why?

Here’s an entry for Our Daily Journey that I worked up today.  It made me stop and think, so I share it with you in the hopes that you might profit and give me ways to improve it. 

read > Ecclesiastes 4:1-8

Who am I working for?  Why am I giving up so much pleasure now? (v. 8).

Lou Gehrig may not have died from Lou Gehrig’s disease.  The Hall of Fame baseball player is the namesake for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (A.L.S.), a horrific neurological disease that slowly paralyzes its victims until they eventually suffocate.  New research indicates that perhaps Gehrig did not have A.L.S., but suffered similar symptoms caused by numerous blows to his brain.

Gehrig was the legendary Iron-Man who played in 2,130 consecutive games.  He started one game the day after he was hit by a pitch, with a bump on his head so large that he wore Babe Ruth’s larger cap.  We praise Gehrig for his steeled resolve to play through pain, but his commitment to baseball may have led to the disease that killed him.  Gehrig was really good at what he did, but what he did may have ruined his life. 

Was it worth it?  This question nags the young lawyer eating takeout as he proofreads documents deep into the night.  His job drains the joy from his life but he owes too much to the bank to do anything else. 

Is it worth it?  This question haunts the dreams of the traveling businessman.  He is making more money than he can responsibly spend, but he is gone more than he is home.  

If you have drive and talent, there is a good chance that you are good at what you do.  But don’t let the good get in the way of what is best.  You owe it to God, yourself, and those who love you to ask the big question:  Why are you doing this? 

Is your career, business, or obsession with writing a novel keeping you from the people you love most?  You may be really good at what you do, but what you do may be ruining your life.  Is it worth it?

not going anywhere for awhile? the ultimate snickers ad

You’ve probably seen the news about the 60 mile traffic jam outside Beijing that will take weeks to unclog.  Beijing was overcrowded in the early nineties when I lived there, and I can’t imagine ten million people with cars.  On the other hand, the people stuck in this jam have probably ridden in the hard seat car to get home for Chinese New Year, which means that they are used to unthinkable congestion and inconvenience (people standing up against people in the aisles all night long, and it’s an ordeal just to push your way to the bathroom, which is a hole you squat over while the train is moving–probably why the Chinese turn out such great gymnasts).

I guess it’s all relative.  I was thinking about avoiding the intersection that is being paved by my house this morning, but now I think I’ll head straight for it and enjoy the delay.  It could be worse.

context

The cover of this week’s Time magazine is timely:  “Is America Islamophobic?:  What the anti-mosque uproar tells us about how the U.S. regards Muslims.”

On p. 24, the cover story explains why some Americans wrongly believe that Islam supports violence:  “Since most terrorist attacks are conducted by Muslims and in the name of their faith, Islam must be a violent creed.  Passages of the Koran taken out of context are brandished as evidence that Islam requires believers to kill or convert all others” (emphasis mine).

Taken out of context?  The Koran does not tell a developing story, as does the Bible, but arranges its chapters by length, from larger to smaller.  So unlike the Bible, where it is inappropriate to pull a verse from Leviticus to say that Christians shouldn’t eat Gulf coast shrimp (God gave us common sense for that), there is no such context in the Koran.  How can you take something out of context that doesn’t have a context? 

When it comes to violence in the Koran, the defining issue is not context but the Muslim reader.  Radical Muslims read the Koran literally and come away thinking that Allah commands them to conquer the world.  Liberal Muslims reinterpret these troubling passages to accommodate their religion to the modern age of rationality (see Peter Riddell and Peter Cotterell, Islam in Context, p. 182-94).  I am a conservative, traditional Christian, so I am inclined to think that traditional Muslims are reading the Koran as it was intended to be read.  I believe that they are more faithful Muslims, though I am more thankful for the liberals. 

If the media wants to have a constructive dialogue, let’s talk about the difference between conservatives and liberals.  But don’t pretend that the problem is that Christian conservatives “brandish” (there’s a scary word)  verses that we have wrenched from some non-existent context.

muslims in america

Here is an exceptionally insightful column on the Ground Zero/Muslim mosque/cultural center controversy in today’s New York Times.  The last two paragraphs are worth reading very slowly.

Update:  I am hearing different voices about the mosque in Manhattan–the builder is a moderate, no he’s a radical; there are already mosques in lower Manhattan, so what’s the big deal?; if we don’t let them build it then the terrorists win, for they will have changed us; if we let them build it then the terrorists win, for they will be using our liberality to destroy us from the inside.  That last point was made by a couple of Canadian Muslims, in their interesting article on what is really going on here.

Update 2:  The editorials keep coming.  Here’s another one from the Wall Street Journal that is worth reading.

Update 3:  I guess I am now officially collecting provocative articles on Islam, secularism, and Ground Zero.  This one might be the best so far.

stamp thine own image, deep on my back

Last week at church I was asked how to spell “Jesus is my Savior” in Greek for a young person who wanted an exceedingly cool, Christian tattoo.  The Greek letters wouldn’t translate from MS Word to this blog, so if you’re interested in spelling this tattoo correctly you’ll have to email me directly.  

I verified the spelling with Gary Meadors, who said that because he hangs out with bluegrass “artists” this is not the first time he’s been asked to compose a spiritual tattoo. Gary is retiring after this year and taking his talents to South Beach, but before he goes he has started his own blog. Please visit and tell him to post something–anything.

A few reflections on the “Jesus is my Savior” tattoo:

1. My education is finally beginning to pay off. Is anything more recession proof than Christian body art?

2. I’m thankful that the fads in my youth were not permanent. We had mullets, perms, and jams, but nothing that we couldn’t easily cut off or throw away.

3. Are Christian tattoos softening up the saints to receive the mark of the beast? Sorry, that one slipped in from Jack Van Impe.

4. Depending on how the epidermis on this young person ages, by the time she is 85 her tattoo might read “Jesse is my salad.”

5. That might hurt her chances when she stands before Jesus and answers the question He learned from Evangelism Explosion: Why should I let you into heaven? She’ll turn around and say, “See what it says right there? Oh, never mind.”

6. I agree with the parents of this young lady who, although they are not too excited about her inking her back, nevertheless appreciate her heart that led her to want to do this. I hope that she will always trust Jesus as her Savior, even if her tattoo eventually stretches and fades into something else.

everything you knew about marriage is wrong

Al Mohler has posted an article on the Proposition 8 ruling that will make you want to move to Canada, except that they are even further down the road on this issue than we are.  A couple of quotes from the judge’s ruling are simply astounding:

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.”

“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”

“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

can three lesbians marry?

A California judge tonight “refudiated” proposition 8 in California.  There will be much commentary in the news tomorrow, but three initial items struck me as significant.

1.  The judge said that “Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”  What exactly are these “antiquated and discredited notions of gender”?  That seems to be a rather pejorative, condescending, and even arrogant claim.  Is he saying that in the past few years we suddenly became far wiser about gender than most everyone else who has ever lived? 

2. And if any two people, regardless of gender, are sufficient to constitute a marriage, then why stop at two?  If gender doesn’t matter, then why does number?  If number does matter, on what grounds?  How would an argument for gay marriage even begin to mount a case against polygamy?  If gay marriage becomes law (and it surely will), won’t we also have to allow polygamy?  If not, why not? 

3. Many people suspect that the critique of the “antiquated and discredited notions of gender” is ultimately an attack on men.  Some women have shown that they don’t think they need men around.  They can now get pregnant without men, get married without men, and raise their children without men.  They may even think that their children are better off for having two nurturers rather than a nurturer and an authoritarian parent (there’s an antiquated notion of gender for you).  Those excited for the right for homosexuals to marry should pause and consider if “progress” for one group isn’t coming at a high cost to another.

our modern sin

Koinonia asked me to comment on Anne Rice’s renouncement of her church, and I thought I might post it here in the hopes that my friends might catch any glaring problems before it goes up there!

Anne Rice has left the church again.  Raised in “an old fashioned, strict Roman Catholic” home, Anne left the church when she was 18 and became an atheist.  Her godlessness fueled her writing career, and she became famous for such erotic, gothic novels as Interview with the Vampire and The Queen of the Damned.  In 1998 she had a religious awakening and announced that she was rejoining the Catholic Church and henceforth would “write only for the Lord.”

Until last week, when Anne made two posts on Facebook which changed her religious status to “It’s Complicated.”  Anne wrote:

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

A few hours later, she elaborated on her decision:

“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Anne is not the first person to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but her reasons are illuminating for those who seek to reach this generation for Christ.  The RCC was morally corrupt during Luther’s day, but the Reformers left the church for doctrinal rather than moral reasons.  Doctrine doesn’t matter as much in our post-Kantian world (if God is the unknowable X then we are free to believe whatever we want about him), so all that’s left is ethics.

But the ethical reasons Anne gives don’t include the obvious ones.  She isn’t targeting the moral corruption of priests abusing altar boys but is leaving the church for its alleged positions on social issues.  Two of them are indecipherable:  how is the church “anti-life” and how could a religious institution not oppose the secular in “secular humanism”?  Two seem confused and historically mistaken:  the church has supported science and includes many members who are Democrats.

That leaves the social issues of homosexuality, women’s rights, and birth control.  Of these, Anne suggests that the church’s position on homosexual practice is the real reason she is leaving the church.  In an interview yesterday on NPR’s “All Things Considered”, Anne said:  “I didn’t anticipate at the beginning that the U.S. bishops were going to come out against same-sex marriage.  That they were actually going to donate money to defeat the civil rights of homosexuals in the secular society.  …When that broke in the news, I felt an intense pressure. And I am a person who grew up with the saying that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and I believe that statement.”

Anne’s decision to leave the church—and the reason for it—are the logical products of modern individualism.  If you begin where Anne does—and most people in our culture do—then you will end up where she is.

1. Individualism turns homosexual practice into a civil rights issue.  Who are we to deny anyone their pursuit of happiness?  Their marriage isn’t hurting you, so leave them alone.  I agree that we must protect the civil rights of homosexuals, but saying that gay marriage is ontologically impossible is not taking away their civil rights.  Here is one area where individualism bumps up against nature.  Homosexuals have the civil right to unite with a person of the same gender (it’s not against the law), but calling their union a marriage doesn’t make it so.   
2. Individualism turns Jesus into a spiritual version of me.  Despite the Scripture passages which denounce homosexual practice, Anne is remarkably certain that Jesus is on her side.  She ignores the historical evidence and turns Jesus into the great defender of homosexual practice.  “In the name of Christ,” she says, “I refuse to be anti-gay.”  Anne forgets that Jesus is a historical person with actual views that can be known.  He is not merely an elastic symbol for whatever I happen to like. 
3. Individualism liberates us to leave the church.  This is the stunning denouement of individualism.  “In the name of Christ,” writes Anne, “I quit Christianity and being Christian.”  Like a husband who divorces his wife because “I love you too much to live with you,” Anne says that Jesus is the reason she is leaving his body.  Is it possible to love Jesus if we don’t love his bride?
4.  Individualism creates a Do-It-Yourself Religion.  I will leave the final judgment to God, but it seems that Anne did not fully convert when she found God ten years ago.  She enjoyed the comfort and peace which came from believing in God, but she apparently did not submit herself and her beliefs to God’s Word.  Jesus is not a smorgasbord, where we can take extra helpings of tolerance and skip his teachings on holiness.  We either receive the whole Jesus or we don’t receive him at all.

How do we share the gospel with people like this?  We confront their autonomous individualism.  We explain that we all struggle in this area, for we all want to play God and to project our beliefs and values upon him.  But that is precisely our problem.  Unless we repent of our autonomy, we cannot be saved.  Jesus came to save us from our sin, including and especially the sin of turning God into a divinely large image of ourselves. 

Which brings me to myself.  I also am a product of Enlightenment individualism, which means that I also am tempted to project myself upon God.  I need to ask myself whether any passages of Scripture still offend or challenge me.  If it’s been awhile since I’ve been convicted by the Word of God, I can be reasonably sure that I’m not reading it correctly.  I too easily project my lifestyle and values onto God, turning him into the great defender of what I like.  I may differ from Anne on the specifics, but at root our sin is the same.

is this offensive?

You know how certain verses you’ve read many times suddenly smack you upside the head?  I just read this from Paul:  “If anyone does not love the Lord–a curse be on him.  Come, O Lord!” (1 Cor. 16:22). 

I suspect that many evangelical Christians would be embarrassed by such talk, and if you told them that it’s in the Bible–and in the turn the other cheek world of the New Testament to boot–they might not know what to do with it.  I’m trying to imagine a Christian leader saying this on Larry King or the Today show, and I don’t think it ends well.

ohio gets it. Go Bucks!