Don’t let another famous person die, participate in the media spectacle, the tearful, heartfelt farewells and the blame it on the fame game and not take it into your home and circle of life that surrounds you in your own life. It is not fame’s fault. It is no one’s fault. Do you blame cancer on fame? Do you blame diabetes on fame? It is a disease and like cancer, diabetes and depression, it is everywhere. Alcoholism and addiction is ever present and it wants you dead.

Alcoholism wants you dead. Whitney had her demons and they wanted her dead. What’s missing from these heartfelt sentiments and pleas for awareness? Whitney’s will is missing. Everything is articulated in terms of what the disease will do to you. I’m not sure that is what Tyler, Curtis, and others intend. But it is coming across that way and frankly it doesn’t surprise me. Just this January, USA Today ran a column by biologist Jerry A Coyne entitled “Why You Don’t Have a Free Will”

We are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe. Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain — the organ that does the “choosing.” And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an environment including the other people we deal with. Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down to molecules and physics. True “free will,” then, would require us to somehow step outside of our brain’s structure and modify how it works. Science hasn’t shown any way we can do this because “we” are simply constructs of our brain. We can’t impose a nebulous “will” on the inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself and change its program

Coyne, explicitly rules out any Will. Because there is no such thing as the non-physical (except the laws of physics themselves) then our brains can never be acted on by some spiritual entity like a will or a soul. Whitney Houston was a drug addict because her brain followed a predictable set of physical laws. If her addiction led to her death whether by suicide or overdose, then her brain acted in this way until it didn’t act any more at all. This is no surprise. Physicalism and evolutionary psychology go hand in hand like Prime-Time TV and Christian Bashing. But this is merely a valid deductive argument. If we are nothing more than physical matter, and physical matter is completely at the mercy of physical laws, then Whitney and the rest of us are at the mercy of physical laws.

But Coyne provides us a peek into the laboratory where scientists are marshaling evidence to support that argument that we are all really just “Meat Computers”:

Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.

So if I understand this correctly, since our brains alter blood flow seven seconds before we are “aware” that we have made a decision, these decisions are not conscious. But the fact that we are not aware of making a decision until after our brains have done something doesn’t really prove that our decisions are unconscious ones, let alone that our brains aren’t affected by our will. However, I’ll admit that if the only option is reductive physicalism (We are only molecules acted on by physical laws) then that conclusion would be more palatable.

Coyne’s other evidence is that experiments are showing that our sense of “willing” can be eliminated through brain stimulation, mental illness, or psychological experiments. His conclusion: “The ineluctable scientific conclusion is that although we feel that we’re characters in the play of our lives, rewriting our parts as we go along, in reality we’re puppets performing scripted parts written by the laws of physics.” However, again my conclusion isn’t as strong as his. If our feeling of free will (which is my interpretation of Coyne’s “sense of willing”) can be altered, this doesn’t indicate that it doesn’t exist but rather that it can be affected by our brain. No serious Christian that I know of, would deny that what happens to our physical being can have an effect on our non-physical selves. However, there is moral responsibility to God because we are not simply our brains.

My main thought after reading Coyne’s account of the experiments in neurobiology and psychology, is that if we eliminate the possibility of any thing other than matter and energy, this sort of interpretation of the data is no less plausible than any other hypothesis that also eliminates the possibility of non-physical causes. It becomes a sort of Just-So Story, internally consistent but not compelling unless you agree in advance the story itself is the only possibility.  As Sherlock Holmes says, “Once you eliminate the impossible, then what remains no matter how improbable must be true. But of course it all boils down to whether or not we are merely a random collocation of atoms configured by time and chance doesn’t it? If we are soul and bodies joined together in a union for which death itself creates unnatural separation predicated by the fall of man, then moral responsibility and free will are extremely important.

But back to Whitney’s chemical demons and Hollywood’s lack of will. Coyne has something remarkable to say about why we might want to keep believing in free will at least in the abstract. Coyne notes, “Sociological studies show that if people’s belief in free will is undermined, they perform fewer prosocial behaviors and more antisocial behaviors.”

Is that any surprise? If I don’t have free will then I’m not responsible. If I am not responsible to anyone, why bother to chose to be decent, loving, or even sober? Speaking as an addict myself, if I blamed my misbehavior on my demons, it would become a whole lot easier to get rid of that nagging sense that I am accountable to God or anyone else. Coyne says with a nonchalance that makes me cringe:

But the most important issue is that of moral responsibility. If we can’t really choose how we behave, how can we judge people as moral or immoral? Why punish criminals or reward do-gooders? Why hold anyone responsible for their actions if those actions aren’t freely chosen?

Coyne rightly cautions that this does not mean we can’t punish criminals because it will protect society and make the person better. To which I have to disagree. It means what would be best for society is that we can lock people up and maybe start manipulating there brains to better match our current evolutionary needs.  What will be gone is any sense that people deserve to be in prison for their actions. But what is curious is that he sees this as having no real downside. We can treat the addicted and punish the criminals for pretty much the same reason: it changes our brain chemistry. Furthermore, there is no real difference between a Nelson Mandela and  Bernie Madoff for both are “victims of circumstance–of the genes we are bequeathed and the environments we encounter.”

Then in a leap that should be preserved as one of the record long jumps to an conclusion in modern print, he finishes with this:

[B]y losing free will we gain empathy, for we realize that in the end all of us, whether Bernie Madoffs or Nelson Mandelas, are victims of circumstance — of the genes we’re bequeathed and the environments we encounter. With that under our belts, we can go about building a kinder world.

Seriously? In response to Coyne’s just-so story, I will end this particular post with my own just-so story: I will agree that if we are all determined by physical laws this doesn’t guarantee that we will be lazy, addicted, cruel, and passive when it comes to our own moral improvement. It is much more likely, however, that there will be more not less addiction, shirking of duty, and crime and those people will be more likely to quote neuroscience in their defense. And that can’t be a good thing.

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:

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

This presents a teachable moment for he claims to be a Christian, appeals to Jesus and cites a portion of Scripture, Luke 12:48. But there is a context here which has been abandoned in Obama’s use of it and demonstrates a misuse of the Word of God. Something which helps is a basic outline of how to interpret a text. The following is helpful:

A text (what we are citing)
Without a context (to whom was it written, when was it written, what was the author’s intent and how would those in that day have understood it)
Is a pretext (something that sounds true but is actually false).

This is very important for without this we can change or redefine words and statements to the opposite of what was intended. The Catholic Conservative blog points out in Collective Salvation or Individual Salvation – It’s Time to Choose :

So, what does this mean to each of us trying to live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? First, we need to really think about this and train ourselves to listen carefully to words, especially words that can be misused by those who would modify the Gospel message. Know the differences between:

• Collective Salvation vs. Individual Salvation

• Social Justice vs. Equal Justice

• Human Rights vs. Individual Rights

Is the passage from Luke 12 talking about the government taking material wealth from some to give to others who are not as well off, or is it talking about something else?

The chapter begins with a discussion of not being fearful of men or even of life but instead to be focused on God and His provision. As Christ compares and contrasts focusing on this life vs. on God He says in verse 15:

And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

He was clear that we are not to focus on what others have with an eye to acquire it for ourselves (covetousness) because what happens in this life is not the end of the story. After telling the story of a rich man who was focused on earthly treasures He says in verse 21- 29:

So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

The context of Jesus’ comments is to focus on God not on the earthly life. God is our provider and protector. The next section talks about living expectantly for the Lord’s return. Again, the focus is on God and away from material stuff. In response to Peter’s question about who this applies to in verse 41, Jesus comes to the section which ends with the passage which Barack Obama used (42-48):

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In context, the passage has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, much less by the government. In fact, it has nothing to do with taking care of the poor either individually or by the government. I am not saying that Scripture doesn’t talk about helping the poor, we have written on that in The Rise of the Evangelical Left as well as a number of other articles. My point is this passage does not discuss it. But if not devoting more of our material possessions to the poor, what is in view in the context of Jesus statement? It has to do with power and abuse of power. Someone, a servant, was appointed to rule over many others. “ Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household .” The one appointed to govern decided he no longer needed to worry about his master and became power mad. He began abusing those in his charge and lived a king’s life at the expense of the people instead of a servants life in service to God, “ My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink .” Those who have been entrusted with a great deal of power and have been told that they are but servants are more accountable for how they use their power and will be rewarded or punished accordingly. So, one who has greater power and abuses those they are governing will be punished more severely, “ For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more..” The passage is about the use or abuse of power not with how the government should force those with means to make more provision for the poor by Federal mandate. So, the question is, since the passage has been put forth by the President, how is he and the Federal Government handling their power. Are they acting as servants or abusing those in their charge? President Obama went on to allude to Genesis 4:9 when he said:

But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper (Genesis 4:9)

There are 2 different words in Genesis 4 which are translated “keeper.” In Genesis 4:2, we read that “Abel was a keeper of the sheep.” Here the Hebrew word is “raah,” (this would be the English equivalent of the Hebrew word). It essentially means feeder. The shepherd made sure the sheep were fed and protected. In 4:9 the word is “shamar” and has the meaning of “to observe.” Cain was using it sarcastically to God and was essentially saying “it is not my job to know where my brother is at; I am not his observer or babysitter.” Again, was Obama communicating that he views the Federal Government as being the babysitter for its citizens?

Another passage he cites is Proverbs 31:8-9 from the NIV:

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute

The passage is again talking about an abusive government:

Lemuel, it isn’t good for kings to drink wine. It isn’t good for rulers to long for beer. If they do, they might drink and forget what the law commands. They might take away the rights of all those who are beaten down. Give beer to those who are dying. Give wine to those who are sad and troubled.  Let them drink and forget how poor they are. Let them forget their suffering. Speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves. Speak up for the rights of all those who are poor. Speak up and judge fairly. Speak up for the rights of those who are poor and needy.”

Lemuel’s mother communicated to him as though it was from God (v:1) that God was calling him to protect the citizens from an evil overbearing government that would exert itself and “take away the rights of all those who are beaten down.” The warning here, like the warning in Luke, is about the abuse of power by evil leaders.
 In the past President Obama has stated that Individual salvation based on collective salvation and if the Bible is man centered instead of God centered, that may be true. The view ignores the person and work of Christ and the Gospel as biblically defined. A comment from Collective Salvation or Individual Salvation – It’s Time to Choose seems appropriate here:

So how does a Christian, which Obama claims to be, reconcile Collective Salvation with the traditional teachings of Christianity? After all, Jesus’ death on the cross opened the door for the individual salvation of each one of us – and the judgment will be an individual judgment – we will not be called up in groups to account for our actions. When you think about it, how could a collective judgment possibly work? Each of us is responsible for our own individual actions – I cannot possibly be held to account for the actions of someone else

This is correct. There are many passages of Scripture which clearly show this however, I will just cite one, Ezekiel 18:20:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

We will stand before God on our own, not corporately. Paul writes in Romans 10 that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “Whoever” is individual and the individual will be saved.

The Scriptures which were used when read in context mean the opposite of how Barack Obama applies them. It would seem that his worldview dictates that Scripture is a human centric book rather than a God centric book. Do any of the religious leaders with whom he associates care enough about his eternal destiny to let him know this and communicate the true gospel? It might make a difference in how he leads if he took the passages in context and applied them to his leadership.

On Monday, January 23, I was watching the Neil Cavuto Show on the FOX Business channel. He had billionaire, Leon Cooperman on the show to discuss his Open Letter to President Obama. The letter is interesting and even though he is very wealthy, the letter was not pro or con on the question of raising taxes. When questioned he wasn’t opposed to raising taxes on the very wealthy but reiterated that the purpose of his writing was to “raise the level of discourse.” In part his letter to President Obama reads:

But what I can justifiably hold you accountable for is your and your minions’ role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us that smacks of what so many have characterized as “class warfare”. Whether this reflects your principled belief that the eternal divide between the haves and have-nots is at the root of all the evils that afflict our society or just a cynical, populist appeal to his base by a president struggling in the polls is of little importance. What does matter is that the divisive, polarizing tone of your rhetoric is cleaving a widening gulf, at this point as much visceral as philosophical, between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them. It is a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents. And it is an approach to governing that owes more to desperate demagoguery than your Administration should feel comfortable with.

Cooperman writes with a refreshing clarity. Focus on the issues, abandon personal and class attacks. Make a case for your position as compared with the actual position of the other side instead of demonizing those who hold views contrary to yours. There is wisdom here. This would change the face of political discussion away from negative campaigning and false claims. The result would be to raise the level of discourse.

This is not only true in the area of politics but religion as well. For example, in 1993 Joy and I were at the Parliament of the World’s Religions which was held in Chicago. We, along with about 10 others, had the opportunity to talk with many about their beliefs and compare and contrast them with biblical Christianity and its claims. I made several observations there which have greatly influenced how MCOI operates as a mission and ministry. The conference attendees were greeted outside by hecklers with bull horns and ridicule of their beliefs. Sometimes the claims were true but delivered in a demeaning way and other times the accusations were false. In both cases they went largely disregarded by those attending. Those of us inside had opportunities to ask questions, make our case and compare and contrast the issues of truth claims about things eternal. We had the opportunity to interview and talk with Lady Olivia Robertson, founder of the Wiccan group, The Fellowship of Isis and at one point several of us had Donald Frew, a PR person for the The Covenant of the Goddess in our suite to find out first hand what they believed. Donald was very open and oddly surprised. His view of Christians and Christianity had been formed by coming into contact with protesters like those outside the event and Mike Warnke,author of Satan Seller whom Frew viewed as an abject liar. In fact, Frew was correct as the expose Selling Satan: The Evangelical Media and the Mike Warnke Scandal demonstrates. At the end of our conversation Donald Frew made a very interesting comment. He said that if Christianity was what was seeing and hearing in us, he would become a Christian in a minute. He rejected Christianity because he thought we were an anomaly and Warnke and the protestors outside the event who were misrepresenting what he believed, were more representative of Christianity.

I have no doubt that the protesters were well intentioned but not well trained. Unfortunately, many non-Christians view Evangelicals and Fundamentalists more like the protesters. We have an opportunity to make a difference in reaching this next generation with the gospel. God spoke to Israel through the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 1:18:

“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.

God is not opposed to reason and making the case in a gentle manner. Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:15 to give an account “with gentleness and reverence.” It is true that no matter how we present and defend our beliefs, some will still be offended. We have no control over that but we can still raise the level of discourse. Lee Strobel says in the interview Lee Strobel: We’re on Cusp of Golden Era of Apologetics:

A recent magazine featured this headline: “Apologetics Makes a Comeback Among Youth.” As David Kinnaman wrote in his book You Lost Me, which is based on interviews with thousands of young people: “This generation wants and needs truth, not spiritual soft-serve. This is a generation hungry for substantive answers to life’s biggest questions.”

He also mentions that at least one organization is working to put 500 apologists on college campuses in the next 5 years. To that end Lee, Mark Mittelberg started “The Institute at Cherry Hills, an apologetics and evangelism ministry at Cherry Hills Community Church in Highlands Ranch, Colo.” Lee points out:

First, we’re seeing more and more formal debates between Christians and skeptics on topics like the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, science and faith, Islam versus Christianity, and so forth. The foremost Christian debater, William Lane Craig, said that this “allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field and for the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies.”

These debates have shown than Christians have an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas: we have truth on our side. When Craig debated Christopher Hitchens, one of the leading evangelists for atheism until his recent death, an atheist website evaluated the results by saying, “Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” Again, that was the atheist commentator’s opinion!

This sort of ministry does not have to reside in one mega church in Colorado. Lee may be right. Training believers to take the gospel outside the church into culture does take particular training and practice. This can be done locally by having 10, 15 or 20 churches ban together to support a local “Institute” to give on going training and support across denominational boundaries. Giving sound, honest, reasonable answers in the market place of ideas will do far more to bring the gospel to those outside the church than all of the protests and bull horns we can muster. However, it will take prayer and financial commitment on the part of churches to intentionally raise the level of discourse.

All the vitriol these Christians can spew could never be enough to diminish the heroic actions of 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist. Her courage is contagious. She stood up against her school and her community to fight for our rights, won her lawsuit and the admiration of many. But she’s also endured an enormous amount of hatred/bullying, and has done so with poise and bravery. I’ve seen a lot of this kind of bullying when issues of church/state are called out, but these comments are some of the most hateful I’ve come across. It is apparent that Christians only believe in tolerance so long as their religion is allowed to violate the constitution.Well, I’ve grown tired of just being tolerated and I will not be tolerating the stomach-churning hatred that’s continuously espoused by those doing the “tolerating.”

Wow. That is some strong, passionate rhetoric right there. Anytime I see that kind of response I make a it a habit to slow my usual snarkiness and genuinely listen. First, here’s the back story. Jessica Alquist is by all accounts a bright, articulate, involved atheist teenager and she wanted the school prayer banner removed from Cranston High school West’s auditorium. The offending prayer reads:

Our Heavenly Father, Grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High West.

Alquist sued and won her case. The banner was removed. If you are already getting chock full of righteous indignation about activist courts, and America as a Christian nation then you will have missed the point. What is remarkable is not that the judge sided with Jessica. What is remarkable is the response from students at Cranston High West whose website espouses it is a place “Where we treat people as we would like people to treat us.” The atheist blog “JesusFestusFajitafishsticks” posted some of the tweets, posts, and messages that represent responses from students about the removal of the banner. Seriously I can’t print most of these here. They are so vile and violent. Their are threats, insults, and the worst kind of vitriol. I don’t believe all of them are from professing Christians but I’m sure a lot of them are. Here’s a sample of the ones fit to print (barely). Note some of these are actually edited by me in the interest of decency:

“May that evil, little atheist teenager girl and that judge BURN IN HELL”

“She’s not human. She’s garbage.”

“That B___ is going to hell and satan is going to rape her.”

“Jessica Alquist may have won her case but she’s going straight to hell #Godovereverything.”

“I hope there are lots of banners in hell when you are rotting there you atheist F____.”

My first knee-jerk reaction was to be suspicious of the quotes but they are genuine. What about the atheist response? One of the hallmarks on the so-called new atheism is a sentiment of “no more mister nice guy.”  Perhaps Atheism’s most articulate spokesman, Christopher Hitchens, says that “Religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.” He names Christianity as the chief cause of much of the evil in the world today including the persecution of Jews and violence against homosexuals. Hitchens did not play around. The response to Alquist’s persecution is no different:

When will you stop saying this is shocking? It isn’t anymore.
When will you stop saying this is rare? It isn’t.
When do you think we need to start taking these kind of people seriously?
Hopefully when they’re aiming their violence and hatred at a 16 year old. This happens every time someone does something amazing to furthur [sic] our cause. Christians show their “love” all over facebook, twitter, and comments sections of news sites.

When one atheist friend of mine posted the story she remarked “How Christian of them” referring to the students and their comments.

My knee-jerk response was to question whether or not these were really the sentiments of honest Christian youth.  I was about to make the same point as this poster: “I don’t see anything in those comments that implies that ANY of these people are christians anyway… How would you actually know based on these remarks?” The atheists responded rationally: “‘Burn in hell . . . ‘HELL’. . . ‘Sinner’
Uhmmm… Sounds like good ol’ American Christians to me.”

Then I remembered my logic and there is a fallacy called the No True Scotsman Fallacy take from former Atheist Antony Flew:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.

Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!

Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

The point is that it could be fallacious to make a claim “Christianity promotes love and tolerance” and then when confronted by the opposite, to simply ad hoc claim that these couldn’t be true Christians in order to prove that Christianity does not promote such behavior. Let me be clear. The atheists have a point. It does seem circular to neatly deny that true Christians would never do such a thing as a response to behavior by ostensibly religious people.

Now the No True Scotsman fallacy only works if one engages in it too much or if its simply ad hoc. So if it turns out that there are a lot of people who aren’t “true Scotsman” and it can be reasonably discerned then the claim isn’t a fallacy. For instance, in a recent book Christians are Hate-Filled Hypocrites and other Lies You’ve Been Told, Bradley Wright, an sociologist debunks a lot of myths about Christians. It turns out that weekly church attendance is a major factor in whether Christian Teens are just as promiscuous as non-Christian teens (i.e. true love waits) changes drastically when you consider the teens that profess Christianity and the ones who also attend church weekly. The same goes for divorce rates, giving to the poor, adultery and all the other hypocritical things Christians do. So a true indicator of the level of “Christianess” of the cyber-bullies would be how many attend church on a weekly basis.

But that’s not the point. Atheists are making an argument and one that we should listen to. I think it goes something like this.

1) Belief in God (and hell, etc.) makes one immoral in fact. It makes people mean, close minded and petty and in some cases violent.

2) People who are mean, close-minded, petty and violent should be treated with contempt, ridicule and hatred (per Hitchens)

3) Christians (when they are petty and violent) should be treated with contempt, ridicule, and hatred.

4) Therefore little good comes from religious belief and a lot of bad does come from it.

This is an important argument (and for those of you interested in logic, its valid). As I’ve mentioned before arguments can only go wrong in a few ways. One of the premises could be false or the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises no matter how true. I thnk there is a problem with premise one. The evidence that these teenagers were cruel, petty and evil is not proof that religious belief makes one cruel petty or evil. I will not deny that they are Christians–though if mentioning heaven and God is a sufficient condition for Christianity then just about every Philadelphia brand cream cheese commercial from 2000 is an advertisement for Christianity. I will not deny that these teenagers are cruel, petty, and evil. I will say that it is by no means evident that this means their belief made them that way any more than it is evident that Stalin or Mao Zedong was cruel or petty or evil because they were atheists. The fact is that some Christians are on TeamJesus and Team Edward (a Twilight reference) or team NASCAR with exactly the same enthusiasm and passion.

If what makes one a Christian is a set of beliefs then what is evident is that one can be a Christian and still be petty, cruel, and evil. Let’s not try to sugar-coat that by making excuses for Christians who engage in cruel acts by claiming they are not Christians. Christians, yes true Christians, can be and do just about anything.

The value of Christianity is not primarily that it makes otherwise, bad, selfish people good. The same is true for atheism by the way. What ethically follows from steadfastly disbelieving in God as an atheist? Absolutely no behavior necessarily follows from denying God exists. It doesn’t make one more or less ethical. It doesn’t require that one act more or less kind, generous, or well . . . anything. So what we have is a standoff when it comes to whether belief or disbelief leads to cruelty or violence. For every atheist that brings up the crusades, a Christian can bring up the Stalin purges. And the fact of the matter is there is blood enough to go around. Now I know that Atheists will say that I’m missing the point. Christians are being consistent with the teaching of the New Testament. They will say that the New Testament is full of hatred, bigotry and the condoning of violence. But this is a claim about what the New Testament says and means in context. What most atheists who make this claim don’t do is actually produce examples of the condoning of hatred, violence, bigotry etc in a way that any scholar of any other ancient document would buy for a second. And  a lot atheists aren’t willing to learn how to seriously study the bible to give it the benefit of the doubt.  In that, they are remarkably similar to a lot of Christians. But that is a post for another day.

At the end of the day sharing the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Billy Graham doesn’t guaranteed any behavior. However, sharing the commitment to their worldviews through taking on the attitudes of atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins or attending church weekly like Billy Graham and many other committed Christians is more likely to affect one’s behavior.

Setting aside the sarcasm, the phrase “How Christian of Them” belies an important argument. If atheists have too many examples of cruel Christians then this is deplorable and maybe the only appropriate response to the fact that Christians are being cruel and violent is “How dare they do that.” It seems I remember Jesus himself saying something about hypocrisy and judgment beginning with the house of God. What the atheist argument reveals though is that to be a hypocrite, you have to be inconsistent with something you believe and to be ethically hypocritical you have to be inconsistent with your ethical beliefs. Atheists can’t be ethical hypocrites. Christians can be.

A second matter, in this regard, concerns the strong indications that for all the deep belief, the genuine piety, the heroic faith, and the good intention one finds all across American Christianity today, large swaths have been captured by the spirit of the age. One does not have to review or redo the research of many social scientists to recognize the extent of this challenge. Consumerism, individualism, the therapeutic and managerial ideologies have gone far to undermine the authority of the Christian movement and its traditions. This problem is especially acute among the young, where, as Christian Smith observes, a “moralistic, therapeutic deism” has triumphed over historical creedal faith and practice.

As Jonathon and I work our way through James Davison Hunter’s book, To Change the World : The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World , we are finding a number of things with which we agree. In fact, we have made similar observations which are similar to the above quote from his book. I do have to say that, although he states he is writing as a Christian, it is unclear what he means by that claim. He seems to classify all groups which claim to be Christian, Roman Catholic, Liberal Left as well as Conservatives and Fundamentalists as Christians. That being said, his observations are more sociological than theological. The first section in his “Second Essay” addresses Conservative Christianity and in the above quote, he is correct. Many within evangelical churches have been “captured by the spirit of the age.” Theology has been done largely through the grid of psychology. How we “feel” about biblical teaching or God’s interaction with humans is for many, the determiner of what is true. The desire for health and financial wealth has in some circles become the measuring stick for determining the level of one’s faith. Good health and more wealth and possessions demonstrates great faith. On the other hand, financial struggles or sickness are regarded as having little or no faith. For those in Conservative churches there is a growing desperation to fix culture in order to make the biblical faith more comfortable and relevant. The result has been a decided escalation in political involvement in an effort to “reclaim America for God.”

The politicization of everything is an indirect measure of the loss of a common culture and, in turn, the competition among factions to dominate others on their own terms. Our times amply demonstrate that it is far easier to force one’s will on others through legal and political means or to threaten to do so than it is to persuade them or negotiate compromise with them.

The culture war rhetoric has been ratcheted up each election season since Reagan ran for president. The divide between liberals and conservatives has gone from being a gap which could be crossed to a Grand Canyon size split. Hunter suggests the reason for this:

The sense of injury is the key. Over time, the perceived injustice becomes central to the person’s and the group’s identity. Understanding themselves to be victimized is not a passive acknowledgement but a belief that can be cultivated. Accounts of atrocity become a crucial subplot of the narrative, evidence that reinforces the sense that they have been or will be wronged or victimized. Cultivating the fear of further injury becomes a strategy for generating solidarity within the group and mobilizing the group to action. It is often useful at such times to exaggerate or magnify the threat. The injury or threat thereof is so central to the identity and dynamics of the group that to give it up is to give up a critical part of whom they understand themselves to be. Thus, instead of letting go, the sense of injury continues to get deeper.

I think he is correct. Both sides, liberals and conservatives (and the varying factions in between) are working hard to secure the right to create their vision of a cultural utopia, what I have chosen to call a Culturetopia and force it on the rest of culture. We looked at this in our 2008 Journal article ”Getting Back to the Garden”. Liberals demonize conservatives with claims that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. Conservatives insist that liberals are intent on eliminating the Constitution and installing a Marxist Regime in its place. The language of war and fear raise a grat deal of funds for those who have mastered the language and techniques of rallying the troops against the enemy. The vast majority of people simply want to get along without all of the battles which are heating up on all sides.

Hunter argues that change comes from the top down. It happens in the educational institutions, the halls of politics and the wealthier in society. There is something to his claims. The Judeo/Christian worldview held sway over Western culture for nearly 1500 years. Christian largely abandoned the universities and began their own Bible colleges and seminaries in the early 1900s. The intention was to protect their offspring from indoctrination into Darwinian and Marxist ideologies. The problem was that it left those institutions with little to no Christian influence. In little more than a generation the cultural elite communicated their worldview to those who shape cultural thinking, the politicians, media, judicial system and even religious leaders in not only liberal churches but in many ways what we think of as conservative churches. Why is this? Unlike Hunter or perhaps in addition to Hunter’s view, I think it has at least as much to do with man’s rebellious nature as it does with social change driven by cultural elites. Man tends toward evil and rebellion against God. We see this fairly clearly in the Old Testament. King David was “a man after God’s own heart.” Even though a flawed man he was devoted to God and opposed to idolatry. His son, Solomon did not have the same commitment to God as his father David and not only permitted idolatry but built many of the altars to false gods which the nation used. The nation of Israel frequently went from being the holy people of God to running after pagan forms of worship. Even the early church wrestled with false teachings, false teachers, pagan influences and bad behavior right from the beginning. Much of the New Testament was written to correct these issues. However, their goal wasn’t to transform society. That happened more as a by-product of believers influencing culture and their ideas being embraced by those who shaped cultural thinking. The opposite has happened in this nation over the last two generations. Christians are now viewed as the outsiders and invaders by the very universities, political institutions and media they abandoned two generations ago. Those institutions went on without them and their influence. Many of them cannot even remember a “Christian America.”

This really changes the place of the church in culture and will redefine how we interact with and challenge culture. Is our task to force Christian behavior on culture through politics and legislation or to persuade individuals who in turn will impact culture for the gospel? In other words, is our work to cause people to live more Christianly and have better behaved unredeemed sinners or persuade them through word and deed to be reconciled to God? How will that change what the church does in both its mission and ministry?

Pastor Jeffress of First Baptist Church Dallas is willing to vote for a good Mormon over an inconsistent left-wing professed Christian for the good of the country. That is a bold claim and it implies that the priority of the the Church is to support a certain set of values irrespective of the world-view of the candidate. Recently Don Veinot quoted from a new book by sociologist James Davison Hunter called To Change the World: The Irony,Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World.  I am also reading this book and what Hunter has to say about cultural engagement is relevant as we sort through all the voices shouting from New Hampshire, South Carolina, and the Super-Tuesday states. Hunter’s thesis is that there are three dominant paradigms of cultural engagement and all of them have been weighed and found wanting. As you can imagine, Hunter has his own fourth way of cultural engagement but I will have to reserve that discussion for another post.  I want to summarize these paradigms in hopes of sparking a discussion about just how Christians should engage a culture that is increasingly politicized.

Hunter begins a chapter entitled “Old Cultural Wineskins” with a caveat about neat divisions of cultural engagement:

The word “paradigm” may be too strong, for each one is defined more by tendencies and priorities rather than mutually exclusive qualities and consistent commitments. Each paradigm, then, is at best a general orientation that anticipates exceptions, qualifications, and some blending . . .

Fair enough. He’s not going to entertain hairsplitting. So when you read these three strategies, don’t look at them as set in stone. With that out of the way, let’s take a closer look three paradigms that Hunter calls “Defense Against,” “Relevance To” and “Purity From.”

“Defense Against” Paradigm

According to Hunter, Christians who adopt the Defense Against (DA) strategy see the purpose of cultural engagement as “first and foremost to retain the distinctiveness of Christian orthodoxy and [practice].” They want to “hold the ground against apostasy” and even “win back the larger culture to a situation where Christianity would gain its place of privilege.” According to Hunter the Defense Against paradigm believes that if God can be re-positioned in the culture, culture will be restored. “The Church . . . would regain its standing in society, the family, and local community would recover its Christian character.”  This would explain Pastor Jeffress’ reluctant advice to “hold our nose” and vote for a president who may not be a Christian but would preserve good cultural values of family and marriage from the secularization of society. This would be a positive change from Barack Obama’s detrimental effect on society. According to Hunter, the problem with this paradigm is that it is not easy to defend Christian values from both theological heresy and political heresy because the Defense against paradigm creates an obligation to preserve both nation and the faith. The desire to preserve the faith led to a withdrawal from the culture in the 1930s in favor of creating rival institutions in the form of exclusively Christian schools, music, art, literature etc. The narrative of “take back the culture” is an acknowledgement that Christianity has lost its place in the cultural landscape.

“Relevance To” Paradigm

According to Hunter, originally the this paradigm was associated with liberal theology which historically sought to make the Church’s priority one of being connected to social issues including child labor, the labor movement, Communism, the war in Vietnam,  and above all the Civil Rights movement. However, this paradigm has also been embraced by many (but not all) of the seek-sensitive movement and the emerging church. For those who embrace this paradigm there is something wrong with the way the church has engaged with culture in the last 100 years and it must change.

It is not just that Christians are irrelevant to the culture, but they are vilified by the culture. It is for this reason that many of their leaders insist “we as a church have got to figure out how to do this differently.”

Ironically there is the same desire to re-engage with culture that we find in the “Defense Against” paradigm. Gabe Lyons is the founder of the counter-culture self-professed “Christian learning community”  (which may or may not be a church-like entity): We just need to be part of the culture, to be friends, to be thoughtful Christians, aware of the issues that are at stake and just going for it.” Going for “what” is however vague by design. Hunter argues that specifics of orthodoxy are seen by the Relevance To crowd as divisive and restricting. Thus Brian McLaren says that a generous orthodoxy “comes not to bury doctrinal distinctives but rather to put them in their marginal place.” As with the DA paradigm, the RT paradigm is about priorities, and the priority is connecting with the culture not critiquing it.

Purity From Paradigm

The Purity From paradigm is one that I admit I was the least familiar. This might be because followers of the PF strategy tend to avoid the political discussion. In fact, the hallmark of the PF paradigm is avoidance of any political engagement:

They tend to operate with a “two kingdoms” view of the church and the world that also moves them to increasingly withdraw into their own communities with less and less interest in any engagement with the larger world. . . their identity depends on a logic of us vs. them . . . that is separatist if not sectarian.

The Purity From paradigm is espoused by insular groups such as the Amish or Mennonites and extolled by theologians such as John Howard Yoder. The dominant narrative is one in which the Church stands as a enclave of righteousness where the Church has no duty but to be itself and stand witness through its practices to the irredeemable culture without Christ.

There are some obvious (and not so obvious) difficulties with Hunter’s arguments but before I delve into them, I will ask you, dear  reader, to tell me what you think. Are these descriptions more or less accurate even if they are not precise? Is there a fourth paradigm that Hunter has overlooked?

For most of my life I have been told that two things which should not be discussed in polite company are religion and politics. As a missionary to cults and New Religious Movements by definition I discuss religion. Although I have been interested in politics for many years it has only been the last 3 years or so that we have written on faith and politics. So far, we have done 44 blog articles and a Journal article on faith and politics. In part this is because the current president used religious language so much in his first run for office that we felt we felt we needed to ask questions about his faith claims. I am blessed to have Jonathan Miles working with us in MCOI. He too loves to kick around faith and political questions. With the official kick off of the political season, which will be long and most of us will likely be very tired of it before it is over, it seems appropriate to venture in, at least ankle deep, at this juncture.

In the late 1970’s, Evangelicals awoke to the call to get politically involved. This was largely due to the late Jerry Falwell being challenged by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop on the issue of abortion. Falwell’s founding of the The Moral Majority had a big impact on the election of Ronald Reagan and caught the press off guard as Evangelicals made a large scale public appearance for the first time since the 1930’s. Since then political activism has grown in sophistication among Evangelicals I think it raises certain questions that we probably need to answer. Obviously we have touched on this in the past but a quote from Jonathan Miles post, There is no Christian Political Philosophy (And it’s a good thing too!) Pt. 1 seems a good place to revisit this topic:

In one sense there is an easy answer. If people should be involved in politics and Christians are people, then Christians should be involved in politics. This gets at Don’s point that there is no “Christian Politics” any more than there are “Christian mechanics.” And not to belabor the point, but it’s a good thing too. As C.S. Lewis put into the demonic voice of Screwtape, if Christians begin to think their politics is the most important part of the Christian involvement, then it’s a short step to their Christianity is the most important part of their politics. I should know. By nature I’m a political junkie. I would take intravenous doses of CNN, Fox News, and blogs from the left and right if I could. I thrive on the discussion. But here’s the thing, I care about the political scene for the same reason NASCAR fans care about the Winston Cup. There are heroes and villains, suspense and great crashes with lots of destruction. Sure I care about the country my son will grow up in but that’s not why I get involved with these debates.

In the book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World James Davison Hunter comments on the “Values and the Tactic of Political Action”:

Interestingly, this emphasis on values, choice, and spiritual renewal has also predisposed nearly everyone to focus on politics as the central means of changing the world. The reasoning goes like this: bad law is the outcome of bad choices made by individual politicians, judges, and policy makers. Thus, changing the world requires that individual Christians vote into office those who hold the right values or possess the right worldview and therefore will make the right choices.

I have just started Hunter’s book and am not sure where his conclusions will lead. Although I personally think that in this nation political involvement is a part of living out our Christian life, it is not the way to change the world. It is but one way of influencing culture and cultural behavior but, as Jonathon pointed out, “if Christians begin to think their politics is the most important part of the Christian involvement, then it’s a short step to their Christianity is the most important part of their politics.” Is it our mission to bring about better behaved sinners through legislation and thus make the world more moral place to live?

All of that to get to my first question of this political season. Does the idea that, “changing the world requires that individual Christians vote into office those who hold the right values or possess the right worldview and therefore will make the right choices” preclude God’s intervention in the affairs of men? In other words, can God use non-believing leaders to bless His people?

So this is Christmas
And what have you done?
Another year over
And a new one just begun

And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young

A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

I think what may be bugging me about this song is the words “Let’s hope its a good one” referring to the new year. Assuming that Lennon’s world view is consistent with his other famous song “Imagine” were there is no hell below us/no heaven above us only sky” then hope REALLY is all he has. He can only cast forward a miniscule plea devoid of any justice. In the words of Douglas Wilson–pastor, apologist, and wit–”the universe just doesn’t care” whether war is over or not or whether this year is a good one at all. Consider Wilson’s reflections about the death of Vaclav Havel, his friend and anti-theist Christopher Hitchens, and evil dictator Kim Jong-Il.

On the death of Kim Jong Il, one wit tweeted that he liked to think that God had let Havel and Hitchens decide who would be the third one to go. That’s funny, but if ideas have consequences, and they do, then there are a few other considerations.

We often say, when someone passes away, that they have “gone to their reward.” But given atheism, what is that reward exactly? It is exactly the same for Havel, Hitchens, and Kim Jong Il. All three have now entered into nothingness, which is to say that, given atheism, there are no rewards for anything — good, bad or anywhere in the middle.

Now that’s stark. If Lennon is a consistent atheist, it brings new meaning to the words, blind hope. Some might call that courageous but I’m sorry to this little writer, that’s just sad. It may, despite all logic and reason,  be true (I don’t have perfect knowledge) but its still just sad. Now let’s be fair, the atheist says, given that there is no ultimate justice we should strive for justice IN SPITE OF the fact that we don’t have a cosmic nanny. I give you Bertrand Russel:

If strength indeed is to be respected, let us respect rather the strength of those who refuse that false “recognition of facts” which fails to recognise that facts are often bad. Let us admit that, in the world we know, there are many things that would be better otherwise, and that the ideals to which we do and must adhere are not realised in the realm of matter. Let us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe. If Power is bad, as it seems to be, let us reject it from our hearts. In this lies Man’s true freedom: in determination to worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments.

This is Russel’s idea of a free man’s worship. Free from cosmic justice and relationship with God that would require trust in anything but that atoms will do what atoms will do, Russel’s stubborn courage skulks demon-like behind Lennon’s baseless “Let’s hope its a good one.” Courage and good for good’s sake in the face of a reality of atoms in motion just seems irrational. Wilson again:

Nothing ultimately matters and so we must redouble our efforts to act like it does? All things are meaningless, and so we should make sure this thing here is meaningful? This is like maintaining that all triangles have three sides, except for this one here in my personal life, which has five, and which I find comforting. For people who put so much stock in “reason,” you would think they would spend a more little time meditating on what deduction actually entails.

Think of it this way. Every day of his life that passed, Kim Jong Il was one day closer to getting away with everything. In the Christian universe, the day of his death was the day of his final capture and arrest. When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes (Prov. 11:7, ESV). The day comes when his life is required of him (Luke 12:20). But in the atheist universe, the day of his death was the day of his final and irrevocable escape.

Lennon’s song cries for hope in the face of true evils:

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong

For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let’s stop all the fight

And yet there is no reason to think that this worry and compassion is anything but an existential reflex to things that are fundamentally wrong. Quick confession: between Christmas and New Years’ I get more introspective  and somber than a 14 year old listening to Emo while reading Nietzsche. Though I’m not the only one:

The contrast between these two post-Christmas sentiments couldn’t be more jarring. Matthew West gives the Christian response and–despite what every atheist who reads this blog will say–entirely reasonable response. If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then there is not only hope but courage and justice. From the first truth that Jesus exists and did not simply return to the random collection of atoms and into the arms of a universe that doesn’t care, we get a coherent sense of hope and with hope comes courage in the face of our questions and a sense of justice. In other words, Kim Jong-Il didn’t get away with anything.

Here comes the letdown Christmas is over
Here comes the meltdown, there goes the cheer
But before we have a breakdown, let us remember
The light of the world is still here
Happy day after Christmas
And merry rest of the year
Even when Christmas is over
The light of the world is still here
The light of the world

Come January I’m ready for summer
The Super Bowl’s over and I’ll settle for spring
Sometimes we all need a change in the weather
But it won’t change the reason we sing

Happy day after Christmas
And merry rest of the year
Even when Christmas is over
The light of the world is still here
The light of the world
The light of the world
The light of the world

So take down the stockings, take back the sweaters
Take down the lights and the star and the tree
But don’t let this world take your joy after Christmas
Take joy to the world and just sing

Happy day after Christmas
And merry rest of the year
Even when Christmas is over
The light of the world is still here

(We originally printed “The Gift” In the November/December 1996 Issue of the MCOI Journal. It seems apropriate to revist it at this time of year.)

What is it about Christmas that draws us every year to celebrations of this holiday? What is so special about Christmas?

Christmas is a special time because of the happiness it brings. It’s a time of giving and receiving, a family time, a time when we feel especially close to friends and loved ones. It is a time of happy reminiscing; remembering the carefree happy days of our childhood. We hear an old favorite carol, we catch the scent of balsam, we see the bright lights; and then, if we’re lucky, we get that blanket of white, and we are transported back to lighter days. Yes. Christmas is a happy time.

Yet, if we were to talk to counselors, we would find the picture is not all rosy at Christmas. Suicide is up and depression is rampant … Does this mean Christmas is not a very special time after all? No … the opposite is true. Aren’t people sad because they know it is a special time, and the holiday they are experiencing just doesn’t live up to the expectations of the day that they hold in their hearts? Some folks are grieving over a recent loss. Perhaps this is the first Christmas without mom, or dad, a beloved spouse, or a child. Christmas heartache is the worst heartache of all. The bright gaiety of the season might even seem to mock their pain.

Some are sad because they are pining for the ideal childhood Christmases of hazy memory. What current Christmas could compare with the Christmases of innocence? For some people, it may be the years when their children were small that they miss most of all. It is such a joy to see Christmas magic reflected in the eyes of a child.

Or, maybe the opposite is true … Many people are pining for the ideal Christmas or the ideal childhood they never had. Not all families are happy; not all childhoods are ideal.

Maybe it’s a simpler thing … Do we miss the carefree days when someone else was making the day special for us? I think women especially feel this keenly because women, as a rule, are the ones who feel the greatest responsibility to make the holidays special for their families. “God Rest You Merry Gentlemen,” the carol says. And what are the merry ladies doing while the merry gentlemen are resting? They are out there killing themselves at the mall!!! Then today, as never before, women are caught in a vicious time squeeze. Much more likely than their mothers to be working full time, they still try to do it all. And what often happens? Work and entertaining overload meets energy and appreciation deficit.

But there is something even more special about Christmas, isn’t there, that produces a longing in us, a yearning for something. What is it?

We mourn the passing of the innocent faith of childhood. We long to believe in someone or something again … long to see goodness in the world, to believe in peace on earth, to experience sharing and caring, giving, and loving. We want to believe there really is a good God in heaven and to feel His presence in our lives.

What happens to us in our lives that robs us of this childlike joy, this childlike love of goodness and peace? Life happens, doesn’t it? We tend to develop a layer of cynicism as we grow up. We’ve seen more fighting and strife than peace on earth. We’ve witnessed selfishness and greed and, it we’re are honest, we have to admit we’ve participated in it as well. We’ve seem televangelists fall into disgrace, and priests and ministers stand accused of sexual escapades and child molestation. Yes, even those we classify as “good people” have a bad side, don’t they? So we have become disillusioned, and it has made us wary of believing anything or anyone again. And our faith in a good God has been shaken by the evil we see in the world around us. We keenly feel the disappointment of seeing the world as it is, not as we once believed it was.

The Christmas carol, “I Heard The Bells On Christinas Day,” really sums up what I am trying to say.

I heard the bells on Christmas day, their old familiar carols play. And wild and sweet, the words repeat, Of peace on earth goodwill to men. And in despair I bowed my head, there is no peace on earth, I said. For hate is strong and mocks the song, Of peace on earth, goodwill to men.

We want so bad to experience the holiness and the peace deep down in our souls, but it eludes us. Yes, Christmas can be a sad time, but is sadness and disillusionment the final word on Christmas? No, I don’t think so. The last verse of the song conveys to us what I believe is the final word on Christmas …

Then pealed the bells both loud and deep, God is not dead, nor does He sleep, The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, with peace on earth, goodwill to men.

Much of the appeal of Christmas is the renewal of hope and faith. At Christmas time our cynical “adult self’ is reminded through carol, candle, and whatever else it is about Christmas, of our childhood hopefulness, our childlike trust in the ultimate triumph of God and His goodness. Peace on earth: good will toward men!

The notion calls us, strikes a longing chord within us, and reawakens our need to believe in something greater than ourselves. We want to experience God’s presence in our lives. I think that often, even very secular people do really feel some of the presence of God at Christmas time. People may impersonate His felt presence by calling it the “Christimas spirit,” but I feel it is no less than the tug of the Almighty that warms our hearts

But then, after Christmas, God is often put away, up in the attic, with the lights and the trimmings and the little nativity scene. Why do we do that? Why do we distance ourselves from the love and goodness, indeed the God, that we all need?

Most people tend to see God as way up there, while they are way down here. The gulf between our sinfulness and God’s holiness seems too large to bridge … Human beings really do not understand the love God has for them, and they often view God in almost an antagonistic light. They don’t know what it is He wants from them.

What does God want from us? If you took a survey among the people you know, asking them what God requires from them in order to gain His acceptance, what do you think they might answer? I think most people would say God wants us to be good; to keep the ten commandments, to follow the golden rule. God wants us to go to church. God wants us to give to the poor, be kind to strangers, be nice to our family members. Some people might stress the “don’ts” over the “do’s,” Don’t get drunk, don’t cuss or swear, don’t smoke cigarettes.

And how well do people succeed in living up to the expectations they think God has of them? Not very well, do they? So I believe the reason most people put God away with the trimmings is that trying to be good, when you’re human, is like trying to get over an impossibly high wall without a ladder! People do make the effort to run up against that wall, to try to scramble over, but grow weary of the game when they fall back every time. So I think it is with some sadness, some sense of loss that we go our way, and try not to think of the ways we fall short.

But it doesn’t have to be this way! The good news of Christmas is that God does not want us to give Him something. God wants us to receive something from Him! It’s a FREE GIFT, with no strings attached! No matter how many Christmases you have lived, whether 20 or 50, you may have missed the best gift of all!

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Sony that whoever believe!; in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no man can boast“

Here’s God’s Christmas gift to us; He wants us to receive something … the gift of His Son and gift of salvation.

What does this gift cost us? That’s a silly question, isn’t it? Gifts, if they are truly gifts, don’t cost the receiver, do they? If it has a price tag, it’s not a gift, is it? Have you ever been offered a “gift” to hostess a Tupperware party, or to open an account at a bank? We know they are not truly gifts at all; they’re rewards. We have to earn them.

Why would we want God’s Christmas gift anyway? What do we gain by the “salvation” offered to us by God? It means the forgiveness of our sins, the release of a debt we have no hope of paying. We all owe a debt to God. We’ve done things wrong: we’ve violated God’s rules, broken his commandments. We have all failed to love as we should, failed to forgive the failures of others. We have done unto others what we certainly would not want done to ourselves! Isn’t this the reason we put God away?

How do we react when we owe someone an impossible debt? We avoid them … We see the person coming, and we cross the street to the other side of the road. Fear, guilt, and pride are relationship killers.

So the release of this debt that allows for our reconciliation to God is the best gift anyone could receive. Jesus died to pay for our sins, so that the Father can declare our debt has been paid in full. Colossians 2:14 tells us our I.O.U. was nailed to the cross.

It’s as if God is now saying to you and me, “Hey. don’t avoid me. I covered your debt. I love you; put your pride away and come to me.”

The question is, will we accept his love and forgiveness or spurn His precious gift? It’s up to us. I could stand here all day holding out to you a gift of great value, but until you take it, it is of no value to you!

People have been making this choice since the gift was first offered in the first century.

John 1:11-12 “He came unto His own, but His own did NOT receive Him. Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.”

There are two things to notice in this passage. First of all, many people did not receive God’s gift. And secondly, only those who do receive it become children of God! Many people today believe everyone is a child of God. And many do not understand what it means to “believe in Jesus,” confusing that concept with believing things about God or Jesus. It’s the difference between knowing facts about a person and actually knowing the person.

John 17:3 “this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent“

We gain eternal life by knowing God the Father and Jesus personally. But what does it mean to receive Christ, to believe in Him, to know Him? Let’s use the example of Bill Clinton. Since he was elected, I have learned a great deal about him, but do I know him? No. Chelsea does, Hillary does, but I do not. And if I continue to learn things about Bill Clinton from now until doomsday, will I actually know him any more than I do now? Of course not! Many people make this very mistake about Jesus, though,

Jesus, in speaking about the judgment day, talked about this common mistake people obviously have made down through the centuries.

Matthew 7:22 “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ “

Note that these were religious people. They called Jesus “Lord,” obviously considering themselves to be Christians. They had done many good things, even performed miracles in the name of Christ. But how did Jesus respond to these folks? Matthew 7:23 “And I will declare to them, I never knew you!”

You see, in Christianity, it’s not what you do, but who you know that matters. And to know someone involves personal contact.

Romans 10:9-10 “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”

This is the believing part. These are the specific things we must believe and confess about Jesus in order to be saved … that He is God Almighty, the Lord, and that He was raised from the dead. Yet, many people do believe these things without knowing Jesus any more than I know President Clinton by possessing knowledge of him. The problem is they have never received Him!

In order to actually get to know President Clinton, what must I do? 1 must meet him! Perhaps I could call him up on the phone … “Hi Bill, this is Joy here … I’ve been wanting to get to really know you!” Well, okay, realistically that probably won’t work with President Clinton. I probably wouldn’t get past his secretary if I could get that far, even if I was a Democrat! But with Jesus, you can get right through. He will personally answer your call!

Romans 10:13 “For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How do we call Jesus? Is there a communications system that connects heaven and earth? Yes, it’s called prayer. Pray to Jesus. Acknowledge your debt and ask Him personally for His gift of forgiveness. Tell Him you want to receive Him.

But isn’t that too easy? Many people have said that to me. I like to turn it around on them … WHY SHOULD IT BE HARD? Does God really want us to receive His gift or not? If I want to give you a gift, would it make sense to offer it to you but then make it nearly impossible for you to actually receive it? Receiving a gift should be easy, and it is!!!

If there are any reading this who realize that although they have known things about God for all their lives, they have never really known him, please call on Him today. Receive God’s Christmas gift this Christmas.

Love to all.

O LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM How silently, how silently The wondrous gift is given So God imparts to human hearts The blessings of His heaven We hear the Christmas angels The great glad tidings tell O come to us, abide with us Our Lord Immanuel No ear may hear His coming But in this world of sin Where meek souls do receive Him still The new Christ enters in

Last Christmas, the American Atheists targeted the Christmas holiday in a billboard just outside of the Lincoln Tunnel in Weehawken, New Jersey. The $20,000 billboard depicted the Nativity scene and read, “You KNOW it’s a Myth. This season, celebrate reason.” The group claimed that the sign was designed “to encourage existing atheists who are going through the motions of celebrating Christmas to stop.”

It is not surprising that unbelievers would attack any holy day celebration by Christians, particularly one which remembers that God took on human nature and incarnated in human flesh in the form of a baby, the most vulnerable among us. There are also some within the church who are fighting the war on Christmas by trying to make the case that it is a pagan celebration and therefore a violation of the commandments. Michael Schneider wrote, Is Christmas Christian?, Rick Meisel produced, `Tis the Season … FOR Pagan Worship. There are others and some within the Messianic Jewish Movement take a similar position. Biblical Archeology Review addressed the issue in How December 25 Became Christmas

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.10 Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25

Lutheran Pastor, Dr. Richard P. Bucher, has produced a very well done 4 part series, Christmas is Not Pagan which is a fairly in-depth response to Schneider, Meisel and others within the church. I won’t duplicate his work but to recommend it for your consideration. For me the answer is fairly simple by answering a few questions. First, is God against His people celebrating His works in history? The obvious answer is no. After all, He commanded and outlined celebrations in the Old Testament for the nation of Israel specifically so they would stop periodically and be reminded of works which God had done for them. Second, although there is little evidence that the Christmas celebration is rooted in paganism, even if it was, would that be sufficient reason for Christians to cease celebrating it? Perhaps. It depends on the Christian. In Romans 14:1-9:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

The question comes down to, “Why are you doing what you are doing?” One who is weak in faith is so influenced by their former paganism that in good conscience they cannot participate. They tend to have a sin focus which is difficult to overcome. Others have a Son focus and dedicate what they are doing to glorifying Him in their observation. This theme comes up in 1 Corinthians as well. In 1 Corinthians 8 the Apostle discusses the issue of meat sacrificed to idols and in verses 7-13 he wrote:

However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

If anything has had paganism tied to it, those weak in faith may have a hard time with it. Even if it hasn’t had pagan origins, if they think it did they will struggle with it. Those to recognize and practice liberty in Christ have a more difficult task, that is, to be kind those who are weak in faith. Bless them for not celebrating if that is what they believe they must do. Be kind in letting them know that we don’t agree but respect them for their not celebrating.

There is little evidence that there is a connection between Christmas and pagan worship but it is also an issue of conscience. For me this is a season which seems to raise the openness of many unbelievers to the gospel. It is a time which brings my family and I to reflect on God becoming man to live a life which we could not live, to present His incarnation as a sacrifice for us in order to make peace with God a possibility for those who accept the salvation He secured on our behalf. That is worth celebrating!