Evidence is not always obvious

EVIDENCE IS TRICKY

Previously I had written about a friend and former Christian brother’s, social media post. It led to a bit of a debate, which neither one of us shy away from, but that debate took a turn and went a little south rather quickly. In my reflection of the conversation broke down primarily over definition of faith, and over the conclusiveness of evidence. Both of which are tricky, and while I talked about the misunderstanding we had about faith in a previous post; evidence, can often be just as tricky to pin down. Just ask any fan of Netflix’s recent “Making a Murderer” series. If you have not seen the series I highly suggest taking a look, not only is it very compelling, but it demonstrates how are perceptions of evidence can be skewed by our own personal narrative, and that evidence all by itself, doesn’t really prove anything, as much as it serves to validate or invalidate a story.

SETTING THE STAGE

By way of reminder, my friend asserted that the definition of faith IS the NON-traditional view of blind faith,or faith without evidence. I say non-traditional because even though the concept is very popular on our current western Christian context, the actual idea is nowhere to be found in the understanding of Christian faith that we see in the scriptures. It is, at best, something that sounds vaguely spiritual enough that people believe it is Christian, like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “spare the rod spoil the child“, and at worst, a false understanding so detrimental to Christian thought, that it gives good cause to people who wrongfully reject genuine faith, based solely on a false idea of this counterfeit faith. In fact I even told my friend that if genuine Christian faith was in fact “blind” and without evidence as he asserted, then I would have no problem renouncing my faith today. In short I disagreed and asserted that Christian faith does have evidence.

This inevitably raised a question, that question revealed our secondary problem. Once I asserted that his definition of faith was inconsistent with Christian faith; specifically that Christian faith is a faith that not only has evidence, but a faith that demands it, if faith is a faith with evidence, then the obvious question is “What evidence?” The common assumption by internet educated atheist is that there is none. This is simply not true.

WHAT EVIDENCE?

This second part of our argument did not fall apart over the actual substance of the evidence, but over whether or not my friend was willing to receive it as evidence. Spoiler alert, he was not. His common push back was “Even if that’s true, it doesn’t prove anything!” Which is true, and a claim I never made. I never once asserted that any of my evidence proved anything definitively. As such, I could give many reasons and evidences as to why I believe in Christianity, but me merely presenting the evidence cannot change whether or not someone choose to accept that evidence.

Think of it in terms of a court case. If your a fan of “Making a Murderer” like me, you know that sometimes evidence can be sketchy. Everything from how it is accepted and collected, to how it is presented and received. It is a far more complex subject than whether or not it “proves” anything. For instance, a court, before determining anything, first decides which pieces of evidence it will allow into the trial. My friend would not allow any evidence into the court room of his mind, as such, our conversation did not go very far because without first being allowed, we cant further investigate the evidence we have. Furthermore, his requirement that the evidence “prove” something conclusively (100%) is a demand that is not only unreasonable, but unlike anything we see in our judicial systems. It makes me wonder, does he hold everything in his life to that same standard, does he demand 100% proof for everything before he will accept it?

THE CHRISTIAN CRIME SCENE

Let’s build our analogy out a bit. Image you come across a room with a dead body inside. What do you know about the death of that person? Nothing, but maybe you see a gun sitting on the table, and you think, “Maybe this person was shot with this gun, maybe a murder or a suicide?” Is this a reasonable assumption? Yes it is. Is this a piece of evidence? Again, yes. Does this prove anything? No, not at all. A gun is just a gun, it is still a piece of evidence, but it shows us nothing about what happened, all you have proved is that there was a gun in the room with a dead body.

So we take that small piece of inconclusive evidence and we examine it. We notice the gun holds six bullets in its clip, and there are only five left in the gun. Does this prove anything? No, but it suggest that maybe the gun was fired. We go back over to the body and we notice an exit wound from a bullet. Does this prove anything? No. You still don’t know 100% that this gun is the gun that fired the bullet that made the wound. It makes a very good case for your assumption, but does not demonstrate your case with 100% infallibility, nor does it show what really happened. Was the gun shot self-inflicted, or a murder? Do we have a fired bullet to match with this gun? The evidence demands more investigation, and at some point you to make an educated guess based on all the little pieces of evidence you have.

Sadly, if a homicide detective held to the same standard of evidence as my friend, many pieces of evidence would not be allowed to be part of this investigation, much less part of a court case to determine what truly happened. According to my friend, in our imaginary scenario, sense the gun doesn’t “prove” anything 100%, it is NOT evidence. His words, “It’s not evidence, it doesn’t prove anything.”

In reality, it is hardly ever just one piece of evidence, in fact it is normally a collection of many pieces of circumstantial evidence that make or break a case. This is what I tried to convey to my friend. It’s not just one thing, it’s a multitude of things. Together, these things make a pretty compelling case.

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD WE CONSIDER?

This is a good question, but a question that has no real answer. It really depends on the conversation. In the particular conversation with my friend we started with the validity of the bible. If the validity of the bible is on trial, then there is a very easy string of questions we can ask to begin to build a case. While I wont go over all the evidence, there is simply too much for one blog post. I can tell you how I tried present the evidence to my friend.

First, we can simply start with Jesus, all of the bible’s claims fall flat if there is no Jesus. So, was Jesus an actual person? Yes, he was, some try to claim otherwise, but no serious scholar, even atheist scholars believes this fringe claim. All serious history points to Jesus being an actual person who lived around the time, and in the area, that the bible claims he did. If accepted, then this piece of evidence becomes a positive piece for the case of Christianity. Obviously if there is no Jesus, there is no Christianity. Does this prove that he was God? No, but it is a pretty obvious place to start. Granted, it still does not prove anything 100%, but if our two available options are “valid” versus “invalid”, the fact that Jesus is a real person points us more towards the “valid” category over the “invalid” category. My friendly opponent, would not grant this conclusion.

Secondly we could look to the writings of the bible itself. On the bible, there are a myriad of things we could ask along the lines of credibility, and I think the first and most obvious is simply is “Is our copy of the bible even accurate?” What I don’t mean to say is that all of it’s claims are true, what I do mean to say is “Has the bible been tampered with over time? If we are supposed to accept these documents as true, how do we know if we even have a fair representation of the originals? Which is a good question, but this blog is not about the reliability of the new testament, or the science of textual criticism, so I won’t go down that rabbit whole. You can click the highlighted links for more on that topic. This blog is about evidence, and after presenting to my friend a number of evidences that show that the bible is well preserved, accurate and not tampered with, he still refused to accept my evidence into his consideration. His reasoning still “It doesn’t prove anything!” In my view, it is intellectually dishonest.

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?

If this were a court room, and my friend the judge, those of us observing the trial might wander as to why the judge wont allow any of this evidence to be heard. We have demonstrated the evidence’s potential viability, and this evidence is certainly relevant to our case. Maybe we could assume that the judge refuses the evidence based on some personal bias against the story that we are trying to present. If this were an actual case, we would say that this judge, if not completely corrupt, is not impartial or fair enough to hear this case, and we would move for a mistrial. Unfortunately I do not think my friend is able to fairly give the bible and its claims and honest hearing.

However, if the bible is true, you would think that it would have something to about our partiality against it’s claims. In fact it does…

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

-Romans Chapter 1

If the bible is true, then what it says about the human condition is true. If what it says about the human condition is true, then the above verse is true for my friend. He has believed a lie, another story that is counter to the story of the gospel. That story is so ingrained into his mind, that it affects his bias so much, that he is unable to see the evidence in front of him with any sort of fairness. So what are we to do then? Well, if the bible is true, then the Holy Spirit of God regularly opens the eyes of the blind, and gives life to the dead. I will do my best to continue to faithfully present the evidence to any who ask, and I will pray for the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of all who are blind.

50 Reasons I DO drink

Just a few days before New Years, an opinion piece, or at least what I assume is an opinion piece, because that is all it is, popped up of at the charismatic Christian website, Charisma News. It’s title, “50 Reasons I Don’t Drink” is exactly what it says. Written by a “Pastor” and “Ex-alcoholic”, it begins with a brief disclaimer, followed by a bit of personal experience, then the 50 points. So to begin, I will give a little explanation, my own disclaimer (I talk about sex and guns), then lastly, a point by point rebuttal.

The toughest part about being a Christians is the whole part about trying our best to follow the bible’s instructions and doing our best to let its teachings shape our hearts, and renew our minds. It is often uneasy business. Our author mentions that this issue is “hotly debated”, and in some circles it is, but in the bible it is NOT. Gathering all that we can read about alcohol from scripture, the picture does vary from verse to verse, but when we put it all together we see a very clear portrait about alcohol from the biblical perspective. A portrait I will try to paint as clearly as possible.

The bible allows the consumption of alcohol in moderation. Moderation is not a particular type of alcohol, or number a certain number of drinks. you should or should not take, the only prohibition we see is to not be drunk. Drunkenness seems to be a point of consumption to where self control is inhibited to a detrimental degree. It should be noted that many things can inhibit your self control, including your personal desires and emotions. If alcohol is bringing out those desires and emotions it is merely revealing what is in you heart, the problem is your internal thoughts, it is within you, not the external alcohol. Other than the strict prohibition from drunkenness, the only other prohibition we see is for some clergy members to abstain,  during certain personal oaths such as fasting, and personal conviction. Which is what we have a prime example of in this article, personal conviction. Other than that, this is basically all the scriptures has to say on alcohol in a nut shell.

Personal Conviction can be difficult. It can be very meaningful for you, you can find much to delight about in it, and when that personal conviction is designed to keep you safe from certain sinful proclivities of your own, it can be particularly life giving. This is the case with our personally convicted Charisma author in this article. As an ex-alcoholic, her personal conviction is meaningful and life-giving, and it keeps her from sin that she is specifically bent towards and weak too. So it makes it difficult for her to see why not all Christians see things her way. In matters like this we have the scriptures to counsel us, personal convictions are a great place to have great discussion, but we should never elevate them above what the bible actually says. This is what happens in this article, and this is the fatal flaw in which it’s reasoning is based.

This is where I find my main problem with this article. On the surface the obvious problem is a legalism where we elevate personal conviction to the level of God’s decree. This is a big deal, a real big deal, and something we should never do. However, what concerns me most is a blatant misunderstanding of what sin is, revealing that the main problem is a well meaning Christian who isn’t handling things like a Christian should. Which is according to the bible.

In a direct conversation I am sure our author could quote the correct passages on the nature of sin, but it seems obvious to me that she doesn’t understand them at all, and further more, she doesn’t want to. “This article is not a theological defense on the topic of Christians and alcohol (another article for another time), but it is a heartfelt plea.” If we are not thinking theologically, also known as biblically, then what are we doing exactly? Theology matters, and for the Christian, we look inconsistent at best when our theology doesn’t actually line up with our scriptures, and at worst, we make God look foolish when we think our ways are better than his.

I really do appreciate, and even agree somewhat with the genuine concern she has over sin, but the bible, if we are really Christian, must be considered in all that we say and we do! She seems to think the particular act of drinking alcohol is sinful, or that it causes one sin. This is not the case. Sin comes from the desires of our heart (Matthew 15:19), and our actions are only sinful when they coincide with those desires. I think the most obvious example of this is sex.

Is sex sinful? No, although some act like it is. Is sex sinful in a particular context? Yes, if you are married and have sex with someone that you are not married to, this is a sin. Was it the combinations of external factors that made it sinful? NO, it was the heart of the person who desired to have sex with someone who wasn’t there spouse that made the circumstances possible. Someone who’s heart is not bent towards infidelity id never going to accidentally find themselves in someone else’s bed. In fact if you change the context you can still have biblical sex, and it still be very sinful. So imagine this person is still with their spouse, and still in their own martial bed, but in their mind and heart they are imagining and desiring someone else. Guess what, all the external factors are there, the right person, the right place, but this person is still being and acting with atrocious sinful intent. They are having sex in a biblical context and still sinning! In her original article, our author clearly cannot see the difference between the external actions of sin, and the internal desires of the heart that lead to the external action.

Think of yourself like a gun, and you are loaded with bullets, these bullets are your sin. Just sitting there, you are pretty harmless, but you still have  great potential to fire off that sin at any moment. Your gun, because of its particular sins, can only be triggered by certain factors. For some, alcohol is the trigger that causes their gun to fire, for others, not so much. So for some, alcohol is indeed their trigger, and they should abstain until such a time that they can become unloaded of those particular sin bullets. External handling and self control is always needed, but we shouldn’t full ourselves into thinking that it can “unload” our gun, or that it can “load” our gun in a way that we are not prone to fire.

So while I see the value of her conviction for her and others like her (it keeps her trigger from being pulled), for me, a guy who has beer in his fridge that he really enjoys that he bought on vacation last year and still hasn’t drank. A guy who’s last beer consumed was two weeks ago at a friends house with a group of guys from my church. A guy who’s first drink ever was when he was 28. I simply cannot see the value for me. I think it is obvious that whatever sinful bents I have, and there are plenty, alcohol is not the trigger to my loaded sin gun. For others it is, and they may very well need to abstain, and the fact that I don’t does not make me any stronger or weaker or better than any other child in God’s kingdom, and neither does abstaining make anyone better. In fact, if alcohol can easily undo your Christians character and witness, then perhaps you are the weaker brother.

For the Christian, God’s law is where we need to debate, not over its validity, but over submitting to its understanding, and holding to its clear teaching that we may abstain not from alcohol, but from sin. This is where our fight should be, in the depths of our guts where our sin is hiding. If we are a gun loaded with sin and potential harm to ourselves and others, then our hope is that we would learn and grow and that over time, God, through His Son, and by His Spirit, would gently unload all of our chambers from their sin. Then and only then could we experience the freedom he has intended for us. The ultimate goal for a Christian that struggles with alcohol, is not that he would never drink, but that the underlying sinful desires that are triggered by drinking would be eliminated.

Hopefully I made a clear picture, sometimes I find it was much more clear in my head, and not so much in my typed words. If the picture is as clear as I hope, then we can see what happens when we apply a biblical understanding of sin to these 50 points. IF anything, maybe you’ll see how personal experience cannot be the test for corporate truth. It quickly disintegrates to personal truth versus personal truth, which gets us nowhere, except to show why truth must ultimately be objective rather than subjective.

50 reasons why I don’t drink vs 50 reasons I do

Her points in bold font vs my points in italics.

1. I can’t be sober-minded if I’m not sober.

Well I’m sorry to hear that, I can, so we ought not elevate out personal struggles and experience to the level of norm for all Christians. Maybe you are drinking too much when you drink, a clear violation of the prohibition not to be drunk. You should search your heart and see what underlying motives cause you to drink to such excess. Or maybe you are particularly sensitive, you may have some underlying medical issues and need to speak to a doctor. If you are overly sensitive, you should exercise caution around alcohol, which sounds like you do, so good for you!

2. Alcohol has an assignment: destruction.

Is this from scripture, the surgeon generals warning, a health and fitness blog or personal opinion…something?

3. Alcohol is a depressant. Anything that depresses should be avoided at all costs.

I have never been depressed after drinking alcohol, so maybe this is NOT true for everyone, and to act like it is is an unfair representation. Also I don’t know if ANYTHING that depresses should be avoided, sometimes I become depressed and grieved about particular issues, and it causes me to seek the Lord’s counsel with more intensity. Now if someone suffers from clinical depression, they ought to maybe exercise some caution, although in some cases, alcohol can be consumed with Joy according to Ecclesiastes 9:7, but why bring the bible into this now, after all, you did not use it in your original post.

4. I don’t want to make my brother or sister stumble in the name of exercising my “Christian liberties.” My choice to drink could lead to someone’s demise.

So we are no longer personally responsible for our own sin? That’s a relief! Now instead of “The Devil made me do it!”, I can say “You Christian liberties made me do it!”

5. Alcohol skews my judgment.

Not mine.

6. Alcohol leaves me worse, not better.

Not me.

7. What I do in moderation, my children will do in excess.

Not true, I drink way less than my parents. On the other hand, if this is true, then I can be a moderate bible reader and my kids will do it in excess, man my job just got easier!

8. Even the unsaved know I shouldn’t drink. Bible in one hand, beer in the other—any lost person could point this out as a confusing contradiction.

I’ve been able to have many conversations rich in the gospel because I was willing to go to the local pub and have a beer with my neighbor.

9. Alcohol doesn’t bring others closer to the Lord when they see me drinking, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

10. Alcohol doesn’t bring me closer to the Lord when I drink, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

11. I want to be fully awake and ready for the return of Christ, not drowsy, sluggish and fuzzy.

Good thing Jesus is faithful, and when he returns he will be faithful to receive all that he has saved in-spite of their mental ability at the time or whether or not that mental ability was impeded by a substance. Should a Christian on pain meds post surgery also avoid those medications that help them recover if they make them drowsy or sluggish, just in case Jesus returns?

12. Show me a family for whom alcohol has made a positive difference in their lives. You won’t be able to.

Mine! As I said before, many conversation because I was willing to share a beer, some of those with my own father. Also my favorite drinking partner is my wife, it helps us get all snuggly on the couch after the kids are in bed

13. I have never heard anyone say, “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike!”

* makes a gun and tonic, drinks it* “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike”

14. I want to avoid all appearances of evil.

Then don’t! Wait, how is alcohol evil again? Verse please!

15. Alcohol makes it much harder for me to practice the fruit of self-control.

I’m sorry to hear that, then maybe you should abstain from alcohol and ask God to search your heart for the underlying sins that cause you to loose the fruit of self-control.

16. Alcohol causes me to lose my filter.

Sorry to hear that, maybe you need to learn self-control of your tongue, and not just alcohol. If your sin is a loose filter, gossip or a sharp tongue, then alcohol doesn’t cause it, it reveals it. In that case, praise God for using alcohol to reveal your weakness, now you can zero in on it a prayerfully fight against it.

17. Alcohol is a legal mind-altering drug.

Whoa, then I must be drinking wrong, I have never had my mind altered

18. Alcohol is addictive.

Did you see the bit where I still have beer in my fridge that I bought a year ago? IF it was addictive I think I would of drank it by now.

19. Alcohol is a numbing agent for pain and sorrow only Jesus can heal.

Right, using alcohol to fill a need only Jesus can is a serious problem. This would be treating alcohol like your savior, but alcohol does NOT cause this sin, it reveals it. Also, I have never used alcohol to numb anything.

20. Many regrets are associated with alcohol. (I can give you a whole bunch!)

No regrets are associated with alcohol, (I can give you none). Your experience vs my experiences

21. No one has ever said, “If only I had taken a drink, things wouldn’t have gotten out of control.”

Right, cause that is a ridiculous statement.

22. Alcohol causes me to act in ways I normally wouldn’t.

You would normally act that way given the right set of circumstances, so yes, you should avoid those circumstance, but you should also understand that your weakness is not caused by those circumstances. Your problem is still very real even without those circumstances.

23. Alcohol kills brain cells.

Not if you are drinking biblically (in moderation)

24. Alcohol is a counterfeit and provides a false peace.

Right, but alcohol is not the problem, its that we are worshiping alcohol like a god. Alcohol is no more to blame than the Golden Calf in the wilderness.

25. The Bible says that no drunkards will enter the kingdom of God. Being drunk starts with one drink. I don’t want to see how far outside the lines I can color when eternity is at stake.

-_- I’ll just continue to believe that God will be faithful to save me, I’ll place my confidence in his ability to keep his covenant. *sips more of that gin and tonic*

26. Alcohol is a waster—money, gifts and talents, destinies and so on.

Then pretty much anything can be a “waster”, again, its not a problem with the “thing”, but with the heart of the person using that thing.

27. Alcohol leads to really bad behavior. It is a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes.

Let go back to my bullet analogy. Their chambers are filled with violent bullets, alcohol is the trigger. They still have issues with violence with or without alcohol. Your point also works both ways. Alcohol is NOT a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes. Do you know what is a factor 100 percent of the time? Sinful people who need redemption.

28. Alcohol distracts and derails you from living the victorious life for which Christ died.

Alcohol helps me celebrate my victorious life! *sip*

29. Wisdom is the principle thing that I need to pursue at all cost; alcohol makes me stupid.

Yeah, you should definitely see a doctor and continue to abstain. I don’t know you, so I can’t attest to this fact, but in your article, your poor understanding of scripture makes you seem foolish. Also Christ is the principle thing we should pursue at all cost.

30. Alcohol has ruined many, many marriages.

Those marriages may still be together if we only got past the external abuses of alcohol and really got to the heart issues underneath those failing marriages. In a way, alcohol is only the tip of the iceberg, the bulk of the problem is underneath. Also, did I mention that my wife and I get all snuggly after a few drinks? Being Snuggly is good for marriages. *makes wife a gin and tonic*

31. The only influence I should be “under” is God’s.

Which is why I don’t let alcohol influence me or drink to such excess that it does.

32. The Bible tells me to be alert; alcohol delays my reaction time.

Okay, sometimes playing around all day with my kids makes me tired which delays my reaction time, should I stop playing with my kids?

33. If I don’t start drinking, I’ll never have to stop.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

34. Alcohol severely tarnishes my testimony.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

35. Don’t want your teenagers to drink? Yep, same reasons apply to you.

Nope, same reasons don’t apply, the only reason I don’t want my teenager to drink is that it is illegal for them. If I see certain characteristics in my children that give other reasons for them specifically to abstain, then I will address them with my child biblically.

36. God is holy; alcohol is not.

I’ll take “Things not ever said in scripture” for 1000 Alex.

37. Alcohol and prayer don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, Praying and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

38. Alcohol and Bible study don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, bible study and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

39. Alcohol lowers my resolve to resist temptation.

If abstaining helps you resits, then great, and maybe others should too, but for me alcohol is not a factor, and it is not normative for everyone.

40. Alcohol = Brokenness (broken lives, health, dreams and so on)

Scripture citation please.

41. When the world sees us drinking, it sends the message that Jesus isn’t enough.

The “World”? Apparently you do not understand the cultural or missional implications of your opinion.

42. Moderate drinking? How about moderate pornography or moderate heroin use or moderate lying or moderate adultery?

How about moderate bible reading? I kid, but seriously your examples are setting up a straw-man argument. Specifically with adultery, adultery is the result of sex used sinfully. As we already covered before, sex is NOT a sin, sex with someone that is not your spouse is.  There is no such thing as moderate sin, drinking is not a sin, excessive drinking, also known as drunkenness, is a sin. So your example should say “Moderate Drunkenness?” There is no such thing because if you’ve already moved to drunkenness then you are already sinning, same thing with pornography and adultery. Is it a sin to be moderately aroused by your spouse? No, but this is they type of fallacious argument you are using. 

43. Christians are called to live a life of total surrender and separation from the world.

Yes, even in the way they partake of alcohol.

44. Alcohol makes me forget. It can make me forget that I am married, that I am saved and so on.

What the what? You have much bigger issues than alcohol.

45. “I don’t get drunk. I only have one or two drinks.” If they didn’t affect you, you would drink soda.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, soda in excess can have adverse affects too.

46. I should never look to the glass or bottle for joy, which can only be found in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, but I don’t not find my Joy in drink, I express my Joy in Christ with a drink.  “In Christ God has atoned for all my sins! Cheers and Amen”

47. Alcohol fills my mind with impure thoughts.

No, alcohol reveals them.

48. If it could hinder my faith walk or love walk or dishonor the lordship of Jesus Christ, I need to forsake it.

Everything potentially has that problem, so should we forsake everything that God has given us? Surely not if we are using it properly.

49. Alcohol doesn’t help me run the race that Jesus has marked before me to finish with more accuracy. It does the polar opposite.

Do you got a verse for me yet?

50. For any argument that tries to justify Christian drinking, there are at least 50 other reasons not to. The writing is on the wall. It’s not God’s best for Christians to drink.

I don’t care what wall the writing is on, or how many counter arguments there are, if it is not in the bible and we are not talking about what a Christian should or should not do, we are merely talking about personal experience and preferences.

Starbucks, Orphans and Face-less Charity

---

Recently a weird coffee mermaid lady corporation, Starbucks, announced a new minimalist design for their Christmas, or I should probably say Holiday cups. Red cup, regular logo. There are many reasons for a huge company like Starbucks to make this move. Obviously the design is both specific enough to invoke them holiday feels, while non-specific so not to risk any specific holiday or religious observance. Its smart, and safe, but not without some ridiculous controversy.

Apparently SOME Christians are upset by the removal of anything that may be Christmas specific from decorating the cups. To them this is blasphemy, part of the war on Christmas, because after all, if you remove Christmas, you also remove Christ, and this is apparently unacceptable.

Now there is a lot to learn from here about worldview, both Christian and non. Is this a valid reason for Christians, I believe a minority. to be up in a tizzy? Short answer, NO, but in response to some of the hubbub, more sensible Christian folk have responded in a variety of ways.

The first response was a picture of the red Starbucks cup, surrounded by a cardboard coffee sleeve with the words “If your coffee cups define your Christmas, Honey it’s you that needsJesus.”, fair enough, point made.

This was then followed by a post from a Kevin James look-a-like “Pastor”, suggesting that Christians lie and tell their barista that their name is “Merry Christmas” so they have to write it on the cups. The first one I like, the second one, well that guy gets way too much time on my news-feed. Not to mention, he claims to be a pastor and tells everyone to go in a Starbucks and lie about their name, but it was the third post that really got my interest.

One of my fave writers Jon Acuff echoed this sentiment posting

“I’ll worry about if Starbucks says Merry Christmas as soon as we Christians find homes for all orphans, comfort all widows & feed all poor.”

Theology and adoption, two things I am familiar with and love to talk about. I am a christian, and I have two daughters who share no biological similarities with me.

While there is no direct prohibition or edict in the bible that says Christians should not drink from cups near the holidays that do not explicitly mention that holiday, there are edicts that suggest that Christians can not be neutral when it comes to the issue of adoption. The most famous of which probably being James 1:27

“Religion that is pure and un-defiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

 

Did I say “suggest”? I meant flat-out declare it.

Now i think a danger here may be to make this text too broad. Some might say “Well James is really making a general appeal to look out for the needs of the least of these as an essential part of Christian living.” Those same people may also comment on the picture above or Acuff’s tweet and reply “Exactly, if only more people would…” The problem two-fold. One, this that this is a very bad way to read scripture. Two, this is face-less impersonal charity.

On scripture, we are not aloud to make specific what the scriptures leave broad, nor make broad what the scriptures make specific. This is a very good bible reading rule, and I am afraid that far too many of us interpret this passage this way. As a result, our response to this very specific call is also very broad. We agree and post “Exactly!” and the enthusiasm is great, but the quote from the picture reveal that our outward enthusiasm does not match our actual activism, our reply doesn’t not make one less orphan homeless. The reality is that far more people will share this picture or Re-tweet Jon Acuff than those who will actually adopt a child, or foster a child, or adopt a foster or adoptive family to take care of.

Here the scriptures give us a specific target. “Hey God, what should I do?” we ask. “Read James 1:27 and do it!” He replies. “Can’t I just post to facebook about it?!” we wonder.

No you can not, and every time you do there is still a child without a home.

Brothers and Sister, this should not be so!

Think of all the negative attention Christians get in the media. How people often look at us like a joke, and therefore think of Jesus as a joke. Think of all the hot button political issues like abortion and ask yourself “is adoption is the answer?” Would abortion even be needed, if every time a child needed a home, a Christian was there to greet them? Would people take us more seriously if we took our faith more seriously? Not more politically, or even more militantly, but actually let the words of scripture change the way we live!

We must take this seriously, but enthusiastic non-activism and face-less charity are not going to cut it. Sure, give your old clothes to goodwill, but guess what, my two adopted daughters don’t need your unwanted worn out clothes. Volunteer at a food pantry, but families like mine, well I make too much money to qualify for that type of assistance, so while you’ll benefit some, there will be plenty of others that fall through the cracks of the system. Meanwhile I need new tires for my car. And there are numerous programs where you can donate and some people will be helped, but you will never have to touch. or know, or see those in need face to face.

So why does James get specific here? Why widows and orphans? Well ask yourself, “Who is missing from this family portrait?” The father. And who did Christ come to reveal to us? “The Father” This is no accident, it is no tricky reading of the text, it is no mere coincidence that the very picture that the scriptures use to paint a picture of our salvation is adoption, it is by design. And Christians, aren’t you glad that Jesus was specific when he rescued you? That he didn’t just send aide from far off, but he came down, took on flesh, touched you while you were filthy, lifted up your face so you could see his eyes and loved you while you we unwanted?

So you can adopt, you can foster, or you can seek out a specific family who does, and you can adopt them. Take care of all the needs that the system fails to meet, be friend and love that family and make a real difference. If one family out of every three churches is all that it would take, then that means that there are enough families left to make sure that that one family never lacks in their ability to care for their children. Surely if there is one family per three churches, then three churches should be able to support one family.

This is a Gospel Issue.

Everything is a Gospel Issue.

Especially adoption.

Your activism needs to be greater than your enthusiasm.

Your charity needs to be specific, not broad.

Your response towards widows and orphans need to have a face, your face.

You have been neutral on this issue for far too long.

God, in Christ, was not neutral towards you.

He was active, so be active.

#imachristianbut ( Jesus is a big deal )

Bible Say Wha?! Genesis Chapter One

The aim of this series of blogs is simple. To figure out what the Bible is plainly saying. It is not meant to be definitive nor complete, but just plain. The bible is complex, that much is certain, and so is our reading and understanding of it. Often times I think our aim is either too high, or too low, and both sides end up missing what is right in front of us. So I hope to hit somewhere in the middle and offend everyone at the same time by asking “What’s the big deal?” If only one thing is to be pulled from this text, what is it?

BIBLE SAY WHA?! Genesis Chapter One

What does it say?

Like any good story, the bible introduces us to its main character early on, that character being “God”. We are also simultaneously given a frame of reference, “the beginning.” Now whether this beginning points to a specific time and date is unclear, there is a lot of debate around this, and while I think it’s important to talk about those things, it obviously is NOT the MAIN thing this text wants us to know. So the WHEN? of the beginning, nor the WHAT? of the creation, seems to be the main thin in this text. So then, it would seem that the WHO? is the main thing, and if you were to ask me to place theses things in order of importance, I would say that the least important part is the WHEN, followed by the WHAT, and finally, most importantly the  WHO.

This text then is about God, who at some time in the past, created everything.

So how did I come to that conclusion?

I’m glad you asked! Lets say you had no knowledge of the bible, or any thing that anyone had told you about the bible, you just happened to find this book, opened it up, and read from the beginning. You then think to yourself “What’s the big deal?” I would argue that whatever is given the most detail is what the passage wants us to know the most. This passage does talk about the beginning, it does talk about creation, but it talks mostly about God, which would then make Him the most important object in the text.

In this passage we do learn some interesting things about creation, specifically the “WHAT” it was that was actually created.  We read about the heavens and the earth, the light and therefore the night and day, the waters and the land, vegetation and seeds, stars in the sky, fishes, then livestock, then man. However, while this is specific, its not very specific, it seems very broad in its scope and leads to other very good questions.

Were all the different types of fish created, or just enough fish with enough genetic diversity to then eventually produce the variety of fish we now have? Same goes for the beast, and the vegetation. Was the earth in the shape and form that it is now? Were the mountains the same then as the are now, were the plains and valleys and regions generally the same?

Most likely not. Therefor there is no reason that a Christian can not trust the majority of scientific discovery that gives us a potential glimpses into creation’s early history. In fact the science vs faith dichotomy is a false one, but I digress. There is no need for someone who believes the bible to shun science, the only time we should be suspect is when someone tries to uses scientific discovery to rid of us of the main thing in this text, God. When it comes to the time frame of this creation account we don’t have many specifics, so it doesn’t matter if science says the earth is 6000 or 60 trillion years old, or that all of creation happened over long periods of time, or in an instant, the bible is fairly quite on the matter. What does matter is if someone would then suggest that this “science” is  evidence that there is no God at all, because again, the WHO is more important to the WHEN or the WHAT, and the bible is most certainly NOT quite about the WHO. So we can accept what science reveal and still believe in the bible….shocking, I know.

We should also note that the opening of Genesis is written as a poem, so we should consider that there may be some artistic license to the creation story, and therefore a strictly literal interpretation is NOT necessary to believe in this text or affirm that it is true, although this does NOT mean that the poem is not literal or at least partly literal either. Either way, it still does not shed as much light on the WHEN or WHAT aspects of creation, over the WHO of creation. Keep in mind that it does seem to zoom in a bit more in chapter two,  giving us more specifics, but still, the WHO of the creation story is still at center stage.

Ultimately then, the WHO should be our main focus.

To emphasis this, I was photographing a wedding at a small church about six years ago. On a small table in the lobby was a pamphlet about the different alternating theories of the creation account. Now we aren’t going to dive into this too much because our aim is the MAIN thing, and as I’ve already stated that I think the main thing is the WHO, not the WHEN of creation, but in this pamphlet it presented some of the different schools of thought including the “gap theory”, “day age view”, “theistic evolution”, “poetic framework” view, and the “literal” view. I’ll give some credit to the makers of this pamphlet, they did a very good job explaining the different views correctly, but then towards the bottom of the page, the bias began to show. The pamphlet boldly declared that any interpretation of the days of creation other than the literal interpretation was a compromise to God’s word and we cannot allow these compromises in the church!

To which I thought “Really?”

If I handed you Genesis chapter one and simply told you that this is a poem about how everything began, could you possibly find enough information from this chapter, and even the next chapter, to steadfastly determine that this is the only right way to understand this text? Me neither!

In fact the only detailed specific thing in this text is again, the “WHO”. When we read about the “WHEN”, all we know for sure about it, is “WHO” was there. When we read about the specifics of the “WHAT”, we get a little more detail, but the primary detail we read is that it was God “WHO” created it. There is much more detail about God than anything else in this text. We read that he has a Spirit. We read that he has a voice and that he speaks. We read that he has an image and a likeness. We read that image reflects some mysterious “our” suggesting that this God has some sort of diversity in himself. Granted it’s not a very clear picture of WHO this God is, especially the “our image” and “our likeness” bit, but it’s much more detail than we get about anything else, and as such, it is probably where most of our attention should be, not just in this first chapter, but in the whole story.

Lastly we do see a second “WHO” show up at the very end of this text. We see ourselves, or man. The main WHO, God, brings a LITTLE WHO, man, into his creation. We see that the MAIN WHO, gives us LITTLE WHOS dominion over all that he has made, and that the LITTLE WHOS are also a part of the WHAT of creation, the only thing not created in this text is the one WHO does the creating. Man and creation are linked, one is not above the other, they are made to live in peace together. God sets us up in an order or a relationship with Himself and with His creation. “You take care of the creation, and it will take care of you, and I will take care of both of you.”

Which is very beautiful, but it is not the whole the story. We know that this is the setting that tension will eventually be introduced into. This is the setting of peace we were in, and the Bible, as a whole, is a story of how that peace was destroyed, and how that peace was restored. The destruction of that peace can easily be summarized as the LITTLE WHOS think they know better that the BIG WHO. It is not us versus evil, its us versus God, from that single inversion all tension, unease, evil and suffering would flow.

However, we are not that far into the story just yet, so in true cliffhanger fashion, I’ll have to leave it there for now.

In summary this specific chapter of the bible is about WHO God is, and WHO we are in relationship to him and in relationship to WHAT he has created. The “WHEN” of the whole deal is a side-note at best, and this should set the frame for the rest of our investigation into the scriptures. The big deal is always going to be God. So if you are a Christian, plant your flag and stake your claim around the WHO of this passage and not the WHEN or the WHAT. In as far as we have traveled into this book, God is the main player, initiator, creator and driving force in this story. He is the most important piece, in fact the only piece that matters, because without him there are no other pieces for us to even think about. So then, for you, personally, that is the question. “Is God the only most important piece in your life, because without Him, none of the other pieces matter?

To be continued…

When a comedian has to do the job of a church (LAST WEEK TONIGHT : John Oliver)

I’ve posted my thoughts and outrage with the prosperity gospel several times. Whether in person, through social media, or even this very blog before. Usually my well meaning “can’t we all just get along” brothers and sister find issue with my issues against this vile cancer that has attached itself to the church. In some regards, I understand the sentiment. “Why focus so much on what divides us?” Which is true when the issue at hand is simple or harmless enough. However this is not the case with the prosperity gospel. It is false, it is contrary to scripture, and it takes advantage of those whom our Savior says we should be looking after. In my mind, this is the most important thing the church needs to do more of. We need to distinguish ourselves against the televangelist prosperity teacher, and we need to do as Paul instruct Timothy and guard our lives and our doctrine, and call out the wolves when we see them. I have stoked these fires before and I will continue to do so, but maybe a different voice would be useful. Please watch and share the video below from Last Week Tonight

As fantastic and as true as this video is, it exposes exactly what needs to me removed from the body of Christ, it also represents a sad day when a television comedian is doing the work that the church should be doing, and should have been doing all along. How can our churches be a refuge of the truth if they are not properly guarded from evil lies? Brothers and sisters this much change. I hear many a preacher say that we need to be bold in the face of the changing culture, and not collapse or shrink back, we should proclaim the message of the cross even louder! Friends, the culture will never here our message if we can’t even keep the filth out of our sermons and out of our pulpits.