“Marley was dead to begin with . . . This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate. “

I love that line. It’s from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. It’s an important concept because if Marley wasn’t dead then there would be nothing remarkable about Dickens’ ghost story. During Easter season, I found myself thinking about old Scrooge sitting there shaking uncontrollably from his first encounter with the possibility of the dead coming to visit. Unable to sleep because he can’t get the thought of what might have been a ghost that he saw in the door knocker. Of course in the comfort of his reasonable mind and soft house coat he realizes that what is nagging at his mind is almost surely nothing to lose sleep over. Just a bit of undigested beef right? More gravy than grave. But then again. What if it wasn’t? What if . . .

I found myself in the same sort of state as Scrooge once about 10 years ago. I had just finished reading Paul Maier’s novel A Skeleton in God’s Closet. Here’s a short plot outline. Continue reading …

We’ve all seen it. The bumper sticker on the Prius that says:

I never knew the history of this particular piece of  philosophic driving literature.  Jeremy Jackson at Enoch Magazine is the first person I’ve seen to ask: “Who’s behind this idea?” The short version is that the design originated as a submission by a Polish designer for a contest promoting tolerance and understanding at the unique Museum on the Seam in Israel which displays art and design that centers around international political and social issues. Jackson explains that what happened after that was not so tolerant at least for the designer:

Piotr Mlodozeniec combined symbols for the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths in the word and intended it to be used to promote religious tolerance – 2001. The symbol was then popularized on the global Vertigo tour of rock icon, U2, in the early part of the past decade. According to a published report, no one from the band had requested permission to use the symbol from its creator. The museum claimed rights. The legality of its use by U2 was in question. Subsequently, a company was quickly formed in Indiana that used the same design with trademark rights requested in 2003 and granted in 2005. Though Coexist LLP profited from the t-shirt sales immediately, it had not been granted permission from the artist who created the design and was actually strongly opposed by Mlodozeniec. Coexist LLP went on to sue numerous other vendors who did not have the rights to the design but were nonetheless selling products with the design.

There’s irony in there somewhere I just know it. Of course, there are problems with the idea of coexistence. As this parody illustrates.

The clear “villain” here is Islam. It goes without saying (but of course must be said) that this is a gross oversimplification about the desires of the fastest growing religion. Not all Muslims want the same things. And neither do all Christians, pagans etc. But as with all satire, there really is a deeper point. All religions are not created equal. Coexistence is a problem not just because of violence but because of logic. Contradictory claims cannot all be true. All religions make some mutually exclusive claims about reality. They cannot all be correct. So coexistence faces a very real problem in that religions cannot simply be “different paths to the same thing,” as some Wiccans would have us accept. In response to Jeremy Jackson’s post about Coexist movement, one Wiccan wrote: “As a Wiccan I respect both of your blogs, and in it the truth of the Love for all [sic]. Of the message of Peace[sic]. I do believe in Christ and his teachings. Thank you for your point of view and sharing it.”

The difficulty with this Wiccan concept of love for all is that it is easy to simply ignore those teachings of Jesus that we don’t like or that destroy our cute little bumper sticker. Christianity is a proselytizing religion. It seeks to convince others that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. While peaceful, Christianity is not ideologically tolerant–if by tolerant we mean simply, “Hey you have your religion and I have mine, now let’s ignore both of them and concentrate on the kind of peace and love that can fit neatly on a bumper sticker because its all good.”As those often irreverent and sometimes profound folks over at Radio Free Babylon illustrate with their Coffee with Jesus web comic:

While Islam has its moderates, they are usually Muslims who deny the fundamentals of the Koran. Those who hold to strict interpretation of the Koran are usually the ones who are intolerant. This is, to my mind, a major difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists (however you define it). I don’t care how fundamentalist you read the New Testament, you will not find authority to burn gay people, forcibly baptize Jews, or wage war on others to make them Christian. Even though all of those were done in the name of Christ they were done inconsistently with the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. On the other hand, no matter how liberally you read the New Testament you will not find a Jesus who “lives and lets live.” To the contrary you will find a Jesus who dies violently in order to show that he is the only way to know God. That is either a masochist or a savior. There is no “peaceful” third option. Next week I’ll talk a little bit about what actual coexistence looks like. Until then, I invite your comments on bumper stickers, fundamentalism, and coexistence.

Isn’t that just like God. Nearly as soon as I wrote last week’s blog, ”Raise the Level of Discourse” Barack Obama gave his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. God, it seems, gave me the opportunity to go back on what I wrote (in my flesh I would love to do that) or ignore the speech (which may be the coward’s way out) or comment on the issues and reserve any personal attacks. Hopefully, God will grant me success in doing the latter.

At a religious event like the National Prayer Breakfast, it seems appropriate to comment on spiritual issues and it often reveals ones worldview as they handle or mishandle the sacred texts of the group to whom one is speaking. This is true in the case of Barack Obama and this speech. As we have documented in our article, Barack and the Borg , for twenty years he attended a church that is steeped in Black Liberation Theology. Anthony B. Bradley’s article, The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology defines and comments on the origins and implications of the theological view which Obama has been steeped in for over twenty years so I won’t spend much time on that here other than to say, it is this life centered and has little to do with our relationship to God or the person and work of Jesus Christ. This may sound odd since Obama stated in the speech: Continue reading …

I must admit I have the advantage of age in writing this piece. In my younger years I was not slow to speak or slow to anger. I also have the advantage of friends that I have made and been able to observe. One of my friends, Dani, is married to a man that is the quintessential “strong and silent” type. Dani says of him that he only speaks about 6 words a day and 3 of them are “I love you” and so she stays. This is hyperbole but based on a great degree of truth. Allen doesn’t say a lot, he listens more carefully than may be apparent and when he begins to share a few words it pays to listen. Not doing so misses the opportunity of garnering some pearls of wisdom. In many ways Allen reflects in his character the words of James 1:19-20:

“This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God”

James is right of course. When Continue reading …

Last week I commented on President Obama’s use of Psalm 46 at the memorial at ground zero. But sitting presidents aren’t the only ones who want to use scripture and theology. Wanna Be presidents do as well. So this week we look at two different quotes by Rick Perry, the GOP saint or a cross between a knuckle-dragging ape and the prince of darkness depending on who you ask. Perry has caused a bit of a stir when he proffered a of C.S. Lewis’ “Lord-Liar-Lunatic” argument when he said:

Many want to recognize Jesus as a good teacher, but nothing more. But why call him ‘good’ if he has lied about his claims of deity?”

Well, this got all the blogs atwitter (pardon the pun). Would Perry alienate Continue reading …

In the 1970s Johnsons Baby Powder ran a television ad with a lady standing in front of her bathroom mirror saying, “Who am I? What am I? Why’d I cut my hair, I look like a squirrel.” It was a humorous way of telling the potential consumers who were viewing the ad how to stay cool and collected with their product while in stressful situations like having a hair style that conforms to societal expectations. “Who am I,” our self identity, is often confused or mixed up with my conformance to certain group expectations. I have had to think about this a lot over the years as I have counseled with people leaving cults and false religious groups. In leaving they have walked away from a certain set of beliefs which comprise and inform their worldview and in many cases they have left family and friends who remain in the group. How do they recover and where do they begin rebuilding their lives? This is a question some who have started a new Facebook page, ATI Survivors and subsequently a website, Recovering Grace have asked me.

For those who are unaware, ATI stands for Continue reading …

I was talking with my partner in crime, Jonathon Miles, about this week’s blog and he mentioned a quote that C.S. Lewis had made about having first things first. In my trolling the Internet in search of the quote I stumbled across something that combined the quote with issues of social justice at, of all places, First Things.

Over on Catholic World News, a fellow who goes by the name of Uncle Di reflects on the way that clerics in recent decades have abandoned revealed truth and saving souls in favor of sundry causes of social justice. He recalls a 1942 essay by C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things.” Lewis wrote: “To sacrifice the greater good for the less and then not to get the lesser good after all–that is the surprising folly. . . Every preference of a small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made. Apparently the world is made that way. If Esau really got his pottage in return for his birthright, then Esau was a lucky exception. You can’t get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.”

Ultimately, that is the dilemma Continue reading …