Pascal's Wager and the Planet

Without question, Blaise Pascal is one of the smartest men to have lived ________ (you can fill in the blank with any set of time that includes his life - week, month, year, and century are out, but millennium, 'in the last 500 years', or "AD" would all work fine). His intro sentence on Wikipedia says he was a "French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher." A true interdisciplanarian. Further down, "after three years of effort and 50 prototypes he invented the mechanical calculator."  Oops, left out "while still a teenager".

When he was 16, he "wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry" - I'm twice as old as that, and I don't even know what projective geometry *is*. He proved that vacuums do exist (a vacuum had been believed impossible since Aristotle), so you can thank *him* for your Roomba, as well as giving us this great quote, "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus." I'm leaving out a whole bunch of his achievements, but here's one more: "And, prompted by a friend interested in gambling problems, he corresponded with Fermat on the subject, and from that collaboration was born the mathematical theory of probabilities."

One of his contributions, in the realm of religion, or philosophy, or probability, or however you'd like to categorize it, is called Pascal's Wager. He laid out the following statements: "God is, or He is not." "A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up." "According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions". "You must wager" (not choosing a position is the same as believing there's no God). "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." "Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

Pascal recognized that we couldn't verify the claims of Christianity in the same way we would claims of probability or physics, but, knowing what the stakes were, he proposed it was very wise to take measures to protect oneself from the risks of inaction (and, if you're reading this and not a Christian, while I find his vacuum quote more compelling, this is a great reason to consider the claims of Jesus).

However, I believe Pascal's approach is also useful in a lot of areas of life - the basic lesson that, when the stakes are both very high and very one-sided, it's simply pragmatic to take the safe bet. One place this makes *very* good sense, although the individual stakes are not *as high*, is climate change.

If you know me well, you're probably tired of my refrains, warnings, discussions and Facebook posts about climate change. Most people are; congratulations, you find me just as boring as the rest of the population! (Be kind to my wife; she has the burden of living with me *every* day, with no escape.) I believe the science behind climate change is both sound and convincing, but the real problem with discussions about climate change isn't as much disagreement about the science, as it is that most of us don't know what the stakes are.

The danger of climate change isn't that we don't get to build snowmen in the winter, or that our air conditioning bill goes up. It's not even record wildfires like we saw this summer in Colorado, or mega-tornadoes cutting huge swaths across towns like Joplin, Missouri. No, the real threat of climate change involves two "f" words. The first one is flooding; most of us have seen pictures on the news at various times of flooded homes. My parents, little sister and little brother had their home flooded in 2008, and it was one of the most devastating things that's ever happened to them.

But the good thing about flooding, in typical human experience, is that the waters go back down, you're able to go back and salvage what possessions are intact, and if it's feasible, clean or rebuild your home. If climate change predictions are correct, and there are only reasons to think that they are (though perhaps underestimated), we won't be facing floods from rivers, streams, or broken dams that last days or months (my parent's house was flooded for six weeks); we'll be looking at oceans rising (due to melting ice caps), flooding our cities (as many of the largest cities are near the coast, both in the US and throughout the world), and the water never leaving. It's a pretty bad scenario, and by itself, just the risk of it ought to motivate us to get our collective act together in terms of pollution, fossil fuels, and CO2. But that's the little f.

The big F, the much more deadly and disturbing F, and the far less familiar F, is famine. Climate change is affecting, and will affect, global rainfall patterns, and while some local areas will have better growing conditions (parts of Canada and Siberia), the parts of the world that currently excel at feeding 7 billion of us are going to be increasingly more difficult to get adequate yields from - especially regions that are currently more arid. I had the fortune of growing up on some of the best farmland in the country, and as much as I wished I lived in the city so I could have friends, I didn't realize that friends required social skills, and there were a lot of privileges to growing up on the farm, as well.

This summer, I was back to visit our family farm for about three weeks, in the midst of the worst drought America has experienced in roughly 60 years. Not only did I drive from Texas to get there and back, but I did a fair amount of driving around in the Midwest, as well, and on every farm that wasn't irrigated, the corn was either brown and dead, or wilted and unlikely to produce more than a few kernels per ear. My parents were lucky to have an irrigation system for their field, but not only was that expensive, but for their farm, it uses 1100 gallons of water *per minute* (that's twenty 55 gallon barrels). Per minute! It was great for them, and for other farmers during this drought, to have these systems, but many don't because of the cost. And at 1100 gallons per minute, if major droughts should become more common, I question how many years groundwater tables are able to sustain that use.

This is an important question, because while the world *does* produce enough food for everyone, we don't distribute it well enough or use it wisely enough for everyone to have what they need, and about 20,000 children under 5 die every day due to malnutrition and similar effects. If we start producing less food, those numbers will skyrocket, as will the non-fatal effects of malnutrition.

In any case, if climate change occurs as scientists are predicting, many of the world's major cities will flood, but that's not actually the real threat. The real risk of climate change is that droughts will increase, crops will fail, and millions more will die of hunger or be malnourished than is already the case. The ironic thing is that the CO2 emissions that would cause climate change, relatively, come from the global rich and middle class, with our higher rates of consumption, but it's the world's poor who won't be able to afford higher food prices and would be faced with starvation.

I don't know how it came to be that we live in a country where *Christians* are the main opponents of calls to steward what God has given us, but it's past time for that trend to stop. We can't leave care for the planet, and the poor it most effects, to the non-believing any longer.

Developing ways to raise efficiency, use less oil, and lower CO2 emissions has a cost (though probably a lower cost that flooding many of the world's largest cities), but when looking at the overall stakes, the relatively small costs to avert disaster, compared to the ongoing deaths and losses due to floods and famines climate change would bring about, I believe Blaise Pascal would say, regardless of what doubts you may have about the work of scientists, you should wager, without hesitation, that climate change is a real threat we must prevent.

All Truth is God's Truth - Why I'm not a Young Earth Creationist

I used to be a young earth creationist, which made sense to me even though science disagreed, for three reasons: A. I knew evolution was in crisis, and scientists always assumed the scientists in *other* fields surely had evidence for it, because they didn't. B. I knew scientists had an anti-God bias that kept them from checking out what creationists had to say about flood geology. C. I knew if scientists ever *did* take an objective look at creationist writings, they would say, "Oh, wow - this explains what we see a *lot* better than evolution and an old earth."

Turns out, though, each of those pre-suppositions I approached the issue with isn't true. The evidence for both the age of the universe (~ 13.73 billion years) and the common descent of living things is unanimous, overwhelming, and indisputable. Particularly, on the evolution side, since we've developed microfluidic processors (I don't know what those are, but they've enabled us to analyze DNA in around an hour, instead of the years the Human Genome Project took), we can see leftovers in our DNA of viruses our ancestors had, that have been passed down to us. So far, we've found 14 of these virus remnants that we have in our DNA, which chimps and bonobos also have in the exact same position - because our shared ancestors had those viruses (the same "viral strand" would indicate having the virus, but where it would be in our DNA is entirely random - since all of them occupy the exact same position in *their* DNA as in ours, there's no possible explanation but common ancestry). 

The age of the universe is equally well-evidenced; what I learned in my private Christian school - that scientists keep making it older to try to give enough time for the laws of probability to allow for evolution - just isn't true. Most simply, we can see light from stars 13 billion light years away, and light years are both measures of distance, and the time it takes for light to travel that distance, so that light came from a star 13 billion years old, therefore the universe must be 13 billion years old.

There is one other possible explanation for both sets of data, that a few people have suggested. It usually goes like, "Just as Adam and Eve weren't created as infants, God created a mature universe", but if one understands the science, it requires God creating light from stars that never existed, or creating viruses that can only be explained by common ancestry, and that not just implies, but requires, that God is a deceiver, creating a world that looks old but isn't to "test our faith". But we know from Scripture that God "cannot lie" (Hebrews 6:18) and it's actually a trait of the devil, not God, to deceive the non-believing (2 Corinthians 4:4).

What do I believe? I believe it was wrong of me to dismiss the findings of science without having scientific grounds to do so, and I believe astronomy and biology should fill us with awe and wonder, not denial, and finally, I believe learning what science tells us about God's universe, life, and how they came to be, is the most compelling evidence there is backing Isaiah 55:9, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

W.W.J.D.?

Who Would Jesus Drone?

I'd like to think that, if American Christians actually knew how we conduct our drone wars, there would be national outrage, but I honestly don't have that much confidence in our national conscience.  I hope to be completely mistaken about that, but it's unlikely we'll ever find out, because it's not a topic that gets a lot of time on the evening news, and a lot of us don't watch the evening news anyway.

I don't claim our pilots in Missouri or Nevada just want to kill people, and I think it's great that we can keep our troops out of harm's way, to a much greater extent, with drones than more invasions (for the most part; at the same time, I worry that for most Americans, only concern over American casualties keeps us from being more war-prone than we already are).

My problem is with how the decisions to fire are made. I find it dangerous and Orwellian to call any male in the area of a drone strike a military combatant: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." (http://goo.gl/WVDzb)

My problem is with our own self-assured dishonesty of how few civilians we've killed (None this year - high five! Except that's been thoroughly shown not to be true, even with very conservative methods). http://goo.gl/ojg3e

My problem is that we've used drones to kill a U.S. citizen, without trial (http://goo.gl/fM7bV), for nothing more than exercising his constitutionally enshrined right to free speech (to say reprehensible things, but the Supreme Court established, without question, that we have the right to do that, even to the point of advocating violence, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://goo.gl/T9hU2). Then, just two weeks later, we killed his 16 year old son (who, of course, we described as a military combatant - after all, he was killed in a drone strike), also a US citizen, which Obama's press secretary had the audacity to justify by saying, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they're truly concerned about the well-being of their children" - that's right, it's his fault for not choosing a more responsible father (http://goo.gl/c0KW2).

I have a big problem with us using drones, strategically, to kill those who show up to help the wounded or come to attend a funeral - no risk of civilian deaths there (at least not if they're male - those are enemy combatants!) (http://goo.gl/6ZZsb). This swells the ranks of our enemies, because God has given all of us a desire to see injustice against our loved ones avenged. If a far away, faceless foreign government killed your wife, father, son or daughter, in a group, because there might be bad guys there too, are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that you wouldn't consider (or want to consider, for the cowardly or principled pacifists) joining the side that's fighting that? (Lots more details here: http://goo.gl/Ir2tt)

I'm not a pacifist, I'm not opposed to the United States as a country defending herself. But I do think, ultimately, as citizens of heaven and aliens and strangers in the United States, what we do to stay alive is an important moral question with a lot of repercussions, perhaps more important than whether we stay alive. Some may say it's dangerous for me, just a civilian, who's not privy to any classified intelligence on our drone program, to be asking these questions and making moral judgments about what we're doing; I believe it's more dangerous not to. I believe, when government demands the power to kill, it's our job to call for strict care and oversight, and while I don't think any of our military leaders, or President Obama, or President Bush, want to see civilian deaths, I don't think we're trying hard enough to avoid them.

As Christians, when we talk about these things, I think we need to consider the words of Scripture, and especially those of Christ. So I'll leave off with two verses that I think we could benefit from giving more consideration. First, Proverbs 20:7 "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God." Second, Jesus said to Peter, on the night he was betrayed, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

A few honest thoughts about dishonesty

Let's have a little conversation here about the 9th commandment, "You shall not bear false withness against your neighbor". Because Christians are *really* bad at this one sometimes. Some of us, anyway. And, it's easy to slip-up, frankly, without even realizing it. When we *do* slip up, it's easy to justify to ourselves.

When I was a kid, I assumed, because of the word "witness", that this really only applied to what you said in court. It *does* apply to that, but it's a lot bigger than that. "Bearing false witness" is saying something untrue. But it's really something bigger than that, even. A true witness only says what they *know* is true. They don't pass on things that might have happened, speculations about a person, or what they heard from someone else. This has all kinds of implications for what we do and don't say, and really tends to cut down on gossip, but in my opinion, this is the biggest: We look on the outward appearance, God looks at the heart. Therefore, we have no business making definitive statements about a person's belief/unbelief, a person's motive, or the intentions behind an action unless that person has told us those things. Anyway, what we know so far is that if we're obeying this commandment, we won't say things we know are false *or* things we don't *know* are true. And there's a corollary here: Nothing you read in an e-mail forward is true. EVER. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but I'm firmly convinced that there is *zero* correlation between e-mail forwards and what is true, *especially* if they relate to politics or religion. So unless you've looked up those things on snopes, wikipedia, or some other real source of information, don't pass them on.

So, a false witness says or repeats things that are untrue, or things they don't know to be true. There's two ways falsehood can be "against your neighbor". The obvious one is false accusations, but the other is just lying to your neighbor - if someone asks you for directions, you don't know the way for sure, and you give them directions, they may get lost or worse, because of you. Both types of false witness are wrong, and there's no exception clause for "I thought I was right". Don't bear false witness.

This means it's our responsibility to know *what* we know, and it's our job to humbly tell people when we *don't* know. We Christians frequently fall into the trap, however, of believing that since we've found the truth about Christ (even though we didn't find it, but He found us), we have some kind of uncanny, magical ability to measure how true something is with our gut, our feelings, or our instinct. But God hasn't given us that ability, an unfortunate fact that shows up in several disappointing ways. It shows up when we tell people evolution is a lie, even though we don't have a science degree, and our hobby is watching sports, not reading biology. It shows up when we say President Obama doesn't believe in the same God we do, even though we don't know the man, he claims to follow Christ, and we can't see inside his heart. It shows up when we tell someone we know *why* they did or didn't do something - whether or not we turn out to be correct (and usually, we aren't).

If you've seen the movie Bambi, you may remember Thumper repeatedly needing to be reminded, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." I think we as Christian need to take that statement, adapt it to, "If you can't clearly explain how you *know* something, don't say anything at all." Because right now there's a lot of Christians being poor witnesses by saying things that either aren't right, or that they don't know are right. And part of what that means is we need to recognize that being "sure something is true" doesn't mean it is true. It's complicated, but we should aspire to know enough about the world to know where we do and don't know about the world. And then, if we're going to be good, godly, and honest witnesses, we won't speak with certainty on things we don't or can't know. Like Paul, let's keep the emphasis on what we know.

Affinity for Inequality

Usually, I can understand where people are coming from, or why they hold their ideas, even if I don't agree - and that's especially true of people I'm closely involved or affiliated with (evangelicals, men, nerds, you get the idea). But what I'm about to write about, I simply don't understand, even though I'm a lifelong evangelical who has been constantly surrounded by and interacting with other evangelicals. For some reason, evangelicals have an affection for inequality - they want to live in a society where a few have far more than some others. Why? I'm not sure, but I (genuinely; seriously) think the thinking goes like this: Communists deny God, and communism aims for economic equality for all, therefore economic equality is a bad thing, therefore economic inequality is a good thing.

Why do I say evangelicals are in favor of inequality? It's a feeling I get - I've never seen research done, or a study commissioned, but here's some evidence from my personal experience. 1) I've heard significantly more in sermons about the evil of high taxes than I have about government not doing enough to help the poor (Some might say, "But that's the church's job!" - I agree, it is! Cancel your youth ski trip, and give the homeless your winter coats! But, where in the Bible does it say that only churches, not governments, are allowed to help the poor? I'll give you a hint: It's in "Imadeituptations".) 2) When I put something on Facebook about helping those in need, it's my evangelical friends who disagree and come after me. My atheist/agnostic friends agree that we should help the poor (See, that communism reasoning was correct! Concern for the poor leads to godlessness!!! So, by the way, do my Christian friends who are theologically liberal). 3) I can count on the number "one" the number of times I've heard it said, from a pulpit, that those who have two houses should give to those who have none (Luke 3:11 - and those weren't the exact words that were used, but I did hear Chip Ingram say, "People who have two houses are going to have to do some explaining, when they get to heaven") and Jesus' advice to the rich young ruler to "sell his possessions, give to the poor, and come, follow me"... well, Jesus is just saying that to illustrate that being perfect is impossible. He doesn't actually expect anyone to do anything like that. And 4) I've heard, as most people have, a whole lot about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and that it was because they practiced homosexuality (and I believe that played a role in their judgment). But I've heard very little - and I've never heard it in a church, about why God says they were judged: "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

I have heard of some Christian leaders saying, however, that if God doesn't judge America soon, he's going to owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. That's absolutely right (Well, except that it's theologically wrong, because in Christ, we are forgiven for our shortcomings and not, generally, fire and brimestoned). But we are doing the same thing Sodom was judged for, even down to being overfed. Most of all, we "did not help the poor and needy". We've allowed cheered on our society's transformation from the land of opportunity, where anyone willing to study, work hard, and not waste their money could afford a decent life, to the land of inequality, with 93% of income growth in 2010 going to the top 1% of Americans, while the income of households making less than $101,000 annually (and that's 80% of us) fell by 1.7%. We've been slipping for years, so that now we are less equal than Uganda and Kazakhstan. Those aren't places I want my country competing with, on anything, and losing.

The inequality in our country is wrong. Immoral. Unjust. This isn't about "greedy, entitled poor people", it's not about "class warfare against the job creators", it's about whether the "American dream" will be a real thing anymore, or if we're going to become, for the steadily growing poor of our population, a land of nightmares. And that just doesn't match the message Jesus brought for them.

But whenever I try to bring this issue of inequality up, each time I try to discuss it with Christian people who should have a Christlike approach to helping the poor, I'm told that communism doesn't work (I agree, but it's dishonest to act as though anyone is suggesting that), that poor people are just looking for handouts (I'm sure some are, but what did Jesus say about handouts?), or that if we raise taxes, the economy will crash (all sorts of data prove that tax rates have little correlation with the health of the economy - there's no consistent correlation between the two). Yes, there are Christians who agree with me, but the trend I notice is Christians who somehow don't believe the rich have enough, while often suggesting we need to cut back on food stamps and aid to the poor. It's as though we've never read the book of James, and we really should. Or if we read Proverbs, we might come away with a better perspective.

Teach the Controversy

In recent years, Christians have had some success in different parts of the country calling for schools to "teach the controversy", referring to the controversy between two competing theories of origins, intelligent design and evolution. Most young people currently only learn about evolution in schools, and some Christians argue, what could be the harm of presenting opposing views and letting the students decide for themselves? (Some people might argue that this pedagogical philosophy is difficult to square with conservative calls for
abstinence-only sex education and disdain for comprehensive sex ed, which presents abstinence and other views and lets students decide for themselves. Speaking candidly, "some people" would have a heck of a point. But that pedagogical incongruence sits outside the scope of this blog post, so we shan't go there. Just to be clear, though, I'm a big believer in abstinence prior to marriage.)

What's the harm, people argue, of presenting someone with an informed viewpoint, so they can make their own fully-informed decision? Generally, this is a good idea, and incidentally, this is why it's important that the internet be kept fully free of government or service provider content control. In a classroom, I suppose one could argue that the "harms" might be that taking time to teach intelligent design takes away from the content students are intended to learn, or that intelligent design is not a testable, verifiable scientific theory, that teaching religious ideas is not the role of secular government, or that our science classrooms do not have sufficient time to do both sides justice. But I'm not here to argue any of those things. I'd rather teach the controversy. I'd rather introduce people to things they'll find controversial, so they can make their own fully-informed decision. Here goes.

There is no controversy, disagreement, or doubt about the theory of evolution. There's also not an anti-God conspiracy pushing scientists away from either creationism or intelligent design and toward evolution. There are facts. Ironclad, irrefutable, mountains of facts. For the longest time, I believed, even knew the opposite to be true. If scientists could kick off their anti-God blinders, forget what they know, and objectively consider the evidence for a young, designed earth, they would see immediately that they were mistaken. But gradually, over the last few years, my creationist/intelligent design blinders have been taken away, until at one point I saw immediately that I was mistaken. Evolution is true the same way gravity is true or Newton's laws of motion are true, and everywhere scientists are looking they find more strong evidence supporting it. Most likely over the next 100 years, scientists will refine and improve the details of evolutionary theory, but there is absolutely zero chance that they will experience the instant "fact-based" conversion I once thought they would.

Creationism is just not the direction the evidence points; not only that, it's not the direction the "weight of evidence" is moving. That is to say, when I was a creationist, I had the impression that evolution was full of problems, more problems were cropping up all the time, and the theory was in a state of crisis. What science actually shows, across disciplines and types of evidence (biology, paleontology, genomics, geology, and astronomy, to name a few), is vast evidence matching evolutionary expectations, and new things being discovered all the time that further support and confirm the common descent of living things. If you'd like to learn more about this evidence, from like-minded, conservative Christians, spend some time here.

So, if evolution is true, and it is, what does that mean? Does it mean that God doesn't exist or the Bible has been disproven? Does it invalidate our faith? No. This doesn't mean that the Bible is mistaken, or that inerrancy is untenable. It simply means that Genesis 1 was not written to give a pre-scientific culture a leg up, thousands of years later, in understanding physics, astronomy and biology. The Bible is not a science book, it's a truth book. And it doesn't set out to teach science, it reveals to us, and judges, the "thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). That's not to say the Bible is scientifically wrong; I don't believe there's a single error, of any kind, between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21. It just means that the topic of Genesis 1 is not science, in the same way the topic of Matthew 5:29-30 is not the proper care and maintenance of our bodies. Both teach us about man and his relationship to God.

Now, in Christian circles, that's controversial, and I hope for most Christians, that's because they believe the facts support creationism or intelligent design. But they don't. I certainly believed they did before I found out that evolution is based on evidence, not bias, group-think  or an atheistic vendetta. But the more I learn about evolution, the more I learn about how life actually came to be, the more I believe something bigger about God. I don't believe he sat down at his workbench for six days, and carefully crafted every living thing. That wouldn't be so impressive, for God. Rather, I see him as so omniscient, so far above us, that he came up with a mechanism which he knew would craft for him every living thing. It's the difference between making toast in the toaster, and making a toaster. It's the difference between being intelligent enough to vacuum the floor well, and being intelligent enough to invent a Roomba. The error of the creationist or intelligent design proponent is not one of believing too much of God, but too little. When God told us, in the book of Isaiah, that his thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and his ways are higher than our ways, he wasn't kidding around.

So if you've ever looked at creation and marveled, as I have, at how great our God is, just keep right on doing it. But bump it up a whole lot. Because while it might take a lot of intelligence to design a flying squirrel, a person, or a hummingbird, it takes supernatural omniscience to design, from scratch, an unthinking tool that will design them for you. Of course, no Christian would deny God's omniscience, but evolution shows us that his omniscience is even bigger than we knew. Teaching the "controversy" undermines truth, and it sells short the greatness of God. You see, the world and its creatures aren't intelligently designed, evolution is intelligently designed, by a God whose thoughts are so high above our own, we cannot understand or comprehend them. Which makes it all the greater and more amazing that he cares for us.

Credentials

Some people might be inclined to question my credentials, or to wonder if I have ulterior motives. Am I writing this blog because I'm a liberal Christian who hates the evangelical church? Do I believe in evolution because I'm a godless atheist who hates the guilt I feel because of Christianity? And do I so fiercely criticize the Republican party because I hate business owners and love abortion? No, no, and no. None of the above. Those questions are ridiculous, and intentionally so, but I have been asked by several people recently if my faith is slipping, if I no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, or if I'm going to vote for Obama (somehow, those things have become linked in people's minds, which is a problem in itself). But I thought it might be helpful to the skeptics and the suspicious to give a bit of detail about my life or the sincerity of my so-called "evangelical" belief in Christ. So, here's some of that:

I trusted Christ as my savior when I was eight years old, after seven years of wild living, at least for an elementary school kid in the 80's (basically, I cussed a lot). The church I spent the first part of my life in proudly called itself fundamentalist, as did I, (at least through the late 90's) but what we really meant was that we held to the fundamentals of Christianity, not that we hated gay people, required women to wear dresses, or were super-legalists (although sometimes we might have been medium-legalists). We believed in the innerancy of God's word, we believed in the pre-tribulation rapture, and I'm sure the vast majority of us were young earth creationists (I actually was involved in a newspaper editorial page argument in my city about creation and evolution, in the mid 90's, and that led to my being invited to participate in the founding of an "Origin Science" organization, which never quite came to fruition, but I did go to the meetings). But that's getting ahead of myself.

I attended Christian school from 2nd-8th grade, then homeschooled with Christian curriculum through high school. I went on a lot of mission trips, beginning in junior high. The summer after my junior year, I started a Bible study among my friends, where we read the Bible and talked about how we needed to change our lives. I was on the leadership team of Campus Crusade for Christ at my community college, and I minored in philosophy because I'd found no better venue to argue for the truth of Christ, and the rightness of his principles. Then I went to a large, well-known evangelical seminary in Texas. I served on the student council and worked for the school in multiple capacities. When I graduated, I was in complete agreement with their doctrinal statement and still am. Then I got a pastoral job at an evangelical church, where I served for about 5 years. The reasons I'm no longer there have nothing to do with theology or politics (well, maybe local church politics). And now, I attend an evangelical church in Austin, Texas, which I really enjoy and appreciate. I even applied for a job there, but they had the good sense not to hire me. I'm thoroughly evangelical, and plan to stay that way, because evangelicalism is right, it just has some glitches.

I was the most fervent Republican I have ever known (wait, 2nd - I forgot someone). I planned when I was young to run for president, and fix everything we were doing wrong (read, "undo what Clinton had done"). In 1994, I read Newt Gingrich's book, To Renew America. Somewhere in there I read Dan Quayle's autobiography, Standing Firm, and I can tell you all about how the potato(e) incident was not really his fault. In college, I spent about an hour each day reading Republican political commentators - it was the best thing about the internet, which Al Gore certainly did not invent (though I later found he actually had a somewhat significant role in its development, for a Senator) When Bush Jr. was elected, I decided to do something else with my life, instead of run for President, as there were plenty of capable and competent Republican leaders, when we really only needed one. I only say all that because improving evangelicalism is going to require pointing out some issues with the Republican party and our blind allegiance to them, and when I say those things, it isn't because I don't understand or appreciate conservative principles.

I'm thoroughly convinced of the truth of Christianity, not because I've never considered other perspectives, but because I read everything I can find online by famous atheists like Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (poor guy) and Ben Stiller Sam Harris (I honestly can't tell the difference). If Christianity isn't true, I want to know it - I don't just want to blindly cling to my faith because I like the stories or the songs. I always find they don't have more evidence that God doesn't exist than atheists did when I took Intro to Philosophy. Now, I do appreciate Richard Dawkins for getting us something to call those pictures of cats that we send to our friends (memes). But Christianity is true. Their main arguments don't actually go against Christianity, so much as they say, "There isn't enough evidence to believe such amazing claims." Anyway, I've heard it all, and can beat atheists to the punch in reciting "Russell's teapot" or claims of "no true Scotsman". But their arguments against Christianity are neither strong nor theologically informed. All that just goes to say, none of this criticism comes from doubt.

So, just to sum up and be clear, I believe every word of the Bible is completely true, I'm quite theologically conservative, and I'm not doubting or drifting in my faith. Any questions? Put 'em in the comments.

Scary Election?

I got an e-mail forward recently calling on people to pray for their country, for at least one minute per day, at 9:00 pm EST, or 8:00 CST, 7:00 Mountain, 6:00 Pacific. God, apparently, can create a universe, but still can't sort out the time zone thing. I'm all for praying for our country, and I'll be trying to do that, but probably at 8:05, simply because I'm a nonconformist. But one line of the e-mail really caught my eye: "This election is the scariest I remember in my lifetime." That made me stop and wonder, "What are they scared of?" 

Are they scared that large banks & other corporations are taking over the country, and buying out the politicians? Are they scared that we're approaching a tipping point, past which it will be nearly impossible to halt climate change? Are they scared one party might start an unnecessary war with the 80 million people of Iran, to "keep us safe"? Are they scared about efforts to disenfranchise voters in many states, or scared that Medicare might be replaced with a voucher system, or that food stamps will no longer be available to the hungry and destitute? Scared, perhaps, that at a time of record deficits and unconscionable debt being left to our children and grandchildren, we're going to cut taxes yet again for the richest among us? Maybe they're scared that we're going to "teach the controversy" in public schools, and tell our young aspiring scientists that "God did it" is an acceptable alternative to working hard to find out *how* he did it, or go further down the road of teaching students to take tests instead of teaching students to think. 

Personally, I'm a little worried about the fear and hatred we have toward Muslims, America's rapidly vanishing middle class, and the risk that we could become the second country in modern history to build a fence across our border, following Berlin. I'm concerned that the political discourse in our nation, can revolve around dishonesty, claims of socialism, and demands to see a birth certificate instead of discussing the issues that face us. And I'm frankly disconcerted that our country holds 25% of the world's prisoners, that the best predictor of whether a murderer receives the death penalty is the race of the victim, and that many of the people most likely to pray for our country are going to cast their vote, not based on these issues, but based on a 40 year old debate about abortion that shows no signs of being settled. 

But I wouldn't say that I'm scared. Why? Because God is in control. In Job 42:2, after all the horrible things that befell him, Job said, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted." Isaiah 41:10 clearly says we don't need to be afraid: "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God." God is with us, and because of that, we don't need to be afraid. He's with us today, and He'll be with us the day after the election. He's God today, He'll be God the day after the election. He can do all things today, and He can do all things the day after the election. 

So, even though politics in our country is really screwed up, and even if you believe it's really screwed up *completely differently* than I do, there's no reason for elections to be scary. If you find yourself scared about the future, about what can happen if the "other side" wins, remember Psalm 46:1-2 "God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea". It could be a lot worse; mountains could be falling into the sea, but we still wouldn't need to fear. We can be still (46:10) because we know He is God.

Repudiations

Remember how after 9/11 people would say if Islam as a religion is peaceful and nonviolent, where are all the Muslims denouncing what the terrorists have done? I remember that. Well, unfortunately, followers of Christ do and say a lot of crazy things, though fortunately less of them are violent. I believe we should hold ourselves to the same standards we expect of others, and so I want to repudiate some things. These things are incompatible with the gospel of Christ, and when Christians do or say them, they dishonor the noble name of him to whom we belong (an idea from James 2:7).

Let's start with Fred Phelps (he's the pastor who runs a website about God hating homosexuals, and he and his family (nearly everyone in his church is related to him) protest at people's funerals that they deserved to die because America accepts homosexuality). I don't believe Fred Phelps is a good follower of Christ. I don't believe he honors Christ in his words or his actions. I don't believe God hates individual people, gay or straight; he hates sin - and we all sin. He hates sin so much, and loves us so much, that he sent his son Jesus to pay for that sin - even the sin Fred Phelps commits when he misrepresents God. I don't believe there is any sin can outweigh the love of God, shown on the cross. I don't believe that God focuses his discipline on unbelievers, but on people who claim to follow him.

How about this one. Jerry Falwell said, just after 9/11, "I really believe that the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way... I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" I don't believe 9/11 was something God did to us, I believe it was something horrible, sinful people who don't distinguish between civilians and the military did to us. I believe God allowed 9/11, but I don't know what his purposes were. I believe if there's anyone God expects to hold to his standards, it's not pagans, gays, atheists, or the ACLU, but believers.

This one might be more controversial, with current events, but Terry Jones in no way demonstrates the spirit of Christ, who loved the world (John 3:16) and died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15). He's the fellow from Florida who leads a church of about 200 people, but has made a lot of national news by agitating Muslims. He held a trial in his church of the Koran, decided it was guilty, and then threatened to burn one. Personally, I don't think books are magic, and if you need to burn a Bible to keep warm or something, I don't mind, although there are certainly better books to burn first. But some people, including Christians, and presumably including Terry Jones, do think books are magic, and... thinks he can penalize a book for its ideas by burning it? Honestly, he's just doing this to incite Muslims and provoke a reaction. Terry Jones is a troll obsessed with being in the news, and he does it under the guise of being a Christian. But he's obviously forgotten some important words of Jesus... how did they go? Something about doing to others what you would want done to you, or something. He's also responsible for publicizing this film the Muslim world is rioting and killing over currently. Thanks, Terry - I'm sure God is pleased with what you've accomplished.

And I'll wrap up with "pro-life" people who think it's a good idea to threaten or kill doctors who perform abortions. I'm pro-life, with only two exceptions - I don't think abortion is wrong to protect the physical health of the mother, and I don't think it's wrong when the baby is greatly deformed and certain to die shortly after the umbilical cord is cut. I could be wrong about either one of those, but my point is I'm pretty strongly in favor of protecting the unborn. But there's nothing pro-life about killing people, even people who are really bad. There's particularly nothing pro-life about shooting an abortion doctor, through the eye, at his church where he serves as an usher. Who he is or what he did is irrelevant here; followers of the Lord of Life don't deal out death unless they do it as a member of the government, which the Bible teaches us is established by God (Romans 13:1-7). Outside of that, killing is murder, and "you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (1 John 3:15) So don't claim to follow Christ, and kill people, regardless of your reasons.

Nope, I remembered one more category I need to cover: Christians who pray for the president to die. I never heard of anything like this before we had a black president, but out of deference, I'll assume these people would pray for God to kill any democratic president (though I'm not sure if that's better). For starters, there's this crazy guy. Fortunately, he's just one crazy guy pastoring a tiny independent baptist church in Arizona, but unfortunately, there's also this guy. Well, he's also crazy, but he's an officer in the Southern Baptist convention, was Alan Keyes' running mate, and is popular enough as a pastor to have a radio show. There are others, but that's enough to start a discussion. What's disgusting about these two Christian men is there are clear instructions in the New Testament telling us how to pray for our leaders. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says this, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving are how each Christian should be praying for Obama, or Mitt Romney, should he win the election. Christians should not, under any circumstances, be praying for them to die.

That's probably an attention-span full. I don't pray for any of these people to die, but I do hope they become ignored and irrelevant, no longer make the news, and no longer misrepresent what Christ died to make us into. Feel free to leave me suggestions for future posts in the comments. Oh, and an afterthought: I'm not making theological claims based on 1 John 3:15, other than "Christianity is fully incompatible with murder." Thanks for reading!

What it means to know God

I came across a verse recently I'd never noticed, in Jeremiah 22. Beginning in verse 14, Jeremiah records the actions of the king, and the Lord's response.

14 "He says, 'I will build myself a great palace
       with spacious upper rooms.'
       So he makes large windows in it,
       panels it with cedar
       and decorates it in red.
 15 "Does it make you a king
       to have more and more cedar?
       Did not your father have food and drink?
       He did what was right and just,
       so all went well with him.
 16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
       and so all went well.
       Is that not what it means to know me?"
       declares the LORD.

It's probably completely unnecessary, but I'll summarize what's said:
The king, not content with what he has, builds himself a great palace, with the most expensive wood, and the brightest decorations. God says, "Is wealth what makes a king? Your father had what he needed, and because he sought righteousness and justice, I ensured his reign went well and his kingdom was secure. He cared about the poor and those in need, which is what it means to know me. You don't defend the poor and needy (that's only implied, but it's clearly implied) - you defend your wealth. You don't know me.

We, as evangelicals, tend to make a big deal of the fact that we have a "personal relationship with God", and well we should, because that's an amazing thing. But if we listen to verse 16, it's likely that God would say to quite a few of us, "You don't know me - you know about me, you have beliefs about me, you prayed a prayer in church one day, but if you KNEW me, if you truly had a relationship with me, your heart would reflect my heart, and my heart is for the poor and needy. It's impossible to be close to me, and not have a transformed heart toward the people I love."

So, what do you do for your poor? Giving to your church only counts to the degree your church cares for the poor (and some barely do, while some do a lot). But the average evangelical gives around 3% to your church, so even if some churches passed all of that on to the poor (and none do), we're not doing so well. What other causes do you support that help the poor and needy? UNICEF? World Vision? A local soup kitchen or homeless shelter? How much do you give them, as a percentage of your gross income? My wife and I support two children with World Vision, at $35 a piece, per month. That adds up. But it doesn't add up very much - $840 a year for the poor, normally, is how much we give. A little more when you add in the occasional gift to people on the side of the road or touching causes online. Perhaps that sounds like a lot to you, perhaps it's astoundingly low. But to me, if I'm honest, and we assume that my bank statement reflects my priorities, it doesn't sound like my heart matches God, it doesn't sound like my relationship with him has changed me to obsess over the poor and needy the way he does. If you're a typical evangelical, yours doesn't either. How much time do you spend volunteering for the poor? I've done a lot of things like that in my life, but currently my answer is zero. Again, I suspect that's true for many of us, and if our calendars show where our hearts lie, I'm not making time for the things God wants me to.

Let's talk in terms of discretion. When was the last time you actually decided not to buy a specific thing you wanted, so you could better help those who have less? Maybe you didn't buy the new gadget, or you kept driving the old car instead of buying new, or you passed on that great looking new gray t-shirt. I'm not talking about saying, "I can't get that for myself; I don't have the money." I'm talking about saying, "I won't get that for myself, I'd rather give the money." That probably hasn't happened to you lately; I know it's been quite a while since it happened to me, although I do enjoy a fair amount of the former internal monologue. When was the last time you passed on something you really enjoyed, because you chose to take your time to help someone in need? I think if you and I really had hearts that matched God's heart for the poor, that's what it would look like.

But that's not what it looks like. I should say, that's not what we look like. I was touched deeply by the book "The Hole in Our Gospel", which talks about how we don't care for the poor the way we should. In the book, Richard Stearns, CEO of World Vision, shares estimates that it would take roughly $165 billion a year to eradicate extreme poverty - to provide everyone who doesn't have them now with a simple place to sleep, clothing, basic medicine, and food. He then shares a litany of horrifying statistics about how we spend our money, which I don't have in front of me, as the book is in a box somewhere. But, listen - $165 billion a year is a lot of money - about 5% of the current US budget, off the top of my head. It's also about 3 times the amount of money Americans spend on their pets, annually. The money is out there to stop 22,000 children from dying a day due to preventable, poverty related causes, and there's enough money out there that we, as evangelicals, could do it by ourselves if we had the same attitude toward the poor that God does. But we, in the words of James, spend what we get on our pleasures. There's nothing wrong with enjoying things in life - that would be other extreme. But there is something wrong with not caring for the poor, and finding life in things. I believe many of us are at that extreme, and we need to get to know God, be changed to be more like him, and care for the poor like he does.

One more question: when you go to the ballots in November, how much thought have you put into how your vote will affect the poor? Not how much thought have you put into justifying the idea that your vote is better for the poor, which is what we all want to do, but how honestly and carefully have you analyzed the plans, pluses and minuses of the candidates, from the perspective of the poor and needy? That's what we all will do, if we share God's concern. Some of you are doing great - you know who you are. The rest of us think we're doing fine, and we're not. Do you want to fix that, or leave it that way?

In closing, I've heard that there are over 2,000 verses in the Bible about God's concern for the poor or caring for the poor. I don't know most of them, and I've never counted them myself. But here's a few references for further reading:

Proverbs 14:31 - "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy honors him."
Matthew 19:21 - "Sell your possessions and give to the poor" is what Jesus told the rich young ruler.
Matthew 25:31-46 - Whatever you do to the least of these - how are we treating Jesus?
Galatians 2:10 - Paul and the other apostles all prioritize remembering the poor.
James 1:27 - Religion that pleases God has two parts. Purity, and caring for widows and orphans. Not in that order.
James 2:1-13, but especially 4-7. "...has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?"

God vs. Science or God & science vs. Evangelicals?

I'm nervous about going here, just because I don't want to be disowned, disavowed, or simply dis'd. But this is a pretty important issue, which I firmly believe we've gotten on the wrong side of, so I'm not going to hold back. Please take the time to read it first, and then disown, disavow, etc.

One of the big things many evangelicals need to reconsider is the tendency to disregard or even disdain science and its findings. This most frequently relates to evolution, but it can also involve climate change, medicine, psychology, or other things. The best example of anti-science bias among evangelicals I know of came from Chuck Colson, on his Breakpoint radio program. He said (and I believed, at the time) that many scientists supported and argued for evolution, not because of evidence, but because they wanted freedom from the Bible's sexual rules. Right... It was the Bible, not anything else, holding back those science nerds from fulfilling their sexual wishes (sorry, science nerds).

Seriously, though, something that's come across inescapably clearly from some sources in evangelicalism is that science can't be trusted because of an anti-God bias that scientists have. Evolution is accepted by scientists, the claims go, not because of evidence, but because it justifies their atheism.

I can understand this, because I used to believe it. All of it. Most of my life I've been a young earth creationist, disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus, on the basis of some things I had been told were true. First, evolution is in crisis for lack of evidence, and scientists in each field assume the other fields must have evidence, because their own field does not. Second, as I've already mentioned, scientists have ulterior motives, or an anti-god agenda. And, finally, evolutionists had never given creation scientists a serious look - if they did, they'd say, "Oh, this explains the evidence we see so much better than evolution." I used to be there, but I've since seen that each of my foundations for throwing out scientific consensus were incorrect (I'll do a post on that another time). In any case, I've argued throughout most of my life for the young earth creationist view, so I understand what that's like. But it's time for science and conservative Christianity to get reacquainted.

Because science and Christianity should be, and traditionally have been, allies. Science is in the business of discovering what things are and how they function. There's a long tradition of scientists seeing themselves (and being seen) as helping mankind better understand God. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. Descartes, Pascal, Mendel, and most other early scientists, who laid the foundation for what we know about the world today, were Christians who wanted to study creation to better know God. Galileo wrote a letter during his controversy (a very wordy letter) affirming the inability of the Bible and science to disagree, but also stating that either can be misinterpreted (that's my summary). Georges Lemaitre, the man who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. Francis Collins, who led the human genome project to sequence mankind's DNA, is an evangelical Christian. Christianity and science should be friends, God is allied with those who pursue truth. Jesus said the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Titus 1:2 teaches that God cannot lie.  And, science is first and foremost about seeking truth. That's always been the purpose of science. And I'm probably being redundant here, but it's important to understand that science as we think of it today was essentially founded by men who believed God had given them an orderly world, and as they studied it, they learned about him as well.

Now, science isn't inerrant, as I believe the Bible to be. But science is self-correcting, and that's a big deal. What I mean by that is, unlike many of us, scientists work to disprove one another's ideas, and when that happens, it's big exciting news for scientists. That doesn't mean, obviously, that science can't be wrong, but here's what it does mean.

There's a vast gulf, a chasm, between "opinion" and "scientific consensus". One is not as likely to be valid as the other. It also means if you want to deny science, in any area such as evolution or climate change where countless studies have been done and replicated over decades, the onus is on you to put forward another plausible theory. Bonus points if you also supply people with an idea of what you'd accept as proof that your hypothesis is incorrect, making it testable. Finally, it's helpful to present a plausible explanation for why science has got the whole thing completely wrong, such as the reasons I believed scientists were wrong on evolution. That way, you're able to evaluate whether, for example, all scientists who accept evolution really do have something against God, or if you might be the one who's incorrect. For me, I started to question my assumptions when I came across scientists who were vehemently pro-evolution but also clearly where conservative Christians or even (like Francis Collins) evangelical.

Now, what I'm saying in this post doesn't mean you have to believe in evolution, or any other scientifically accepted position. It does mean it's not sufficient to say, "Scientists really like sex, drugs & sin, so they came up with a god-free theory of origins." If you're going to disagree with a broad scientific consensus, you need to present your own theory of how we got here that explains what's observed in the natural world. For example, we can see light from stars that would have taken 13.6 billion years to get here. That doesn't seem compatible with the idea that all things were created 6,000 years or so ago. So, maybe you pick "God created a mature universe that looks old, and included light in between earth and stars" or perhaps you go with creation days representing different eras in an old earth view, or you may say the universe is old, but God created our planet 6,000 years ago in six days. All of those are fine. But what you shouldn't do is simply say, "I believe God created everything, 6,000 years ago, and your scientific evidence is meaningless because I know scientists hate God." Science doesn't work that way, and neither does reality.

God has a monopoly on truth, plain and simple. Science, insofar as it seeks to find truth, is serving God, and we as Christians shouldn't view it as an enemy, even if it might go against some things we've believed previously - not because the Bible is wrong, but because our interpretation or assumptions may have been.

Finally, below is a video from the conservative Christian organization Biologos, which was founded by Francis Collins, which puts some of the strongest evidence for evolution in fairly simple terms. If you're interested.

Leave a comment, and let me know what you think. Thanks for reading!

Credit where credit is due

I don't want to be a guy who just criticizes the church, because the church is the bride of Christ, and there are many things evangelical churches are doing well. I hit on that in another post, but I've recently noticed another one (and I may notice a lot more - as an evangelical, I'm probably one of the last people to notice the characteristics of evangelicalism, good or bad).

Evangelicals are doing a great job recently (and it mostly just started recently) carrying out part A of James 1:27, which says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." As far as being polluted by the world, we've got some wins and some losses, but there's been a real drive recently in evangelical churches to adopt, and that's a great thing. Two quick examples, though I'm sure there are countless ones out there: Recently, a couple from seminary I'm facebook friends with adopted a son, and I've never seen something so "liked" as their first picture together - it beat out the typical popular person's engagement, wedding or new baby picture by about a factor of five. Another example: the church I attend has a fund specifically to help couples who want to adopt but can't afford it. The fund has money in it, and the church holds events to benefit that fund (and that's not the only adoption-focused thing they do).

Of course, adoption ought to be something Christians are totally "in to", because we've benefited so much from adoption ourselves. Paul says in Ephesians 1:5-6, "In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." Pretty cool what God has done for us, through the cross of Christ, and when we adopt, it presents a picture of his loving kindness to those we know. So it ought to be a Christian thing. But it is a Christian thing now, and that's great.

Evangelicalism has never been hostile to adoption, that I've been aware of, but it's a great thing to see it actively promoted and cheered on the way it is today. I don't know if there's a cause that started it other than the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit - seems like I read somewhere Focus on the Family was really trying to advocate it, or it might just have been God moving among his people, but either way, it's another good thing about evangelicalism, which brings us to 8 2/3.

An Example of the Elephant Problem

This is what I'm talking about. Very few churches act like this, but for some Christians, this billboard makes sense, even though it doesn't explain why voting Republican has anything to do with Jesus. Whoever paid for the billboard doesn't explain it because they believe it's obvious. This literally tells people they need Christ, but the only action it suggests is voting Republican. That makes an association in some people's minds that's going to push them away from Christ. Even if the Republicans are right about everything (which I'm not suggesting), many people won't see it that way.

Now, it could be photoshopped - not being a photoshop user, I imagine it's pretty easy to photoshop a billboard. But I haven't seen anyone suggesting evidence that it was. Here's where I came across it, if anyone wants to investigate further. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/08/billboard-of-day_30.html

Elephant in the Room

I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can with you. The biggest problem with evangelicalism today is that so many of us are trying to serve two masters - but not God and money. The biggest stumbling block that we have, and a cause of many of our other problems, is that we have pledged our allegiance to the Republican party. Like the Roman Catholic Church of early Christian history, we've tried to unite God and government, and that corrupts both our religion and Republicans. We get the worst of it, though, because most politicians are already corrupt.

Now, before I go on, I want to make one thing clear: very little of this is because of what happens in our pulpits Sunday morning (though there is a little of that in every church, and a lot of that in very few churches). We get it from Christian books, Christian colleges or school curriculum, Christian radio, Focus on the Family voter guides, and various issue groups. It's nebulous, and it's probably not your pastor's fault. Having said that, let's talk about the problem.

The union we have began, essentially, in the late 1970s and early 80s, for what I believe was a good cause - putting a stop to abortion in the wake of Roe vs. Wade. The origins are a bit complex and darker than that, but we'll save that for another post. Reagan's pro-life presidential run was when most evangelicals got on board with the Republican party. Before that, evangelicals were not a coherent voting block as they've become today.

There are two big problems with this alliance. The first, and easier to see, is that evangelicals haven't gotten much out of the deal. Take a look, for the easiest and most recent example, at the Bush years. I believe president Bush is a Christian, and I voted for him both times. From his election until November of 2006, both houses of Congress had Republican majorities. During that time, what did we see done about abortion? We did see a ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure that had been done 2,000 times per year. That's it. Now, that's something, but it amounts to less than .2% of the million abortions we have a year. Further, it didn't ban late term abortions, but one method of late term abortions. Whichever category of women sought those abortions in the past are likely still getting late term abortions, just by a different method. So, that's what we saw, in return for electing a President twice and who knows how many congressmen. Effectively, nothing. A cynic might point out that if the Republicans dealt with abortion, many of us might stay home, and there may be something to that idea in terms of explaining why they promise so much but deliver so little. So, first problem: voting Republican doesn't get us much, if anything.

The second problem is this: our desire for Republicans to succeed forces us to make a difficult choice whenever God and Republicans disagree. And we often make the wrong choice, or follow the wrong leader. Evangelicals supported preemptive war in Iraq, we're the group most likely to support torture, we (loudly) denounced a free-market attempt to provide healthcare to all Americans, we're currently fighting for lower than record-low taxes on the top 1% while shouting that the national debt is too high, we unconditionally support military spending which we could cut in half and still be ahead of Russia & China combined, we complain about people being on food stamps (a program I personally think God is delighted with) when unemployment is the highest it's been since the Great Depression, and let's just say that our views on immigration widely diverge from "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:34)". I know I've painted with a broad brush, we're all individuals, etc., but many of us have held or hold views that are entirely at odds with scripture, because it's easier to support Republicans wholesale than to say, "I'm voting for Romney, just because he's pro-life, but there are a lot of things I like better about the Democrats." Pledging allegiance to the Republicans, to whatever degree that you do so, blinds you to the areas where they ignore what God cares about.

Now, if we did the opposite, and just switched to Democrats, in 30 years we'd have the same problem. That's no long-term solution, although it could certainly make waves if Democrats thought there were votes to be had by appealing to believers. Right now, neither party has to compete for those votes, because they're essentially locked up. I'm not saying you have to switch sides. I would suggest becoming an honestly independent voter, though. Make a list of major issues, and try to figure out, honestly, which party is on God's side with each one. If you come up all Republican, your worldview may be infected and you might need to clean it out. Same thing goes the other way, if you're all Democrat. Keep in mind the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, who we would likely say today was on the right side: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

Only about 35% of Americans consider themselves Republican. Let's not alienate the other 65% from Christ by clinging too closely to Republicans, and let's not give Republicans a free pass when a particular policy (or many, as I'll likely argue in a future post) are simply against Christian teaching. There's a lot more to talk about here, but that's a start. Let me know how you see it in the comments.

Evangelical Bathwater

I've started this blog because evangelicalism has dirty bathwater, but a good baby. Is everyone familiar with the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" It describes overreaction, tossing the whole thing when only part of it is bad. And that's what a lot of people are doing with evangelicalism right now. Young people especially. I want to see the trend stop, but if you have to decide between keeping both or tossing both, it's a tough decision. I believe evangelical Christianity is still the right decision, even with our problems, but it ought to be easy, a no-brainer.

Some people have asked me why I'm starting this blog - what am I hoping to accomplish?  I'm hoping to have three effects: First, I want to get rid of some dirty bathwater. Just for examples, I'd like to see evangelicals be the best stewards of the planet on the planet, instead of people who insist we can't affect it, or it doesn't matter because Christ will be back soon anyway. I'd like people to think of us, ahead of any other group, when they think about compassion for the poor, even if it's not done exactly our way. And I'd like us to be the loudest and most effective heralds of God's love for mankind since Christ himself was on earth. (People don't need to be told about their sin. They know they're sinful, even if they might disagree with us on some of the details. They need to be told that there's a solution to their sin, in Christ alone.) Among other things. I can't do that by myself, but I can be a voice for change.

Second, I want people to know that you can be an evangelical Christian without denying or ignoring science, supporting pre-emptive war, or opposing separation of church and state. I'm not saying here those things are wrong, just that they're tangential to evangelical beliefs. Many people interested in Christ, as well as current evangelicals see those things and want to turn away. My hope is even if we don't clean the bathwater, those people will know which things are genuinely attached to following Christ, and which things are merely trends among his fans.

Third, I want greater intellectual honesty and integrity in evangelicalism. In the past, science, philosophy, and academia were dominated by Christians because Christians loved truth, no matter the source. No one should promote truth and the desire to find it as much as evangelicals. Because truth only leads toward God, never away. The Bible teaches that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, and others). Jesus said he is the truth in John 14:6. All truth is his, and we should pursue truth as a means to better pursue & be like Christ. We, as a group, need to be more humble about what we know, say less about what we don't, and most of all, avoid the temptation to appear as though we have all the answers.

What are stumbling blocks for the blind?

My blog takes its title from Leviticus 19:14, which says, "Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord." (NIV) I've always thought this was a pretty strange verse; who would do that? A jerk, I guess. Someone who picks on the defenseless, I guess. Someone who doesn't fear the Lord, we can infer from the verse. Someone who doesn't realize what the Lord might do to avenge them. Keep that verse in mind.

Come with me to 2 Corinthians 4:4. "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The god of this age refers to the devil, and the verse says that he's blinded those who don't believe, so they can't properly understand the gospel and come to Christ. Non-Christians are blind people, spiritually.

And unfortunately, I believe we as evangelicals, who generally are the most concerned with sharing the glory of Christ with others, have become stumbling blocks to blind non-Christians. For a whole lot of reasons, people see us as the most visible, obvious Christians, and say, "I don't want any part in that." It's not because they love sin so much or are such horrible people, it's because we've attached so many cultural things to Christianity that have nothing to do with the call of Christ, and some of those things are bad.

Join me for an imaginative exercise - suppose you're a lost person, you've gotten the impression that there's more to this world than the physical, but you don't know which religion, if any, is the right one. You really like one religious teacher who lived a long time ago, we'll call him "Chresus Jist", but when you visit a church to learn more about Chresus, you receive a flyer about the need for universal healthcare from the greeter, there's an introductory skit about how abortion gave someone a chance to finish college, and the sermon is about how Chresus supported unions and was a vegetarian, neither of which you had seen any evidence for when you read his book. Really, try to imagine it. Would you feel like you "chose correctly" in that situation? Or would you go back out and say, either, that you need to do more research into other religions, or that you're not into "organized" religion, even though you believe in God?

If you're thinking "Good thing I believe in Jesus, and not this Chresus guy!" you're missing my point. We've given Jesus a lot of baggage that isn't his, and whether those other things are right or wrong (and some of them are wrong!), they're stumbling blocks to people who would otherwise find Jesus. And if Jesus is really our Lord, that ought to grieve us immensely.

Young people are leaving our evangelical churches in droves, and where many in the past would join later in life, that trend is drawing to a close as well. The reason isn't that people are different than they used to be; it's not that Jesus is changed; it's that we've attached things to Christianity that are really our own personal preferences. And because it's gone on for so long, evangelicalism has become so homogenous that most of us can't even see the problem, but we can see how ridiculous the Chresus Jist example is. (Maybe it is a bit over the top, but I visited a church once where the sermon opened with a joke about what a constant liar Obama is, and numerous times I've heard things in church about big government spending, with the accepted implication being that we should vote republican (as if the Republicans aren't big spenders) . My example is probably a lot for one service, but it's not disconnected from reality.)

We need to step back from all these things that most evangelicals agree on, but aren't taught in the Bible. We need to pry those things apart from our religious beliefs, and that MAY require letting go of one or the other. If it does, let's make sure it's Jesus that we hold on to, not anything else.

Full disclosure: Personally, I'm pro-life, notice that Jesus cared for the sick without charging, go back and forth on unions, and believe vegetarianism is probably a better way to live, but I haven't been able to find any plants made of meat.

What's wrong with Evangelicalism?

Something is wrong with the evangelical church in America. Let me be honest - lots of things are wrong with the evangelical church in America. It's not anything about Jesus; it's not a problem with historical, orthodox Christianity - though for a lot of people who've never known any other Christianity, it seems that way. But the problems don't involve anything central to our faith - the problems are with how we typically live out that faith, in America, in the 21st century. Said another way, I don't believe our problems are not rooted in our theological beliefs (and mine are probably pretty much the same as yours), they're in our behavior and our attitudes.
What problems am I talking about? Ask an atheist. Ask a non-believer, or someone who doesn't bother with church. Most of them will agree with the statement, "I like Jesus, it's his fan club I have trouble with." Their complaints, if they go into detail, might include disinterest in the plight of the poor & oppressed, favoritism toward the rich, self-righteous judgmentalism, hypocrisy, subtle (usually) sexism, anti-intellectualism, lack of concern for honesty when it suits our purposes, support for torture and war, regulating non-believers to live like believers, dismissal of those we disagree with, and our continual infatuation with the Republican party (to say it mildly) and disdain for Democrats (to say it even more mildly).
Of course, most of us don't line up with all the stereotypes. But stereotypes usually have some correlation with reality, and as a lifelong evangelical, who attended a prestigious evangelical Seminary, and pastored at a church with evangelical in the name, I'd say most of them are grounded in truth, and most of them have been true of me at one point or another - some probably still are.
So I'd submit that, much of the time, evangelicals are serving as a stumbling block to the spiritually blind, and it's something we need to recognize, confess & repent of. I don't know how to solve these issues, but I do know it usually helps to name the problems out loud, to other people. So let's get started.
But, before we do, let me say two things. First, I think there's a lot right with evangelism (read about it here), and my hope is to see reform, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And second, it's been a long & multifaceted process for me to see things how I do today - please don't assume we're so different that we can't have a conversation together about where the church is and where it ought to be.

Evangelicalism's Good Points

Let's talk a bit about what's good about evangelicalism. I'm an evangelical, and if you're reading this blog, you probably are too, or were once, and ought to be again, in my opinion. But there's lots of things evangelicals need to fix, which is the main subject of this blog. The things that don't need fixing are the subject of this post.

For starters, there's the two things that I would say are definitional features of evangelicalism. If you have both of these, you're evangelical, if you have one or less, you're not. Evangelicals believe in the gospel, (the good news of the Bible that, while man was far from God, Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a perfect, sinless life, and died on the cross to pay for our sins) and we believe the gospel needs to be shared. Some people think that's the most annoying thing about us, but just keep in mind we believe that you're cut off from God without Christ, and we just want to share how we've been found. That commitment to sharing the gospel is good point #1. Evangelicals also believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, without error as it was originally written (which, by the way, doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted - it just means that's my fault, not God's). That high view of God's Word is good point #2. So those are the core features of evangelicalism, and they're both very good.

Another place evangelicals get it right, in my opinion, is what I refer to as the call to sold out living. Some churches ask that you show up for the service once a week and put some of your money in the offering plate - I don't think God is too enthused with an hour of our week and maybe a few percent of our income. God wants everything - not a dollar amount or a number of hours, he wants every moment, every segment, all of your life to be centered on him. That doesn't mean you do nothing but read your Bible and pray, but it means God has the top spot in your thinking, and your goal in life is to please him by loving and serving the people around you. A lot of evangelical churches fall short on communicating this, but I believe they do a better job of it, more often, than other churches do. The call to sold out living is good point #3.

I believe those are the best features of evangelicalism, but there's more. Evangelicals recognize the important role God has for the family, to train up godly children. Good point #4. Related to that, they're not afraid (well, less afraid, anyway) to express the Bible's clear teaching against divorce, to tell their teens and young adults that God expects them to abstain from sex outside of marriage, and to obsess and demagogue about how homosexuals are destroying the... ok, I'm still giving evangelicals 2/3 of a point here. Because those first two are important, and the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a sin. But we get no credit for pointing that out because of the unloving way we do it, and the fact that we like pointing it out so much more than the sins we struggle with. So, good point #4 2/3.

Another thing worth appreciating about evangelicals is they take church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17) seriously, and try to follow that passage more often than other churches do. This is important, because sin, in the moment, is lots of fun, which is why God has given us the church to help us keep our heads on straight when we lose our way. When we're weak internally, we need external support, and that's what church discipline is about. We realize that how we live matters, and so we try to help each other live in a way that matters. Good point #5 2/3.

Two more, but I'm feeling wordy, so I'll be brief. Evangelicals tend to give larger percentages of our finances, which is particularly noteworthy because more mainline denomination members tend to belong to higher socioeconomic classes. Good point #6.66. Finally, evangelicals are usually pro-life - there are tremendous problems, distortions, and oversimplifications from both sides of that whole debate, but I believe the right-to-life side is the one to be on. Overall, I give us 7 & 2/3 good points. I'm sure there's more (let me know in the comments), but those are the main reasons I'm a committed evangelical, in spite of the stumbling blocks.