or someone else then tries to explain that the God of the Bible does not ask that we believe based on faith alone.  He has provided a great deal of evidence – in Scripture, nature, and the natural law – so that people may know Him.  One may argue that they do not find the evidence compelling, but they cannot argue that none exists. 

Too often, the nonbeliever responds along these lines:  “There may be evidence, but Christians aren’t allowed to examine and weigh it.  Righteousness requires that they believ