"He that is not against us is for us." --Jesus, Mark 9:40
"He that is not with me is against me." --Jesus, Matthew 12:30
It is the same Jesus who speaks these words. For abstract analysis these two sayings of Jesus are in irreconcilable contradiction; but in reality they necessarily belong together. Here again we have living experience to prove our case; under the pressure of anti-Christian forces there came together groups of men who confessed the faith unequivocally and who were impelled to seek a clear decision for or against Christ in strict discipline of doctrine and of life. In their struggle these confessing congregations could not but perceive that the greatest of all the dangers which threatened the Church with inner disintegration and disruption lay in the neutrality of large numbers of Christians; they saw in this the true hostility to Christ. The exclusive demand for a clear profession of allegiance to Christ caused the band of confessing Christians to become ever smaller; they saying "he that is not with me is against me" became an actual concrete experience of the Christian Church; and then, precisely through this concentration on the essential, the Church acquired an inward freedom and breadth which preserved her against any timid impulse to draw narrow limits, and there gathered around her men who came from very far away, and men to whom she could not refuse her fellowship and her protection; injured justice, oppressed truth, vilified humanity and violated freedom all sought for her, or rather for her Master, Jesus Christ. So now she had the living experience of that other saying of Jesus: "He that is not against us is for us."
These two sayings necessarily belong together as the two claims of Jesus Christ, the claim to exclusiveness and the claim to totality. The greater the exclusiveness, the greater the freedom. But in isolation the claim to exclusiveness leads to fanaticism and to slavery; and in isolation the claim to totality leads to the secularization and self abandonment of the Church. The more exclusively we acknowledge and confess Christ as our Lord, the more fully the wide range of His dominion will be disclosed to us. --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (emphasis mine)
Showing posts with label Secularism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secularism. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Have Christians Lost the Culture War?
Todd Starns in a Fox News Opinion piece asks this very question.
He begins:
The culture war may be lost and religious liberty might not be that far behind, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Seventy percent of senior pastors at Protestant churches say religious liberty is on the decline in the United States, and 59 percent of Christians believe they are losing the culture war. Eleven percent considers that war already lost.
Some within some Christian denominations see this as a major, MAJOR problem.
It's actually long in coming. The only question I have is: what took it so long?
The real "problem" in my estimation is not that Christians are losing the "Culture War." There's a multitude of problems that Christians within the U.S. have just not dealt with very well.
#1. Complacency. For a long, long time, Christianity held a privileged position as the religion of choice within the U.S. With that privilege came certain "perks" among them that many were born into the church and expected to continue to attend church. No more. As secularism has continued almost unabated, this expectation fell by the wayside. Fewer made the commitment to worship. For the first few generations, this wasn't much of a problem because there were still sufficient numbers in pews. Yet, as older generations died out, the younger folks didn't replace them. The church suddenly could not rest upon the fact that they held a position of privilege. You couldn't just build a church and expect people to show up. Now, churches truly have to engage people and work at evangelism. Simply running into someone on the street and trying to convince them to come to worship won't work. Literal transformation of worldviews is now necessary. Complacent churches aren't able or oftentimes willing to put in this kind of work.
#2. The rise of the "Spiritual but not Religious." Most folks in the U.S. still self-identify as Christians, but a vast majority are almost non-practicing Christians. Many are "spiritual but not religious." Many are believers in the sense of ascribing to the belief that Jesus is a cool guy, maybe even the Son of God, but that belief rarely leads to visible transformation in a person's life. Such folks often say, "I don't need to worship in church to worship God. I can do very well under a tree in the middle of the woods." Unfortunately, the church rarely has any response to convince a person to worship--which leads to transformation. The church rarely has a good apologetic (outside of "churchy" language) to combat this rampant individualism of faith.
#3. The rise of religious pluralism. Pluralism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. A variety of views and understandings is a welcome thing as it prevents any one particular group from exercising evil. Mutual respect is key, but the church hasn't handled such a thing well. It has tended to vacillate between relativism (embracing various other religions as simply other paths to God) and religious snobbery (people of other faiths are completely wrong and not worth respect). Neither of these are particularly palatable or particularly biblical. It is extremely difficult to be comfortable enough in one's own Christian skin and still respect others.
#4. (This one could get me in trouble.) The Politicalization of the Faith. Yes, I am speaking about the "Religious Right" and the "Christian Left." These two political movements, in my estimation are deadly. They each basically assert, "You cannot be a true Christian if you don't vote either Democrat or Republican." They each assert their particular political party as more "Christian" than the other. I personally believe this is not a good thing. I personally believe such affiliations draw lines in the sand and lead to polarization--a polarization within the pews. Both groups seek to exercise power to influence voters and government. In their own ways, each group tries to establish God's Kingdom on earth through the passing of legislation. Last I checked, the church sought to transform society through POWERLESSNESS, not through power. Very bad things have happened in history when the church sought to use power in governmental rule. The church needs critical distance from each political party to be able to call sin for what it is: no matter who is committing it. When affiliating with a party, the church has lost its prophetic voice and alienated 1/2 of the people it is called to reach.
I could list more, but in my estimation, these things--these changes in society--have made folks in the church anxious. Rather than deal with the change in society, many have battened down the hatches and sought to preserve their "turf." They declared war oftentimes using the legislative process to accomplish their goals. Last I looked, Jesus wasn't about that kind of stuff. The only war He declared was against evil. When it came to society and people, Jesus sought reconciliation, forgiveness, and love--even of His enemies. He never attempted to change the laws of the Roman empire, but sought to change the hearts and minds of those whom He came into contact with through compassion. With one caveat--He was quite vociferous toward those of the religious establishment who should have known better.
The church in America would do well to drop this pretense of culture war and follow the example of its founder.
He begins:
The culture war may be lost and religious liberty might not be that far behind, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Seventy percent of senior pastors at Protestant churches say religious liberty is on the decline in the United States, and 59 percent of Christians believe they are losing the culture war. Eleven percent considers that war already lost.
Some within some Christian denominations see this as a major, MAJOR problem.
It's actually long in coming. The only question I have is: what took it so long?
The real "problem" in my estimation is not that Christians are losing the "Culture War." There's a multitude of problems that Christians within the U.S. have just not dealt with very well.
#1. Complacency. For a long, long time, Christianity held a privileged position as the religion of choice within the U.S. With that privilege came certain "perks" among them that many were born into the church and expected to continue to attend church. No more. As secularism has continued almost unabated, this expectation fell by the wayside. Fewer made the commitment to worship. For the first few generations, this wasn't much of a problem because there were still sufficient numbers in pews. Yet, as older generations died out, the younger folks didn't replace them. The church suddenly could not rest upon the fact that they held a position of privilege. You couldn't just build a church and expect people to show up. Now, churches truly have to engage people and work at evangelism. Simply running into someone on the street and trying to convince them to come to worship won't work. Literal transformation of worldviews is now necessary. Complacent churches aren't able or oftentimes willing to put in this kind of work.
#2. The rise of the "Spiritual but not Religious." Most folks in the U.S. still self-identify as Christians, but a vast majority are almost non-practicing Christians. Many are "spiritual but not religious." Many are believers in the sense of ascribing to the belief that Jesus is a cool guy, maybe even the Son of God, but that belief rarely leads to visible transformation in a person's life. Such folks often say, "I don't need to worship in church to worship God. I can do very well under a tree in the middle of the woods." Unfortunately, the church rarely has any response to convince a person to worship--which leads to transformation. The church rarely has a good apologetic (outside of "churchy" language) to combat this rampant individualism of faith.
#3. The rise of religious pluralism. Pluralism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. A variety of views and understandings is a welcome thing as it prevents any one particular group from exercising evil. Mutual respect is key, but the church hasn't handled such a thing well. It has tended to vacillate between relativism (embracing various other religions as simply other paths to God) and religious snobbery (people of other faiths are completely wrong and not worth respect). Neither of these are particularly palatable or particularly biblical. It is extremely difficult to be comfortable enough in one's own Christian skin and still respect others.
#4. (This one could get me in trouble.) The Politicalization of the Faith. Yes, I am speaking about the "Religious Right" and the "Christian Left." These two political movements, in my estimation are deadly. They each basically assert, "You cannot be a true Christian if you don't vote either Democrat or Republican." They each assert their particular political party as more "Christian" than the other. I personally believe this is not a good thing. I personally believe such affiliations draw lines in the sand and lead to polarization--a polarization within the pews. Both groups seek to exercise power to influence voters and government. In their own ways, each group tries to establish God's Kingdom on earth through the passing of legislation. Last I checked, the church sought to transform society through POWERLESSNESS, not through power. Very bad things have happened in history when the church sought to use power in governmental rule. The church needs critical distance from each political party to be able to call sin for what it is: no matter who is committing it. When affiliating with a party, the church has lost its prophetic voice and alienated 1/2 of the people it is called to reach.
I could list more, but in my estimation, these things--these changes in society--have made folks in the church anxious. Rather than deal with the change in society, many have battened down the hatches and sought to preserve their "turf." They declared war oftentimes using the legislative process to accomplish their goals. Last I looked, Jesus wasn't about that kind of stuff. The only war He declared was against evil. When it came to society and people, Jesus sought reconciliation, forgiveness, and love--even of His enemies. He never attempted to change the laws of the Roman empire, but sought to change the hearts and minds of those whom He came into contact with through compassion. With one caveat--He was quite vociferous toward those of the religious establishment who should have known better.
The church in America would do well to drop this pretense of culture war and follow the example of its founder.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
It's Not Creationism VERSUS Evolution
CNN linked it.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
America Losing Its Religion
CNN Religion blogs ran the headline yesterday: America Losing Its Religion.
The headline is a bit of a misnomer because Americans aren't exactly losing their religion. The article spells that out. The headline is a cheap ploy to get people to read--yours truly included. :-)
Pertinent quote--the first four paragraphs:
More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.
"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."
According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.
According to the poll, 75% of Americans said it the country would be better off if it was more religious.
So, the headline is blatantly wrong. America isn't losing it's religion. In fact, the poll actually suggests the vast majority (3/4) of Americans believe the country would be better off if it were religious. This speaks volumes!! People believe religion has a positive effect on the country!!!
Yet, these same people believe religion is losing influence.
It's not surprising. Religion has had a very tough time adapting to a host of things:
1. The rise of secularism. The secular worldview has ascended to prominence when it comes to debating what goes on in the United States. Faith based arguments generally no longer have much persuasive power. This forces people of faith to suspend the place where they draw most of their ethics and morality and argue from a much different, uncomfortable place. Too many people of faith do not have the tools to do this or to argue the difficulty of dealing with moral issues from a strictly secular point of view. #2 below has contributed to this mightily as well.
2. The rise of relativism. This path of thought developed to deal with pluralism. In our now global culture, we have been made aware of the differences in thought and practice of people and belief. It is not easy to forge a way forward when confronted with many differing worldviews. Yet, instead of arguing the merits of which worldview provides a better way forward (atheism? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Secular? Scientific?), we strive to say all worldviews are equal--none is better than another. This is most certainly an absurd argument, but it actually has a good number of adherents. Many people of faith have few philosophical tools to argue with the rise of relativism.
3. The prominence of science. Science is cool. It's brought about some awesome things--the ability to understand the world, how it works, and how we can work in the world to improve our survival. Yet, science has proven poor at providing a framework for morality and ethics despite the claims of some that it is capable of doing such a thing. Science has also been shown to be quite limited in other areas and aspects; yet one might never really know this based upon what one hears in the news. For many, science is the be all and end all, and people of faith have had little training in saying, "Science is not this. It is good in one area and not in others."
Because people of faith have not been provided such tools, secularism, relativism, and scientism have undermined the power of religious faith to shape public policy. Most are unhappy with this because they see the benefits faith can bring. Yet, most don't have any idea how to argue in the cultural milieu we find ourselves in.
Perhaps Christian apologists like Timothy Keller, Richard John Neuhaus, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantenga will be read and studied more as they offer some substantial tools to deal with this process, for it seems like America does not want religion to lose its influence--and you can count me in that portion of America as well.
The headline is a bit of a misnomer because Americans aren't exactly losing their religion. The article spells that out. The headline is a cheap ploy to get people to read--yours truly included. :-)
Pertinent quote--the first four paragraphs:
More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.
"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."
According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.
According to the poll, 75% of Americans said it the country would be better off if it was more religious.
So, the headline is blatantly wrong. America isn't losing it's religion. In fact, the poll actually suggests the vast majority (3/4) of Americans believe the country would be better off if it were religious. This speaks volumes!! People believe religion has a positive effect on the country!!!
Yet, these same people believe religion is losing influence.
It's not surprising. Religion has had a very tough time adapting to a host of things:
1. The rise of secularism. The secular worldview has ascended to prominence when it comes to debating what goes on in the United States. Faith based arguments generally no longer have much persuasive power. This forces people of faith to suspend the place where they draw most of their ethics and morality and argue from a much different, uncomfortable place. Too many people of faith do not have the tools to do this or to argue the difficulty of dealing with moral issues from a strictly secular point of view. #2 below has contributed to this mightily as well.
2. The rise of relativism. This path of thought developed to deal with pluralism. In our now global culture, we have been made aware of the differences in thought and practice of people and belief. It is not easy to forge a way forward when confronted with many differing worldviews. Yet, instead of arguing the merits of which worldview provides a better way forward (atheism? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Secular? Scientific?), we strive to say all worldviews are equal--none is better than another. This is most certainly an absurd argument, but it actually has a good number of adherents. Many people of faith have few philosophical tools to argue with the rise of relativism.
3. The prominence of science. Science is cool. It's brought about some awesome things--the ability to understand the world, how it works, and how we can work in the world to improve our survival. Yet, science has proven poor at providing a framework for morality and ethics despite the claims of some that it is capable of doing such a thing. Science has also been shown to be quite limited in other areas and aspects; yet one might never really know this based upon what one hears in the news. For many, science is the be all and end all, and people of faith have had little training in saying, "Science is not this. It is good in one area and not in others."
Because people of faith have not been provided such tools, secularism, relativism, and scientism have undermined the power of religious faith to shape public policy. Most are unhappy with this because they see the benefits faith can bring. Yet, most don't have any idea how to argue in the cultural milieu we find ourselves in.
Perhaps Christian apologists like Timothy Keller, Richard John Neuhaus, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantenga will be read and studied more as they offer some substantial tools to deal with this process, for it seems like America does not want religion to lose its influence--and you can count me in that portion of America as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)