Why do we worship?

Worship. It seems to be a fairly universal human trait. But did you ever stop and ask yourself why we do it?

Before we address that question, I'd like to start with an even deeper series of probing questions: What if we found out that God isn't who we think he is? If you stripped away, one by one, the characteristics that we assign to the person known as YHWH, would you stop worshiping him at some point?

I grabbed a list of some of the most common attributes that are ascribed to God. Let's peel them away and talk about them each briefly.

Omnipresent. A fancy word that means that he's not only capable of being everywhere at once, he IS everywhere at once. It's interesting to me that we apply this attribute to God, because there are certain passages in the Bible that can seem to indicate otherwise. If God is everywhere, why did he require the Israelites to go through so much trouble to build him a tabernacle and later a temple? When God calls out to Adam and Eve, "Where are you?", was it indeed a rhetorical question? Putting those questions aside for a moment, does it matter? If you discovered that God had a limited number of places he could be at one time, would you stop worshiping him?

Omniscience. Or in other words, all-knowing. Most of us make use of this attribute on a day-to-day basis, any time we pray to him silently. We expect that he knows our thoughts. But what if he doesn't? I can't think of a time in the Bible where people prayed to God silently. Now, this may just be because it would make for a lousy narrative if the main character just closed his eyes at some point and we never get to "hear" what he said. But what if we did need to say things out loud in order for him to hear us? Would we stop worshiping him?

Omnipotent. All-powerful. We think of God in terms of being able to anything imaginable. If he wanted to destroy the the planet we call earth, he could do it with just a word. But what if he was bound by the same laws of physics that we were? Maybe he just knows how to manipulate them in ways we cannot. Would you still worship him?

Eternal. If God had an origin, would we still worship him? What if he has an end?

I could go on. However, for most people, the answer would probably still be yes. Why?

Imagine for a moment, that God was more like a character from a sci-fi novel or a comic book. Imagine Him as a super-being who had his origin somewhere outside our galaxy. Maybe there's a whole race of beings just like Him. A race that can manipulate the building blocks of the universe at will. Imagine that this race of super-beings spread out over the universe in search of suitable planets to create life on. Our particular God found a small rock, 3 orbits away from a young sun, that would be perfect for the life forms he had in mind, and set to work. Now, after programming the genetic code for the multitude of species He had designed, He decided to make a very special type of life form and imbue them with a special spark; an eternal soul. After their bodies stopped functioning, the eternal soul would return to Him as a spiritual being and He would chose which ones that would stay with him for eternity and which ones that would be destroyed.

Imagine, for a moment, that all of that was true. Would you worship him?

Hold that thought for a moment and let's take a scenic detour. Let's take a look at what it means to "worship". Worship usually involves two things, praise/honor and obedience. When we worship God, we typically do two things; 1) we tell Him and other people we meet that he's a really great guy and about the great things he has done (praise) and 2) we do the things he asks us to do (obedience).

Praise almost always involves things that have been done in the past. You don't typically praise someone for something they haven't done yet, unless it's something like a promise and you trust that they will follow through. When it comes to God, there's one very big thing that he did in the past: he created us. If he didn't do anything more than just that, he would be worthy of praise. Of course, he's done more, but we'll just start with that because it's an act that is fairly universally attributed to God.

But the second part of worship is a little more tricky. Obedience. It's easy to give out honor and praise. We do it all the time. Think about how much honor and praise we ascribe to the "Founding Fathers" and people like Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King. Heck, we even have a gigantic stone statue of Abraham Lincoln in our nation's capital! That's quite a bit of honor to show one person. However, if Abraham Lincoln was alive today and he told you to do something, would you always do whatever he asked? Maybe, maybe not, right? If he tells you to release all your slaves, you'd probably be cool with that. If he asks you to accompany his wife to the theater and sit in his box seat, you might decline.

Let's dip into the comic book world for an example of a being that would deserve praise, if he existed; Superman. He's a pretty good guy, right? Not omnipotent, but pretty powerful. Not omniscient, but that super hearing and X-ray vision probably means he's aware of what's going on more than the average person. Not omnipresent, but fast enough that it might appear that he's in more than one place at a time.

Imagine the following conversation with Superman:

Citizen: Hurray! You just saved the whole east coast of the U.S. from that massive hurricane with your super-breath! You're the greatest guy in the whole world, Superman! We should build a statue in your honor! We should make a national holiday in your honor!

Superman: Really? Well, I'll tell you what; skip the statue and holiday. What I could really use is some cash. Do you have any idea the peanuts I earn at the Daily Planet? So, how about, say, 10%? You can all pay me 10% of your income. Sound fair?

Citizen: Um.. well... I don't really think....

Superman: Well, you know, there is this asteroid... could threaten all of life on earth... but, hey, I might be busy trying to earn a living at my mediocre job....

Citizen: .... ah, right. So, who do I make the check out to? Clark Kent or Kal-El?

Naturally, as mortal humans, we care very much about our fate and our future. Because of this, it stands to reason that we obey the people who hold some sort of influence over our fate. In the Superman example, we'd be willing to do almost anything he asked if it meant that our future would be safe. For the same reasons, we obey the government because they have the ability to imprison us or make our life pretty miserable. We pay our bills because the banks have the ability to influence our future. But all of these people can only influence our destiny up to a very specific point: our death. Beyond that point, they have no control. That realm belongs to God, and it's a major factor in why we worship him. He holds our fate, both in life and in death, in his hands. No wonder we obey him.

Honor and obedience aren't necessarily tied together, though. You can praise someone and yet not obey them and you can obey someone but not praise them. For an example of the latter, look at the government; we obey the law, but we rarely worship it.

Imagine this scenario for a moment: What if there were TWO gods, one who governed life and one who governed death? The former was responsible for creating you, while the latter is responsible for your existence after you die. They both request that you show up at their temple on Sunday morning and bring an offering. When Sunday rolls around, which temple would you be found in? I don't know about you, but I'd probably be praising the one for what he has done but obeying the other.

Fortunately, in the Christian faith, God is responsible for the beginning of life and the ending of life and everything between and beyond, so there's no question of where to direct our gratitude and obedience. Out of this realization flows the words and actions that we call worship. This is why we worship. We praise and obey Him for what He has done in the past and what He has promised he will do in the future.

So, would it matter if it turned out that God wasn't everything we think he is? Yes and no. It would be disappointing to find out that He's not quite as amazing as I thought He was. But, in the end, as long as he's the one that created me and he's the one that controls my destiny, I'll keep right on giving him the glory he deserves and doing the things that he asks of me.

Stop Tripping Your Brother!

By request, the next topic to tackle is "Christian Freedom". Before we go any further, let's nail that phrase down a bit. Christian Freedom refers to the fact that we, as Christians, are not bound by a rigid set of rules and regulations; we're free to do what we please as long as we maintain a healthy relationship with God. Wait, what? I thought that Christianity was all about a list of things you are and aren't supposed to do? What about the 10 Commandments and all that? I thought Christians aren't supposed to drink and smoke and swear!

In the U.S.A, we tend to worship Freedom. We are proud that we live in a country that boasts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech and yet we understand so little about freedom. The fact is, no one is ever truly free and unrestricted; there are always limits. But you may say, I have freedom of speech; I can say whatever I want! Oh yeah? Try calling up your local government office and informing them of a bomb you left there, some time. That's "freedom of speech", right? Let me know how that goes.

No matter how free we think we are, there are always boundaries we may not cross. Despite what you may think, this is a good thing. I'm much happier to knowing that my neighbor is NOT free to murder me simply because I didn't cut my grass. The government puts laws in place to define the boundaries of what we can and cannot do. The larger that boundary is, the more freedom we feel we have.

Christian Freedom works pretty much the same way; there are things that are right to do and things that are wrong to do. When Jesus established his Church on Earth, replacing the Jewish law-oriented structure, he opened up the boundaries of what was acceptable to do quite a bit.

The problem is that the boundary can get kind of blurry sometimes. God has given us plenty of examples of things that are good and things that are bad, but what about the things that just plain aren't mentioned?

Fortunately, God has equipped us with a facility to help us navigate the grey area between Good and Evil; it's our conscience. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that it's tough to go wrong if you avoid things that your conscience tells you to stay away from. And the converse is true also; if you regularly disregard what your conscience is telling you, you're headed for trouble.

The problem is that one person's conscience can differ greatly from another person's conscience. This is where Christians get into arguments. One of the central verses that gets dragged into these arguments is:

Romans 14:19-21
¹⁹Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. ²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So, the central idea here is that we should avoid "causing someone else to stumble". Yup, there you go. Don't do it. No sir... Ok, wait, what does it mean to "stumble"? Do I just have to avoid tripping people or eating meat?

The definition of "stumble" here, is very important, because it gets misused horribly otherwise. If the Christian life is described as a walk, or sometimes a race, then "stumbling" would be something that gets in the way of achieving your goal, which is a good personal relationship with the Creator and His Son. Or, in other words, causing someone to do something that violates their conscience and causes them to feel "dirty" when God looks down upon them.

So, as Christians, we have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as we stay within the boundaries set up by God's Word for the black and white areas and our own consciences for the grey areas. However, even though that gives us quite a lot of freedom, there are times when we may want to consider NOT doing certain things out of respect for our fellow Christians.

To illustrate, imagine that you are an excellent skier. You can handle the toughest hills the mountain can throw at you, with the greatest of ease. One day you head out to the mountain with a friend. Now, you know that your friend is a beginner skier and gets shaky on anything larger than the Bunny Hill. Would you take them to the top of a double black diamond hill and push them off? Of course not; they would be "stumbling" all the way to the bottom. But that doesn't mean that you're not free to ski that hill when they're not around. You are strong enough to handle it even if they are not.

Where Christians go wrong is they abuse this concept of voluntarily giving up your freedom to enforce limits on other Christians. This is where Christianity gets its bad reputation for the list of things you can't do. You can't drink. You can't smoke. You can't swear. You can't watch R-rated movies... the list goes on and on.

This is absolutely WRONG. Christians do not have the right to deny other Christians the freedom that was given by God. If God didn't declare something to be wrong, who are you to add an amendment to His laws? Churches that require their members to not drink, not smoke, etc, are trampling on the freedom given by God.

Seems pretty simple, right? Don't do things that you know will trip up your fellow Christian. But hold on, what if you don't know what weaknesses your fellow Christian is hiding? I mean, you usually know your close friends well enough to steer clear of weaknesses, but what if you're hanging out with people you don't know so well? Or even tougher, what if you're in charge of planning events at your Church? What's OK to do and what should you avoid?

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution, but I think it's reasonable to apply a little common sense. I think a lot of it comes down to culture and likelihood. You have to ask yourself, "if someone participates in an activity with me, what are the chances that it could lead to damaging their relationship with God?" Let's tackle a couple examples so that you can see what I mean. I'm not going to tackle the big ones, i.e. the "vices", because those are big enough to warrant their own blog posts. Instead, I've chosen a couple that aren't always in the spotlight.

Meat. The verses in Romans 14 deal specifically with eating meat sacrificed to false gods. As I understand it, in those days, your local butcher shop many times doubled as a place where pagan rituals were held and the meat that you bought there was likely to have been used in a ritual sacrifice. Understandably, there were many Christians who had a problem with this and so chose to become vegetarians rather than support Hezekiah's Pagan Meat Market. (Bring your Baal coupon and get 25% off!!) Other Christians looked at the problem, shrugged their shoulders and said, "meat is just meat" and bought a couple steaks to bring home for dinner. Now, in today's day and age, it's highly unlikely that the butcher at your local supermarket is performing pagan rituals in the back room, so we don't really need to worry about this issue anymore.

However, what about People who have chosen to become vegetarians because the Eating of Tasty Animals truly bothers their conscience? This is definitely a situation you are more likely to encounter in our culture today. Well, on a small scale, this question is fairly easy to answer. If you want to show respect to them, you might alter your menu a bit when they come over to your house for dinner. But it gets a little more tricky if you're in charge of planning the church potluck! What do you do? Are you required to skip the hotdogs and burgers at the next church picnic? Would it "cause a brother to stumble" if you brought your usual "hamburger helper" dish? Common sense to the rescue! I would dare say, you probably know (or know of) one or more people who are vegetarians. Ask yourself, if we hold a backyard barbecue, how likely are they to violate their conscience and damage their relationship with God by chowing down on a burger? Unless you know some very different vegetarians than I do, the chances of this happening are slim to none. Why? Because they are not weak people! Most of them would rather go hungry than violate their convictions. Seeing someone else digging into a rack of ribs is more likely to gross them out than tempt them to join in. So relax, there's no need to ban all meat at the next potluck. Maybe include a leafy salad or a meatless pasta dish in the mix out of respect, but I'd say vegetarians can take care of themselves.

Fetishes. Face it; no matter what you do, there's probably some some screwed up individual out there that could be affected by it. I read an article about a pastor who was counselling a person who had a shoe fetish. He was sexually aroused whenever someone took off their shoes. Seriously. Not making it up. So what do we do with this information? As a Christian community, do we ban the removal of our shoes in the presence of any other person, JUST IN CASE they might have this particular weakness, and JUST IN CASE they might stumble? That would be just plain ridiculous! Again, we have to apply some common sense. What percentage of the population has this problem? How likely is there to be someone with this issue in your church? Chances are, you can go ahead with your foot washing ceremony and not worry about it.

See, most of the time when the issue comes up, it has nothing to do with someone having a legitimate weakness and it is all about someone being offended and trying to control what people do. Being offended is very much different than being "in danger of stumbling". Most of the time, the people who get offended about something are the least likely to be affected by it. Think about the Christians who get upset over "rock music". I'm pretty sure you know someone like this. Go on, think about them. Got their face in your head? Good; now, how likely are they to damage their relationship with God due to the messages contained in a hard rock song? Can you imagine them discarding their ties and dress pants for a pair of ripped jeans and a sleeveless T-shirt and rocking out to an AC/DC song? Would you have cause to worry about their salvation if ever they were exposed to a gangsta rap song?

The fact is, Jesus was extremely offensive. He took the established religion of Legalism and tore it down. He *gasp* allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath! He obviously didn't care too much whether the religious officials would fall away into sin because they witnessed this 'disgraceful' act. We need to be able to discern between when there's a legitimate concern we need to be aware of and when people are just trying to shove us into the prison of legalism.

I'd like to take some time in the future to do a few posts on some of the specific issues that Christians tend to argue about, that I didn't have the time to address. Things like celebrating Halloween, drinking, going to restaurants on Sunday, seeing R-rated movies, listening to rock music, using a modern translation of the Bible (i.e. non-King James), using drums in a worship service, swearing, etc. If any of these things interest you as future topics, please let me know!

Eternal Security

Ok, time to tackle a topic that's controversial even within the Christian community. Be warned, I'm going to be challenging a foundational belief of some of the largest denominations, including anyone who subscribes to the teachings of John Calvin. If this makes you squeamish, look away now. Otherwise, this ought to be a fun discussion.

The fancy title that people give to this topic is "Eternal Security". Or in other words, "Once Saved, Always Saved". What this refers to is the idea that once you accept the idea that Jesus paid the debt for the wrongs you've committed in your life, you are now the proud owner of a non-transferable, non-refundable, one-way ticket to Heaven. And nothing you can do or say will cause this heavenly ticket to be revoked.

John 10:28-30
²⁸I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. ³⁰I and the Father are one."

This is where many people get hung up right away. If I, myself, can't do anything to lose that ticket, does this mean that, when I'm young, all I have to do is say that little prayer, accept Jesus, and then I can spend the rest of my life lying, cheating, stealing, and pretty much doing whatever dirty deed I want, and then, when I die, I'll just waltz right into Heaven? What a deal! Sign me up!!

See, for many Christians, this poses a big dilemma. One group of people looks at that and says, "No way! A person who does those things isn't a Christian! God wouldn't allow them into Heaven." This seems like a pretty sane stance, doesn't it? But hold on a minute. There's a very subtle problem with it. The problem is this: If your evil deeds keep you out of Heaven does that mean, therefore, that your good deeds get you in? That would mean that, in order to get to Heaven, you need to do good things all your life. Fortunately, the Bible debunks the "good works get you to Heaven" theory pretty soundly:

Ephesians 2:8-9
⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.

So, it's pretty clear that it's a gift and we don't have to do anything to "earn" it. But that still doesn't answer the question of "Christians" who live like criminals.

Let's talk about John Calvin's answer to this question a moment. His opinion was that God picks people to be "His people". If you get chosen, you will be a Christian; you don't have to do anything whatsoever, but you also don't have a say in the matter, either. This is what he calls "irresistable grace", meaning we cannot resist it. To apply this to the misbehaving Christians, it simply means that you weren't picked, because, obviously, if you had been selected, you wouldn't be behaving this way, now would you?

I'm not inclined to agree with this. I'm not saying it's dead wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me. Here's where I'll be departing from the main road and doing a little "theology off-roading". Got your helmet and goggles on? Ok, let's go.

First off, let's attack a faulty assumption that seems to be underlying this whole discussion. It's the whole idea that "If you sin, you go to Hell. Do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200." This is where the whole problem starts. If we throw all sinners into Hell, what happens when a Christian sins? Aren't they supposed to be going to Heaven? If they don't go to Hell, does that mean they are happy forever and ever and their deeds go unpunished? Hold on a second. Are we saying that God has no other forms of punishment other than the infamous "lake of fire"? Seems kinda extreme, doesn't it? It's like dropping your son or daughter off at the local penitentiary because they colored on the wall.

Here's what I believe is at the heart of the matter: Salvation is not connected to punishment. Wait, what? Doesn't that fly in the face of Christian teaching? Nope, let me explain. At the end of all things, there are two groups of people; those who are members of God's family and those who are not. God extends the invitation to all people. It's a gift. It's free. You don't have do, say, or be, anything to "be eligible to receive this limited time offer!"

I worded that last sentence that way on purpose. You don't have to do anything to be eligible to receive, however there still is one single thing you must do. You must accept it. Let's imagine that I show up at your door with a shiny new sports car. I hold out the keys and say, "It's yours! free!" You have two options; you can either accept or refuse.

But God isn't exactly offering a new sports car, now is he. What exactly is he offering? He's offering to adopt you into his family. To me, it seems very much like adopting an 18-year old. By law, the 18-year old must accept the adoption for it to be legal. The lawyers draft the papers, both parties sign, and "presto!" another family member. This, to me, is the process that happens the very first time you say that prayer and ask God to be your heavenly dad.

To expand more on my original statement, salvation is a legal process, not a punishment. But isn't that strange? Don't unbelievers go to Hell? Isn't that punishment? Well, yes and no. Let's go back to the sports car analogy. I'm there, standing with the keys in my hand. You look at me, say "I don't believe you", and slam the door in my face. The next day, you walk out your door and see your neighbor in his brand new sports car... Now, wouldn't that be agony to realize what you missed? It's the same with God. He holds out his hand and say, "Hey, come be a part of my family!" If you say no, you will then find out what it's like when God turns his back. Is God "mean" because you ended up in an unpleasant place?

If you're a child of God and you do something wrong, I think it's likely that you'll still have to account for your deeds, even if you don't get tossed into the Lake of Fire. God may not "throw you out of the house", i.e. prevent you from living with him in Heaven, but you may get spanked, or grounded, or any other punishment he sees fit. In my mind, simply walking into Heaven knowing the deeds you committed on earth will be enough of an extreme punishment. I don't imagine it feels all that wonderful to have the Creator of the Universe disappointed with you.

Now, assuming you are a part of God's family, are there circumstances that could cause you to lose your spot in this family? i.e. Once saved, always saved? Yes, I believe there is one condition where you can lose your salvation; and that is if you reject God's gift. If you package it up and send it back, you don't have the gift anymore. I disagree with John Calvin. I think God gives everyone the free will to make that all important choice. And you can resist it if you want to. The Bible is correct, no external force can separate you from the love of God and Jesus will never leave or forsake us, however, if you leave or forsake Him, you're on your own.

This means that your salvation is not tied to the good or bad things you do. You still can't earn your way into Heaven, no matter how hard you try. It also means that if you do some horrible things in life, while still maintaining a true belief in Jesus, you'll probably get into Heaven. But you may walk through the pearly gates only to see God taking his belt off.

The difficulty is that when we look at other people, we can't see into their hearts. We can't tell whether they have accepted or rejected the offer. Only God knows for sure. However, what we can see is their actions, and those tend to be a fairly accurate indicator of whether you're a part of God's family or not. You can't declare for sure that they'll be headed to the burning trash heap on Judgment Day, but you can surely assume by their deeds that they might be and warn them appropriately.

The Tough Topics Pledge

I wanted to set down in writing some of the guidelines that have been bouncing around in my head while I've been writing some of these blog postings, so you know what to expect from me and potentially other authors and also what I hope to see in the subsequent discussion.

1. I pledge to back up the things I write with external sources whenever I can.
   
   Hopefully you've noticed that the blog articles so far have been sprinkled with links and quotes. I feel this is really important for the discussion to be credible. When I'm using Bible passages or information from other websites, I don't want you to just have to take my word for it; I want people to be able to go and read the whole chapter surrounding the verse I quoted, or be able to read the entire article that I'm referencing. It also lets you know that I'm doing my homework, not just spouting opinions randomly.


2. I pledge to avoid "Christian-ese" whenever possible.
   
   This can be really tough at times. It's really easy to just fall back into using Christian terms and concepts as a shorthand. For example, it's much easier to just write "sin" instead of "the bad things people do", and assume that everyone understands. But many people don't really understand what these terms mean, so I think it's better to avoid them when possible. Imagine if you polled 100 people on the street what the word "grace" means. How varied do you think the answers would be? What if you asked them what it meant to be "covered by the blood of Jesus"? I mean, if you think about that one in a literal sense, it's kinda gross.


3. I pledge to use as many word pictures, analogies, and plain language as possible.
   
   If you take a look at how Jesus spoke, he did the exact same thing. It seems to have worked for him, so it seems like a good model for these discussions. Contrast that to modern day preachers who get pretty longwinded on topics of theology.


4. I pledge to be open-minded, while keeping control of the blog.
   
   I want there to be some heavy discussion about these topics. To that end, I don't plan on removing any comments unless they are very disruptive. This means as long as everyone keeps to the topic, maintains some class, and doesn't spam or attack people, I shouldn't have any reason to remove posts.

So those are the goals that I have so far. I may add to them as things progress. If you catch me violating them, please call me on it. If I use a word or phrase that makes you go, "what the heck is he talking about?", please comment about it. If you think that a topic needs more background information or research, please let me know. Even better, if you do your own research, go ahead and paste those links into a comment so everyone can read them.

Judge not?

"The Bible tells us we're not supposed to judge." Have you ever had someone say something like that to you? If you're a Christian, you've probably heard that more times that you can count. In particular, non-Christians like to use that line a lot in an attempt to "shut up" the Christians confronting them with the bad things they've done. In my case, I had that said to me by a mother trying to brush aside her daughter's lies and marital infidelity.

So, does the Bible REALLY say that? Well, she didn't exactly quote chapter and verse and I'm not certain if she's ever read the Bible on her own, so we'll have to guess at the verse that she was referring to. The most commonly quoted verse comes from two places:

Matthew 7:1-2
"¹Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Luke 6:37
³⁷"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

So, what does this mean? Is this a simple command that all Christians should just plain not judge anything?

Well, before we talk about that question, what does it mean to "judge"? Well, if you look the word 'judge' up in the dictionary, the word refers to quite a large range of behavior, from the very personal 'to form an opinion or estimate' to the very formal ' to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person)'.

Obviously, unless you're a local magistrate, you have no power to pronounce a legal sentence on someone, so I think we can safely include that one in the realm of 'things we shouldn't do'. But what about the other end of the spectrum? Does this statement by Jesus imply that we can't even form an opinion in our minds? When people quote this verse, this is typically what they are after; they want to prevent you from denouncing what they have done or are doing wrong. I mean, after all, wouldn't that be 'judging'? And didn't Jesus himself say not to do that?

But this is silly. What kind of society would we be living in if no one was allowed to distinguish between right and wrong? Did someone take something of yours? Don't you dare call him a thief; that would be judging. Did someone intentionally tell you something that was false? Don't you dare call her a liar; that would be judging. And so on. The fact is, we have a firmly established moral code in society that manifests itself in the justice system. When the nightly news reports that someone stole millions of dollars and fled to a foreign company, everyone immediately makes a judgment call in their heads, "that was wrong". Why? Because stealing is wrong. It's only the person who committed the offense that screams "don't judge me!".

Beyond the basic societal moral code, Christians have a extended guide for discerning right and wrong, in the form of the Bible. When someone does something that violates teaching of the Bible, we are well within our prerogative as Christians to condemn that act as wrong. Why? Because we aren't judging; the Bible has already done that for us. If someone tells a lie, it's not because I have declared it wrong, it's because the Bible has declared it wrong; I'm just applying it. In fact, one of God's commandments is that we are to judge, provided we do it fairly.

The problem is that people only read up to the comma. "Do not judge,... Ok, let's stop there". In doing so, they totally miss Jesus' point. Jesus' point was about hypocrisy, not the act of judging. His point was that if you put yourself in judgment of another person's deeds, you had better make darn sure that you're not guilty of the same thing, because you will be measured by the same measuring stick. This, for example, is the reason we don't elect convicted felons to serve as judges in our court system.

The verse is simply being twisted to suit people's needs. But it's not a ban on distinguishing right from wrong; it's a warning as to how you go about it.

So, what if you are guilty of the same offense? When I was talking with this person about how her daughter had lied to her and everyone else, her defense was, "Yeah? Haven't you ever lied?" You know what? I have lied in the past. Am I proud of it? Of course not. So, does that mean that I am no longer qualified to label lying as "bad" or "wrong"? Whenever someone lies to me, I just have to accept it, because somewhere in my past I myself lied? That's ridiculous. Whether I'm guilty of lying or not, lying is still wrong. Not because I 'judged' it to be wrong; because God did. He's the one who set the standard; not me.

However, before we get all high and mighty and start denouncing the evil of the world, we need to go back to Jesus' words, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." What 'measure' am I using? Am I expecting people to live by the standard that I put forth? No, my 'measure' is the Bible. So, this means that when I call people to account for their actions according to the Bible, I, myself, will be called to the same accounting. No surprises there; I'm planning on that happening.

I point at the extra-marital affair and say, "That's was a horrible, destructive, and despicable act. It was wrong." Can I do that? Sure, God calls us to drive out evil. Is it judging? It sure is, but not by a standard I created. Do I realize that the same measure will be applied to me? I do. I say, bring it on. When I'm judged at the end of my life, cheating on my spouse will not be on the list of charges. Will lying be on that list? Yes it will be. Am I worried? Not really. Why not? Well, it has to do with atonement, but that's another topic entirely.

So this whole idea that Christians should not judge is hogwash, invented by people who want to redefine what right and wrong is in order to justify their actions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there aren't "grey" areas, where it's difficult to tell right from wrong. In fact, that's why I started this blog; to talk about those areas. So, if you have one, suggest it and we'll all tackle it. But, in general, right is right and wrong is wrong and no one, Christian or otherwise, should be attacked for upholding what is right.

Winning the Lottery

I just read an article about how a group of scientists are running computer simulations and finding that the conditions the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."

So, as I understand the prevailing theories in the realm of "science", for our planet to be where it is and made the way it is, is a one in million, wait, no, one in a billion, no, still too small.. trillion? Ok, it's an extremely small chance that our earth should turn out the way it is. So, in all the vastness of the universe, sits a small anomaly called "Earth". On that small anomaly, according to scientists, another vastly improbable event occurred; things were "just right" and the very first life formed. But it was just a simple chance happening in the span of uncountable years. It's something we can't even reproduce as hard as we might try. But it didn't just form and die out, no, another chance accident happened, and then another, and then another, and so on, until now, where a blue and green ball sits in the vastness of the universe. It's blue and green now, because it's teeming with plants and animals and humans and insects and more life forms than you can count.

And scientists look at this and say, "Well that sure was lucky!".

It causes me to wonder, when these scientists, when they were going to college for their PhD's, did they sleep through the class on statistics and probability? Almost every human being has an intuitive sense for probability and chance. If you don't believe me, think about this for a moment: Imagine I show you 20 nickels. I then tell you I'm going to go into the next room and flip them and see how they land. I then go into the next room and close the door. Time passes. An hour goes by. Two hours go by. You finally get bored of waiting and go find something else to do. The next day, I come find you. "I'm done, come look!", I say. I bring you in to the other room and there sit 20 nickels, all with heads facing up.

What would your reaction be? Do you believe me? I would dare say most people's reaction would be something on the order of "No way. You just gave up and set them that way." Why is this? Why can't we accept that it just happened to fall that way? I mean, there is a small chance that it could have happened that way, right? I believe it's because we have an instinctive sense about chance and probability and we also are able to recognize when there is an outside force acting on the situation and causing events to happen.

You might say, well, maybe I just got lucky and it did just happen that way. According to chance, every time I flipped the coins I had a chance, however small it may be, of it coming up all heads. Or maybe you might say, if I kept flipping and flipping, for days, months, maybe even years, I'd eventually get an 'all heads' combination. Ok, now what if I mixed up the coins again and started flipping again and then, after, say, 8 hours I come back to you and said, "I did it again! Come look!". Would you believe me? Why not?

How about this: What if it was announced that someone won the lottery? Sure, people win the lottery all the time. What if that same person won the lottery a second time? What about a third time? Any sane person would look at that and say, "No possible way. It was rigged". Or, in other words, someone caused it to happen that way.

So, what does this have to do with current scientific theory? Well, we "won the lottery", so to speak, with the placement and composition of our planet. Then we "won the lottery" again when a single life form formed by random chance. But here it get's more complicated. That single cell life form did one very important thing. It died. Now, unless you believe that single cell happened to form with a way to reproduce itself, and it did so before it died, we're back to square one. We've got to "win the lottery" again and hope that this time it forms with some way of reproducing itself, so we can get this whole evolution thing underway. People seem to ignore the fact that, for the theory of evolution to work, there have to be many, many generations over a long span of time. That means that, that simple life had to form (a thing that we can't even cause to happen) over and over and over again.

Despite the sheer impossibilities involved in these theories, it is amazing to me that the 'scientists' who believe in these theories still look at religious people and sneer at their ignorance when they suggest that someone might have had a hand in creating the world we see today.

According to their thinking, maybe they should be buying lottery tickets.

The Unreligion

One consistent trait that I keep seeing in Atheists is that they react strongly to being called a religion. On the surface, it seems to be a valid point, but I'd like to examine it a bit further. On an Internet forum, an example that someone gave, resonated with me because I could relate to it. He told a story of sitting around with a bunch of guys and the topic of discussion turned to favorite football teams. As they went around the table, they each named the team that they supported. When the question reached the person relating the story, he told them he didn't have a favorite football team because he just didn't find football interesting. I can relate to this story; I don't mind going to the occasional football game, but if you asked me which team I support, I really couldn't give you a convincing answer. It would probably be either Michigan State or University of Michigan, mainly because I live in Michigan. As to which one I would pick, well, it would probably change to match the favorite of the person I was talking to, to avoid getting razzed for picking the wrong one.

 

Atheists compare themselves to this example. They just don't believe in anything, they say, so they're not a religion. Sort of like a person who doesn't own a motorcycle can't be called a biker. But they're not entirely correct. Now, granted, depending on how you define the word 'religion', you could say that Atheism is not a religion, since it doesn't have any organization, no rules, etc. However, I maintain that it is STILL a belief system. Maybe you could use this analogy when talking about Agnostics, but not Atheists, or at least the ones I'm exposed to on the Internet. What they're they're ignoring is that a negative viewpoint is still a viewpoint.

 

Let's compare it to politics. Let's use Barack Obama as an example. I can choose to not 'believe in' and support Obama. In fact, I can abstain from voting completely. That would be most like an Agnostic, who, in effect, says, "I don't really know or care one way or another". This could be considered a truly neutral, non-political stance. However, despite me not voting, the election will still take place, someone will still win, and whoever wins will have an effect on the country I live in. This is the same with the football example; even if I decide I don't care to support a particular team, one of them is still going to win the Super Bowl.

 

I could, however, choose not to 'believe in' Obama in an entirely different way; I could actively campaign against him. Note, I didn't necessarily say campaign for the other side, just campaign against him. I could go out into public forums and proclaim that Obama is a bad choice for the country and try to actively persuade people to NOT believe in him. Does this sound like a neutral, non-political viewpoint to you? Of course not; it's very political. Even though it's a negative belief system, it's still a belief system.

 

Let's pause here for a moment and check the definition of the word 'religion'. A quick click over to dictionary.com lists the definition as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

 

There are certain questions that we face in life and our answers to those questions form our belief system. There are at least four major questions that form the foundation for a belief system. "Where did we come from?", "Why are we here?", "Who decides what's right and wrong?", and, finally, "What happens when we die?". The whole purpose of religion is to attempt to provide an answer to those questions. Christians have very specific answers to those questions. Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists do also. Unless you're a true Agnostic in which case you answer all those questions with, "I don't know and I don't care". That means that Atheists have their own answers to those questions. Their answers could very well be, "evolution", "because random chance spawned us", "a societal contract determines right and wrong", and, finally, "we just decompose". But all of these answers, even though they are negative and contradict all established religions, still form the basis of a belief system. And that is what is at the heart of a religion.

What is this?

I thought I might start out this blog with an informal purpose statement.

 

I've been looking for a place to tackle the hard questions in Christian life for some time now. I've found that the average church tends to be much too busy explaining the fundamentals of Christianity to new Christians. Don't get me wrong, this is a wonderful thing; people need to hear the good news. But for me, I've been a Christian long enough that I've heard the same basics over and over and it feels like I'm stuck in first grade sometimes. I also wonder sometimes if pastors are afraid to tackle hard topics because Christians don't always see eye to eye on these things and they don't want to rock the boat, so to speak. I hate to think of it, but maybe they don't even know the answers themselves.

 

I've tried putting a bible study/small group together to achieve this goal, but it has never turned out quite right. There are several factors that stand in the way: Many people don't want to spend time thinking about it and doing research; they would rather have someone else do the work and then teach it to them. That works fine in church settings, like Sunday School or the weekly sermon from the pulpit, but that's not what I'm after; I don't need it spoon-fed to me. In other cases, people wouldn't mind doing the work, they just don't have time to spend doing research, much less get together on a regular basis. And the final problem is that, in order to get some sort of deep discussion going, people need to feel comfortable enough with the people around them that they can admit that they're struggling for the answers themselves.

 

So, here I am on the Internet. There's no need to plan regular meetings at someone's house; people can read and post anytime they want. Anyone who's looking for quick and easy, fill-in-the-blanks bible studies can just keep right on surfing to some other site. And, while it is publicly available for everyone to see, there's a degree of anonymity on the Internet that I hope will help keep discussions as honest as possible.

 

I also intend to turn this into a "team blog", meaning I want to add more people than just me that can post articles here and keep the discussion civil and on-topic. If you're interested in participating, please contact me and let me know.