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.

MEN! This is difficult…

…but necessary.

Not a long post, just a challenging exhortation from my morning read.

We see this clearly in Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus where husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, being the head of their homes like Christ is the head of the church. This means that husbands, like Jesus, are to lead their home by being first to love, first to forgive, and first to suffer and to be accountable for sin regardless of whether it is their “fault.”

Patrick, Darrin (2010-08-12). Church Planter: The Man, the Message, the Mission (p. 16). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

#imachristianbut ( Jesus is a big deal )

Nehemiah : A Better City : Chapter 5:1-13

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

Nehemiah : A Better City

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

There are poor and there are powerless, to contrast, there are rich and powerful. There are those who press and oppress, and then there is justice. In general there is a sense of justice, of righting wrongs, and helping those who can’t help themselves, in all of us. Especially if we think we are the ones who aren’t receiving what we think we deserve. We all have our ways to seek justice, and we make much of our causes, and our leaders, and our attempts to obtain it, but none of us really get there.

Three points on justice

1. Justice is not always black and white. Its not clear who is in the wrong, and sometimes we find ourselves swayed, and end up doing evil thinking we are doing good.
2. Batman is not real. There is not a superhero, some human who is incorruptible fighting for justice. No Robin Hood robbing the rich to feed the poor.
3. However, if there is a God, he certainly cares about justice.

So…

God opens our ears to LISTEN for injustice, to WRESTLE with its effects, and to ENGAGE it as an opportunity for joining Gods renewal. (We will see Nehemiah do just this in today’s focal text.)

LISTEN (hear them out)

“There arose a great outcry”…even the wives are upset, and the cry isn’t against an outside force, but against their own kinsmen. They list their complaints and Nehemiah LISTENS to every one. They can barely make it. The taxes are harsh and their resources, even their crops are being borrowed against. Their children are forced into slavery to help feed the family and pay off the debt. What should we be listening for? The cry that things are not as they should be. That is the sound of injustice, things that are not as they should be.

WRESTLE (evaluate)

“I was very angry when I heard…I took counsel with myself”. You are allowed, even encouraged to be angry at injustice, if you are not, something may be off in your heart. However, that anger has to be tempered by the holy spirit through prayer and truth. If your only counselor is yourself that’s not good, but at some point we need to be able to sift through our emotions and thoughts, up against the thoughts and love of God, that we may apply that same love to others. Take your anger and ask What would God have me do with this anger in this situation?

ENGAGE (How am I positioned to affect change in this situation?)

Nehemiah has considerably more influence and means than you, but its not about the amount of influence you have, but how you effectively use what influence you do have. Nehemiah confronts the oppressive leadership and leaves them speechless. He then calls them to restore what has been broken. He gathers a community that will reflect the true character of their God. Sometime the community may be your church, sometime that community will be you and your spouse, sometimes you may be alone. No matter the number, we are to make our community reflect the kingdom of God. There are no slaves in Gods kingdom. No debts because he has paid him. No burden of harsh taxes cause God does not need our wealth to sustain his rule.

Nehemiah, is very practical, but serves an even greater purpose than just its application. Nehemiah serves as a shadow to point us to Jesus. Jesus, who heard us and LISTENED to our cry. He WRESTLED and fought against our oppressors, resitting even our ultimate enemy the serpent, succeeding where we have failed. Through his perfect life everything that was wrong has been made right, and sealed as a blood oath on the cross, our debts have been paid, and the undue burden of our sin removed never to be held against us again. Now Jesus ENGAGES all who are left wandering. Uniquely positioned on a throne over all the universe, he guides his redeemed people, the church, to seek their lost brothers and sister, and to gather them back to the city of God.

Raising a Glass to Freedom.

I have a lot to say on the subject of alcohol. I mean, I normally have a lot to say about anything, but for whatever reason, a few articles posted by friends on social media feeds have been centered around this topic, specifically on whether Christians should or should not imbibe. So here is my two cents, which probably isn’t worth anywhere near two cents, but take it if you will.

I think that there are fair points on both sides, and at the same time, both sides fail to get to the heart. That’s my hope, to get to the heart of this issue. One side says “no” and give a long list of warnings, the other side says “yes”, and says that we are free in Christ. Both are true, but again, fail to go deep enough. So, I’ll do my best to be brief and to the point, but if you know me, you might as well get comfortable.

The Error of Comparing Percentages

The articles on my feed, and one ridiculous video, all stand opposed to Christian drinking. The video is over the top, and its valid points are overshadowed by red herring arguments, circular reasoning, and clear slippery slope fallacies. However, it did make many of the arguments that I grew up with in church. Most of these arguments are besides the point, a popular one being that the alcohol content of wine was so low that it was more like grape juice.

Okay…I guess, but the issue is not about the quantity or % of alcohol in the juice, but whether it is consumed at all. The argument is off topic, and besides the point. In this argument, even though it is used to discourage drinking, the point is made on the fact the alcohol was still consumed, just with really low content. So my questions is “Are you saying that as long as my alcohol content is really small is still okay?” Surely this is not what the proponents of this argument mean.

The sin problem associated with alcohol is not the alcohol or the content of alcohol in a drink itself, but drunkenness. And even though the content was lower, drunkenness was still a problem frequently addressed by the bible. So we can infer two things. 1. The drunkards were either making there own wine with higher alcohol content, or not mixing it with water as to dilute it. Or, 2. They just drank lots more of the diluted .0001% alcohol content wine.

Either one or both of these things was taking place, but either way people were still getting trashed, and so you still had a drunkenness problem even with heavily diluted grape juice wine. What we can then gather is that the problem is not with the booze itself, but with the people. Objects are not evil, its what people do with them that’s evil.

External Righteousness vs Internal Un-righteousness

This is the type of arguement that frustrates me. It only addresses the act, focusing on externals, and never gets to the heart. It is how a Pharisees would approach the problem, not how Jesus would address the heart of the problem. Evil religious men measure quantities, they never go beyond specific borders that they make up for themselves, and admonish those who do go beyond those borders. Opposing them, righteous religious men heed the council of scripture, and where scripture is unclear, they use wisdom and discernment over every action. Which is what we need to exercise around this issue.

There is a story in the bible of two men who go to the temple to pray. The first man watches his percentages very closely, he gives 10%, as was the law, and even tithes off his spice rack. The second man comes to pray and realizes that he is 100% in need of God’s mercy. Jesus says that the second man gets it, and that the first man misses the point. The problem is not the % of alcohol, or how well you tow the line, but the heart of the person who chooses to sin with alcohol. 

So…

What is the Christian Position?

Moving away from the video, the articles were much more gracious, even tempered, and fair minded. The attitude was certainly against alcohol, but the approach was simply asking Christians who do drink, to consider a few issues first. I think this is wise counsel. To simply rethink and evaluate your position, something Christians are constantly supposed to be doing anyway, in order to let our minds constantly be renewed by God’s spirit. This is a completely fair and just request.

The articles are quick to point out that there is no one verse that outright tells Christians not to drink. They are right. However, there are verses condemning drunkenness and encouraging those in leadership to heavier control, and even in some cases, complete avoidance. To this, I think both sides would agree.

Christians are, according to the authority of God’s law in scripture, permitted to drink, in moderation, below drunkenness. That is the plain understanding shared by the majority of Christendom. Those in favor say “yay!” and go on their merry way, those opposed have a few “howevers” that they want us to consider; and I, a guy in the “in favor” camp, think that we absolutely should consider these “however” points.

HOWEVER, You Should Watch Your Witness

There are two main “howevers”, of which, both have their merit, and I think only a fool would completely dismiss them. The first is a matter of witness.

The agreement normally asserts that even though drinking is permissible it could possibly ruin our witness, or sully our character in such a way, that people may be turned off to Christianity. They may say something like “We are supposed to be set apart from the world, and if we look like the world, then the image of Christ that we are supposed to display, will be marred by our poor example.” I think this is true, but it doesn’t exactly follow all the way through.

Christian character and life should stand apart from the world, but this does not automatically mean that drinking is worldly. Remember the problem is not the drink, its the heart that sins with the drink. Maybe in your particular culture, city, state, or circle of influence, it is seen as particularly evil. So we have to apply the witness rule to these particular situations or context. However, just because it applies to one particular situations, even if it’s the majority of situations, it doesn’t mean that it is then the prescribed method for ALL situations.

The “however” point of ” watch your witness” cuts both ways. In some instances refusing the drink could also hurt your witness. For example, I had a friend in college, back when I falsely believed that drinking was sinful, who went on a mission trip to Vietnam. While there he told me that he had a traditional alcoholic drink with some of the members of the group he was witnessing too. I immediately cautioned him about his witness, he replied explaining that he could of refused the drink over some personal conviction that the people he was witnessing to would not of understood, causing an unnecessary hurdle to the cultural barrier already there. Or he could take the drink with kindness and grow closer to the people that he wanted to share Jesus with. He’s right. Those people would not of been impressed by his refusal of the drink, but instead, they were filled with some gladness that he graciously accepted their favor.

Our witness as Christians is frightfully important. The deeds that sully our witness have more to do with our character. So then where does our character flow from? It flows from what we believe deeply in our hearts.

So a drunken Christian surely is a horrible witness, not just because of the dangers that come with his drunkenness, but about what is revealed about his character and heart when he is drunk. Let me point out that most Christians show their rude behavior or poor character whether or not alcohol is present, and again, for both the drunk and the unkind person, the problem is in their hearts.

HOWEVER, Watch the Weaker Brothers

The second “however” concern revolves around how your actions may cause a weaker Christian brother to fall. The argument suggest that even though you don’t struggle with drunkenness, your brother in Christ might, and by your permission of alcohol you may open them to drunkenness that may lead to them destroying their lives. Or, a little less destructive, someone who opposes alcohol use, may be offended by your use.

To the second part of this argument, it is just simply impossible to never offend anyone, people get offended by all sorts of silliness. Now you should be sensitive of course, but without getting into the particulars, being sensitive to the feelings of others still doesn’t follow that you should completely abstain from alcohol. On top of this, it is never good to misrepresent yourself, which if you are going to avoid all offenses, you will surely have to eventually do. Further, someone’s offense is not a proper condemnation on the act itself, God’s offenses, however, is.

Be Ye Not Offended

I have a couple of examples to this second point of the “weaker brother” argument. First, my aunt is one of the greatest Christians I know, she knew that I used to have issues with drinking, and once at a family dinner she asked my wife if I would be offended if she got a drink. There you go, its that easy. Her freedom to drink wasn’t worth knowingly offending me and upsetting our relationship. It, like most of these opposing arguments, cuts both ways. At the same time, my freedom not to drink, over her freedom too drink is not worth upsetting our relationship, so I should not lord my preference over hers. Now if her attitude was to love the drink over her nephew, and she said to me that I “should get over it”, well then this does reveal a problem, but again with her heart, not the booze.

What is funny in this example is that I am the weaker brother, however, at the time, I would of considered my aunt the weaker one because I abstained and she didn’t. I thought my position, and discipline on the matter made me superior. Now I realize I was the weak and immature one, and that my pride in that moment was a worse sin, and offense than anyone having a drink.

Causing Others to Stumble

What I am trying to make clear is that removing alcohol from the equation does not eliminate the sin taking place in the heart. I hope that we all understand that if someone has a particular sin issue, in this case, with drinking, that there problem is not that they had a beer, or even that they had too many beers, the problem is their heart. If we understand this then when can begin to discuss the first part of the weaker brother argument.

Jesus’ bold little brother, James, makes it clear in his book that when we sin it is because we are enticed by our own desires. The assumption in the second half of the weaker brother argument, is that my drinking may encourage someone else to drink, maybe even my own son, and what if they have a particular preposition to addiction, and then they drink because of me, and now they are an alcoholic? Well other than the fear based motive instead of trust in Jesus motive of this argument, it completely ignores what we know about sin from James, and there are a couple ways to look at this if we are going to go after the heart.

First off, my partaking is not an encouragement for drunkenness, anymore than giving my wife a kiss is an encouragement for someone else to lust. If they see my acts of permission to justify their own sin, then their hearts have already crossed that line long before they ever looked to me for justification. So in the context of my son, I want him to see how a mature Christian disciplined man is supposed to treat his wife, and further, how he should handle his drink. Appropriate, proper, and controlled exposure is where I want him to learn and see my example.

If I remove all alcohol from my house, and my child’s only exposure to the concept is “we don’t do that, its a sin.” Then I am most likely setting him up for failure by giving him no context in which to understand something like alcohol. Something that he will inevitably be exposed to. So I prefer his exposure to be from his dad who loves him, not his knuckle-headed buddies who just want to have a good time.

So my son heads off to college were the only attitude towards drinking he knows, is that it is sinful, and he has only been taught two options. Either don’t drink, or you sin. Now my son, faced with adjusting to a new life situation, trying to fit in with new peers, no matter how holy he had been living previously, is very likely to choose the sin option. Now what if I had raised my son in a context where the subject of alcohol was talked about when appropriate, and his exposure to it was proper and disciplined? What if I told him that there were actually three options? You can either avoid drinking, sin with drinking, or worship with drinking.

Worship The Creator, not the Creation

The heart problem with drunkenness is here. There may be factors that play a part, and I don’t doubt that there are, but when someone struggles with drunkenness the root problem is that they have began to worship the alcohol as god, and exchanged it for the God who created alcohol. This applies to every sin. Those who struggle with lust elevate the created act of sex over the creator of sex. Those who struggle with gluttony elevate the creation of food over the creator of food, etc.

So for my son, I always want him to know the third option to all of life’s situations. That it is not always a simple “do I” or “don’t I”, but “How can I worship God in this?” We do this by first teaching clearly what the bible instructs us to do on all matters, but also, along side, we proclaim the supremacy of God above all things.

“So my son, some people drink to feel alive, but God is the author of life and has given us new life in his son, not through some beverage. Others try to numb out pain by drinking to forget their problems, but God has given us a better solution than numbness, inviting us to heap all of our woes on the cross of his son, that he may redeem all of our failures and pain without dulling our senses. This means, my son, that when it comes to alcohol you can drink or not drink, because if Christ is truly your master then alcohol won’t master you. Do whatever you do for the Glory of God, then be satisfied in him and you won’t have to look for satisfaction in a bottle.”

Unnecessary Walls

The difficulty of the Christian life is that the Christian message we are to proclaim is intrinsically exclusive. On one hand, it is radically inclusive, that it is offered freely to everyone. At the same time, it is extremely exclusive for those who reject it, they will ultimately lose the hope of Jesus and salvation in it.

It is for this reason that I caution anyone to tread lightly over issues of personal conviction. When we insist that the very act of drinking is sinful we wrongfully add to the prescription that the bible actually gives. The problem with a person’s drunkenness is that the act was probably preceded by a host of other poor decisions. Poor friends that make bad choices perhaps. Overall immaturity or lack of discipline would be a potential sign. Somewhere, someone could of stepped in along the way and spoke the truth to this person.

Instead, if we choose to promote the negative uses of alcohol and insist that complete abstaining is biblical and anything less is a sin, or less than perfectly holy, then we build extra-biblical walls of division. There are certainly biblical things to divide over, but drinking should not be one of them. It discourages open dialogue, and, as in my own case, promotes self-righteousness. So when a young person falls into this particular sin they keep it hidden, and avoid help because of the guilt, scorn, and disappointment they may receive. They feel that they are unable to openly confess, as was the case in the context I grew up in, that they may have somehow messed up Gods plan for their life. Or on the other hand, it may lead some unbelievers to falsely believe that their alcohol use, even if it is proper use, is a point of division between them and the church, or even worse, them and Jesus.

I didn’t have my first drink of anything until I was 28. I only drink with people I trust, normally with other dudes that have the same values as I do, men that are married, love Jesus and are disciplined themselves. I can not think of a time that I’ve had more than two beers in one sitting, I’ve never even been tipsy, and if that ever where to happen, the friends I surround myself with would have no problem cutting me off. I make wise decisions that surround my consumption so to help prevent me from failing, even though sinning with alcohol is not something I particularly struggle with. Isn’t this how we should guard all of our activities?

Worshipping with Beer

Let me wrap up with a personal account. My dad has had it pretty tough. A good dad, I am super grateful for, still his life has not turned out the way he expected. When I was a freshman in high school my parents got divorced. In my opinion my dad hasn’t been the same since. He left the church feeling that the church had failed to intervene and help my parents when they needed it most, my mom would agree on this. Feeling rejected my dad became more and more careless with own personal discipline, especially around alcohol. To him, this became part of the ever-widening barrier between him and religion, and where people on the religious side took issue, he found a group of people who took no issue, and were even permissive. We are built for community, and my dad found a new community centered around a bar stool.

Fast forward to this past Christmas. I get a call from my dad, “Hey come down to Willie’s (a local sports bar), your brother is down here and I want to give you some money to spend on the girls (my five daughters) for Christmas.” “Sure”, I thought, ” I need to get some shopping done anyway.” My brother was the first to greet me and ordered me a Black & Tan, he had known about my recent change in convictions, whereas my dad had not. We sat and ate a meal, caught up and hung out. If I still held to my previous more conservative convictions, this moment would of never happened, I wouldn’t of been invited for fear of offending me. It was great, I, the pious religious son, got to connect with my dad in a way that we hadn’t in a long time.

I started to excuse myself to leave when my dad said “Hey, before you go do a Christmas shot with me.” I hadn’t even finished my Black & Tan so I was more than okay, “Sure dad!” He ordered a shot for both of us and as we began to tip them back, he said to me “I never thought I’d have a beer and share a shot with you.” My reply, “Well dad, people change.”

It was a God moment. What my dad previously thought impossible, was now possible. “People change”, and its true, if God can change your religious son’s self-righteous heart, he can change yours as well. In that moment, the truth of the gospel that I want my dad, and others like him to know, is that “This drink in my hand is not a barrier between our relationship as father and son, and it is also not a barrier between you and God.” I left giving my dad a hug and telling him to come visit us at church. He said he would, but I’m sure we may have to share a few more shots before that happens.

Grace&Peace.

The Duck Commander and Bigot

You are most likely aware of A&E’s wildly popular show “Duck Dynasty”. Even if you don’t watch it, you are probably aware that the show follows the redneck antics of the Lovable, laid back, and pretty obviously conservative Christian, Robertson family. Led by patriarch Phil, Phil and his sons raise their families with a certain redneck charm while Phil’s son Willie runs the family owned and operated multi-million dollar duck call business.

All this you probably know, what you’re hearing right now may be new. Phil is coming under fire for some excerpts from a recent GQ magazine interview that are allegedly anti-gay.

Robertson full GQ interview

Foxs News Article on the controversy of the interview.

I honestly doubt the full interview will sway those who oppose Phil and others like him that hold to a traditional view of marriage as most Christians have biblically understood it. I’ve read the full article and the complaints and I’m sure smarter and better equipped men and women will comment or blog, however there are a few thoughts & observations I want to share.

HE GETS IT RIGHT

I am not saying he IS right, I’m saying that he expresses the traditional view correctly. The only possible flaw is a lack of tact or technique in expressing his view. I can see how it may seem crass, and I actually do think it is crass.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” he said. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?

One of the many things I think both sides of the argument lacks, is the ability to see past controversial statements, and the emotions that they stir up, to look at the intent of what is being said. Admittedly this is hard for everyone, even when I read the above quote I raise an eyebrow and think “what!?”.

This is largely a throwaway statement. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be held accountable for it, but it really has nothing to do with the much larger cultural discussion. It’s like someone saying. “I think women deserve the vote, just because a woman’s place is in the kitchen doesn’t mean she can’t have a say in who should be president”. Is that an outrageously dumb statement about a woman’s place in the kitchen? Yes, but its absurdity has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the position.

He, in response to the article, clarifies…

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

You may not like the content of what Phil is saying here, but you would be hard pressed to find something wrong with its intent. Part of the push back is that in his brief mention of homosexuality he also mentions bestiality.

Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men

The opposition makes the false assumption that Phil is saying that homosexuality is the same as bestiality. The same has been said about pedophilia comparisons. He is not saying they are the same, as in terms of damage or harm, but morally the same. Essentially he is saying a sin is a sin. The bible mentions liars and murders together, it is not saying that lying is as bad as murder, but it is saying, that God holds both the liar and murder accountable for their sin. He also includes heterosexual fornication in his condemnation, but no one really bats an eye at that.

Remove all the dross from around the interview and we see that Phil holds the traditional biblical view. That all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. And to that I would say “Well, wha did you expect him to say?”

HIS OPPOSITION GETS IT WRONG

Again I’m not saying they ARE wrong, I’m saying they characterize the position wrong. Read this quote from GLAAD.

Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD rep Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.

This response makes me grit my teeth. It shows, like I said before, an inability to look pass the emotion of an issue and at what is actually being said.

The quote starts off “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.” Uh, yeah, but no.

A lot of claims made in this statement that just aren’t true. They “claim to be Christian”, are they not Christian, and if not, how are they not? “Lies about an entire community”, okay what were those lies exactly? “Fly in the face of what true Christians believe”, what is it they believe exactly, and how does this contradict? I think this first statement is similar to Phil’s crass statement, a gut reaction with no deeper understanding of what’s actually going on.

The statement goes on pretty much in the same fasion. Anger, and probably justified anger are the result. However, justified anger does not justify missing the point.

UNDERSTANDING SHOULD BE THE GOAL

Either side of the issues is guilty of misscharacterization. Extreme examples are made of the opposing side that are easy to attack, and when similarities present themselves we immediately condemn the whole. Its really just childish and it misses the point. It promotes further separation and gives no room for mutual understanding.

If you want someone to change their beliefs or position, then getting your legislation passed, or a court to rule in your favor isn’t going to do it. They will feel and believe the same regardless, and where there was actually no hate to begin with, it will probably start to grow.

The first step is always listening and understanding. Think of how tormented a child might be if he is just always told what he is doing is wrong, but never explained why. They walk around scared and paralyzed because they are too afraid that they might do something wrong. They are left unable to navigate life because they can’t understand what makes certain things right or certain things wrong. Essentially, they can’t make sense of it because no one sat down and calmly explained it.

There are persons on both sides of this debate that are thoughtfully, and respectfully trying to promote mutual understanding by tackling the “why” aspect. The “why” components helps us to understand by addressing both the motives, and intents of each position. These few people never get much attention because two people having a sensible and peaceful discourse doesn’t get as many views as two people spouting off and yelling at each other. Both sides take advantage of the negative aspects of their opponents and the media spotlight to their mutual shame.

Recently, the state of Hawaii passed its own legislation on Gay Marriage. One of its repesentatives, who just so happened to be a publicly out and about lesbian, said she could not vote for the amendment because she had a duty to vote for legislation that protected all of Hawaii’s people. She wanted gay marriage and at the same time, more protection for religious objectors.

She felt the law was one-sided and in her attempt to be fair and understanding was rejected by her LGBT community. Here’s her statement. The response from her LGBT community? To denounce her as a betrayer.

VIOLATIONS OF CONSCIOUS

One thing that is becoming more and more evident is this sort of “If you’re not with us then you’re against us” mentality. This is evident when advocats demand that a corporation should take a stance on a political or moral issue, and that sponsers should reconsider their ties to dissenting opinions. Its even more evident in the story of Hawaii’s gay marriage opposing lesbian representative that we’ve already discussed.

Similarly, when it comes to Phil no one is saying. “Oh that poor misguided old man, someone needs to have a chat with him.” They are calling for his removal, they don’t want to educate and inform, they want to hurt and they want it to sting. At this point any action or in-action that doesn’t align properly is immediately anti-gay, homophobic, or bigoted.

The demand is “get inline or shut up about it.” Maybe Chirstians deserve this. Its reflective of the approach that the church at large has taken in handling the LGBT community. “You have same-sex attractions? Well don’t tell anyone or do anything about it, just be quiet and play along and maybe it’ll go away.” The church has handled a lot of sin issues this way, and it is wrong. Please note that I said the church at large, I’m sure there are many examples of churches loving the community well and still holding to their beliefs. Either way, in some ways, we are being given a taste of our own medicine.

When this approach is taken both sides then become guilty of asking, or demanding, that the other violate it’s conscious. I think that it is detrimental to ask anyone to violate any deeply held conviction or belief, Christian or otherwise.

If people are successful at this type of suppression then eventually we will have a society of sociopaths. What needs to happen is lots of open and honest discussion that may eventually sway hearts and beliefs.

Where the church has been guilty of this heavy handed, guilt and shame manipulation of the LGBTs in its pews, it should simply confess and repent and then start the work toward reconciliation.

CHOMPING AT THE BIT

Phil’s fall seems inevitable. It was no secret of his beliefs, all that was needed was for him to publicly state them so we could string him up for all to see. Again, both sides shoulder the blame for this kind of useless tactic.

This is a short point, but a good one. At least I think it is, but I’m the guy writting the blog. It seems that we are to eager to wage war, and less eager to strive for peace. Each side lying in wait, one misstep and we can’t wait to devour each other.

IM BORN THIS WAY

This arguement never made much sense to me, but I understand it. The reason that it doesn’t make sense is because a particular genetic predisposition is no grounds for permission or denial of any moral behavior.

That is, you can’t say that something is good and acceptable simply because something deep inside of you compels you to do it. I am completely fine with the notion that being gay is not a choice, but a result of nature, in fact I think that is most likely true. I understand this better then most through the lens of my faith.

You see, I too struggle with a compulsion, a feeling and conviction that I can not shake. I can’t suppress it, to do so would be untrue to myself, to who I am at my core. To cave to societal pressure would be an injustice to everthing I feel inside. I feel as if I can’t help it, no matter what I do, I am a Christian. You may say, “no, its a choice”, but I’m telling you that I’ve tried to do things different but I always come back. I’m always looking for a way out, but it seems I simply can’t undo it by any force of will.

Christians have the most to say to the LGBT community.The fight against what nature compells us to do is shared in our communities. The apostle Paul understands it when he says

Romans 7:19-24 ESV

For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Paul says the war is not external but internal. Sin is in us from birth, we only confirm it through our choices. Jesus understands the inner struggle for all of us who have fallen short. And he offers us the remedy.

We all have godless desires, he offers us godly desires. We all have a fallen nature, he offers a new nature. We have sinful hearts, he offers us sinless hearts. We have reprobate minds, he offers us renewed minds.

It is a complete and fundamental change within a human being. When I say I can’t help being a Christian its because this change has taken a hold of me. You could say “I’m born-again this way.”

The bible makes clear that we are the problem, all of us, and we need to be saved from oursleves and remade anew. Fortunately, that is exactly what Jesus came to do. Phil makes a simple statement to this effect

We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

He, at least here, is right.

I am not pro-gay or anti-gay. I am however anti-sin and pro-repentance. Is it possible for our culture to begin to talk about that? God is Holy, we aren’t, only Jesus makes up the difference.

Grace & Peace

I’m a Theist, and I have a beard.

So watch out! I don’t know whats wrong with me, I’m not sure what shape this blog is about to take. I’ve written things before and people seem to enjoy them, so I figured its time to get organized about it. I’m no one special, I don’t think my thoughts and ideas are exceptional, but just maybe they are worth exploring. So explore, rant with me, dive in with me, help me work this out.

I hope this blog is personal, thought provoking and informative. I am going to try my best to be genuine and honest. I am going to try my best to communicate clearly, effectively and thoroughly. I’m going to try and engage respectfully anyone who differs from my opinion and see what happens. I hope that I display Christ, I hope that you will believe in him.

My biggest problem is what should my first post be, other than this intro. Do I do an autobiographical sketch, or do I tackle a huge topic, or something soft and easy? I don’t know, stay tuned and find out.