Under Jerusalem by Andrew Lawler: A book review

 

Having taken the trip of a lifetime to visit Israel and the Holy Land this previous May, I instantly ordered this book when I came across it this fall.  What then are my takeaways about Lawler's book?

1. He isn't writing from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish perspective, this book isn't designed to bolster the claims of universal truth from any of them.

Archaeology being what it is, one part science and one part storytelling, Lawler's approach serves him well on this front.  He is able to talk honestly about both the finds that confirmed the narratives of each group, and the ones that confounded them, as well as present the characters who organized, funded, analyzed, or protested the digs under Jerusalem beginning in the 19th century according to the reputation their actions have earned, whether that be of a villain or a hero.

2. Even if you have visited Jerusalem, as I have, there is bound to be something shocking and/or wonderful in this book for you to still learn.

Part of me wishes I had read the book before we went, so I could have looked for some of the sites whose digs he describes, another part of me is glad I went there with less pre-conceived notions so I was able to soak in whatever my eyes were telling me.

3. While the book is written and published, the story of archeology under Jerusalem is, if anything, accelerating.

It was remarkable how much of the book takes place in the 21st century, and how many of the excavations he describes are still ongoing to this day.  More "shocking discoveries" in Jerusalem are inevitable, as are, sadly, more explosions of anger and violence because of them.

4.  Our tour guide in Israel emphasized over and over the layered nature of the area's history, how the new was built on top of the old again and again.  In Jerusalem, as emphasized in my recent seminar {What Every Christian Should Know About: The Holy Land} the layers run very deep, and each tells a story even if those digging are only interested in a fraction of it.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better understand the city in which much of the Bible's events take place, and the place where many of its pages were written.

Local Torah Club leader contends that Paul's Damascus Road experience was an "adjustment", hear how Paul actually describes his encounter with Jesus Christ.

The following was part of a series of comments on my YouTube channel, specifically the video introducing our objections as a ministerium to the Torah Clubs back in February of 2023.  Heather Mohnkern is the leading local Torah Club leader and their primary spokesperson in Venango County, she and her husband Keith were given an award by the First Fruits of Zion organization for outstanding service at the 2022 Malchut Conference.

To also add to the conversation…a recurring theme of the Gospels is Jesus pointing out the ‘religious hierarchies need to be theologically right’ took a secondary role  to ‘being in relationship and trusting the one walking with them’ and correcting established theology that had been misapplied.  Even Saul of Tarsus needed to have an ‘adjustment’ via his Damascus Road experience. He did not have to throw out his theology he just had to have an encounter with His G-d that bound the two together into something that would change the nations….relationship then theology.  And Paul never taught contradictory to Torah if you can remove supersessionism from hundreds of years of interpretations of his writings.  There is a whole academic explosion happening in the world right now to correct that which has  negatively impacted the greater Christian orthodoxy. - Heather Mohnkern, Franklin area Torah Club leader, 1/3/23

This then is the heart of the matter, did Saul of Tarsus only need an "adjustment" by encountering God, one that left his theology intact (or at least mostly intact)?  Was Saul of Tarsus on the right track in life, only missing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, or did the roots of his murderous hatred toward the followers of Jesus run much deeper?  To be honest, I've never heard anyone downplay the Damascus Road experience before, but thinking about it, this is a necessary contention for First Fruits of Zion to make given that they believe (and teach) that Jesus was only a reformer of Judaism and that neither he nor Paul, nor any of Jesus early followers, intended to found the Church or Christianity.  From that viewpoint, Saul of Tarsus must have been one of the most excellent men of his day, for he was a follower of the Law of Moses with which few could compare.  Let's let Paul explain what really happened in his own words...

Galatians 1:13  New International Version

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

Before meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus was entirely opposed to the teaching and message of Jesus Christ, he wanted to destroy everything that Jesus had created.

Galatians 1:14  New International Version

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Saul was both full of zeal and following the dictates of the Law of Moses as understood by his rabbinic teachers to the fullest, few if any could compare with his accomplishments within that system.  And yet, looking back on this life, how did the now Apostle Paul think of it, how close to God was he in that previous life?

Philippians 3:4b-11  New International Version

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

When Saul got up off the ground on the way to Damascus, having seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ, his entire understanding of what it meant to be in a relationship with God had changed.  His entire understanding of what God required of his people had shifted radically.  Faith, not works was the key.  Love, not precision in obedience to the minutia of the Law was its engine.  The man who wandered blind into Damascus to find Ananias was seeing things clearly for the first time in his life.  Prior to this he had known all about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but he had not known him at all.  Saul of Tarsus could not have been in relationship with God because he had not faith, only self-righteousness.

"He did not have to throw out his theology" is a claim that fits well with the teachings of TC/FFOZ, for they would love to hold up Saul the Pharisee and just add faith in Jesus to that foundation, but that's not what happened, that's not how Paul himself felt about it.  In fact, what Saul thought he knew about God needed to change dramatically before he emerged as the Apostle Paul, the champion of grace and faith.

An adjustment??  When God knocks you off a horse because you're on your way to murder his people, he's got more than an adjustment in mind.

The insights gained from a survey of Hebrew Roots Movement followers: Who are they and what do they believe?

The following analysis is taken from a thesis written by Ben Frostad, by his own account an ardent follower of the Hebrew Roots Movement (or, as he chooses to call it, the Messianic Torah Movement). It was written as a graduation requirement for the Torah Resource Institute (A One Law organization), and was sponsored by Tim Hegg, who until 2009 held a leadership role with the First Fruits of Zion.  In other words, this paper and the survey it contains were created by, and overseen by, true believers in the Hebrew Roots Movement on behalf of an organization promoting those beliefs.  This is thus NOT the supposition of critics of this movement (which I admit to being in my defense of orthodoxy), but the views of those from within the movement as portrayed by someone within the movement.

Here is the paper itself if you wish to read it and see the context of the data that will be shared below: Jews, Gentiles, and Torah: Exploring the Contours of the Messianic Torah Spectrum - by Ben Frostad  Frostad's thesis in it is that the Jewish Messianic movement ought to stop opposing and instead embrace Gentile Torah observance, which they have indicated no desire thus far to do.

The survey was conducted during 2016-2017, online, with 699 qualifying respondents from 31 countries (533 the US, 95 Canada).  Each accepted respondent affirmed both the following statements: (1) "Do you believe in Yeshua (Jesus)?" and (2) "Do you observe any of the following: Seventh-day Sabbath, the Biblical festivals (of Lev. 23), and/or Biblical diet restrictions?"

What can we learn from this self-reporting data?

1. Only a small minority of those participating in the Hebrew Roots Movement are Jewish.

102, or 15%, of those who answered yes to Ben's two questions claimed Jewish identity, although this number is higher than those who would be considered Jewish with respect to ethnicity as it included those (nearly half) who claim to have some Jewish ancestry (rather than Jewish parentage) and those who claimed to be 'spiritual' Jews.

In his thesis, Ben many times emphasizes that this movement is overwhelmingly composed of Gentiles.

2. The 'roots' of the movement are very modern.

68% had joined the movement since 2000, less than 10% before 1990.  It is clear that the internet has been a boon to this particular ideology.  {Side note, a number of respondents reported struggling with Flat Earth conspiracies within their local groups, a strong indicator that the internet is a driving force in spreading this ideology}

3. The organization, First Fruits of Zion, is a major player in this movement.

Respondents were asked to list their influences, that is who/what had helped lead them into this movement both when they began the journey, and currently.  FFOZ was the top source listed (13%) at the start, and third (9%) currently.  They are not a fringe group within this movement, rather one of its driving forces.  When asked for a specific title, FFOZ's HaYesod was the number one book listed.

 {Numerous quotations from HaYesod, FFOZ's basic discipleship manual were utilized in the Franklin ministerium's primary source analysis: An Examination of the unorthodox beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion, their Torah Clubs, and the Hebrew Roots Movement in general}

4. The Church is the mission field for this movement, not non-believers.

This is no surprise given that FFOZ specifically targets people who belong to local churches: "Most churchgoers still have no idea that they are called to be disciples of a Jewish rabbi. The potential to come alongside these brothers and sisters and seriously reorient their understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings is nearly limitless. 'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few'" - Boaz Michael, founder and president of FFOZ.

65% of those participating in the Hebrew Roots Movement were formerly a part of Evangelical churches!  93% indicated some type of Christian background!  Only 2% participated in a non-Christian religion, and a further 2% were non-religious.  This movement is purposefully targeting the Church, drawing the majority of its adherents from Evangelical churches.

5. Following a rabbinic calendar and refraining from saying the name of God is the plurality position among followers.

While not a majority, it was the largest segment of those surveyed, with 32% saying that it is necessary to follow the Jewish calendar and wrong to speak God's name (Sacred Name movement).  We have seen this locally, with those in leadership of the local Torah Clubs participating in Jewish festivals and not even being willing to write out God (replacing it with G-d or L-rd), along with adopting Yeshua instead of the Anglicized "Jesus".  A further 29% of the survey respondents agreed with the need to follow the Jewish calendar, but did not have an issue with saying the name of God.

6. They don't believe that followers of this movement should stay connected to the Church.

67% strongly disagreed (a further 18% somewhat disagreed) that "Gentile believers should remain in established Christian churches, instead of joining Messianic/Torah congregations."  This has been one of the concerns that caused the Franklin Christian Ministerium to take action.  When 85% of the people involved in a movement believe that it is wrong to remain in the Church, and that movement is purposefully targeting people who currently attend churches, the result will be the breaking of fellowship from those churches.  

It doesn't matter to me, as a pastor, what an organization believes, or what it hopes to accomplish, if it is purposefully and actively pulling people away from active participation in a local church, it is unbiblical, it is dangerous, and needs to be treated as a threat to the Church both locally and universally.  Even an organization with orthodox beliefs, which this movement lacks, that pulls people out of churches, is contradicting the Word of God.  Jesus himself established the Church to continue his Kingdom work, by all means reform it when it needs it, but abandon it?  NO.

7. They don't believe that Torah was given by God "just for Jews."

61% strongly disagreed (a further 11% somewhat disagreed), resulting in a solid majority that believe that as followers of Jesus the Law of Moses is obligatory (in some way) for them as Gentiles.  This is the heart of the One Law theology that FFOZ supposedly abandoned in 2009, but continues to be taught through their published materials (see the quotes in the link above for many, many examples).

8. They believe that "modern Christian practice is pagan in origin."

Why the hostility toward the Church?  Why the desire to withdraw from fellowship in Christian congregations?  82% (42% strongly, 40% somewhat) believe that the practices of the modern Church are pagan. 

9. Doubt about the deity of Jesus Christ is a minority opinion, but not an insubstantial one.

25% were unwilling to say that they strongly agreed that, "Yeshua is God."  Of that 1/4, 10% actively disagreed with the statement.  As noted in our research, there is a strand of both Subordinationism and Modalism within this movement.  While I am encouraged that these numbers were not higher (as they no doubt would be with a survey of Jehovah's Witnesses), the fact that a significant minority have abandoned Apostolic teachings of the N.T. about the deity of Jesus Christ remains a further warning sign.

10. A majority believe they are no longer a part of Christianity.

53% (33% strongly, 20% somewhat) disagreed that their faith was a "part of modern Christianity."  Here locally, the Torah Clubs are proselytizing under the idea that this is "just a Bible study."  This is America, you are more than free to leave the Church and Christianity if that is what you choose to do, but people joining what is advertised as a Bible study ought to be aware that the majority of those involved in this movement have self-consciously left Christianity now that they belong to the Hebrew Roots Movement.

11. Those who have left the Church entirely are the most optimistic about the Hebrew Roots Movement.

"Those who agree that Gentiles should stay in established Christian churches rather than joining the Messianic movement tend to have very low optimism about the movement."  In other words, those still connected to a local church aren't entirely sold on where this thing is going, whereas, "Those who strongly agree that Christianity is pagan tend to be more optimistic for the movement."  If you're ready to cut ties with the Church and walk away from Christianity, the Hebrew Roots Movement feels like the winning ticket, or so they believe.

Overall, this survey further confirms many of the concerns that the Franklin Christian Ministerium has expressed about the Hebrew Roots Movement, First Fruits of Zion, and the Torah Clubs.  You don't need to take our word for it, this is what they believe about themselves.

This blog post was turned into a YouTube video, 7/24

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #1: Genesis 25:29-34

There was a commercial that aired when I was a kid that asked the philosophical question, "how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?"  After three licks the wise old owl gives up and bites the sucker.

I thought of that when compiling my list of scripture passages from my seminar on The Church and Politics which is largely built upon Pastor Gregory Boyd's book, The Myth of a Christian Nation (click for my response to the book).  How many passages of scripture would it take to refute 'Christian' Nationalism?  If God had given us two or three such admonitions, would it be enough to sway those infected with this heresy?  This is the first post in a (intended) series of 62 such passages.  Some of them will be redundant, but that too adds strength to the case against this ideology.  This is not an exhaustive list, other portions of scripture could be cited, but in the end the question remains: Are 62 passages of the Word of God enough?

Note: History refutes 'Christian' Nationalism.  Any non-jaundiced look at history will show time and time again the danger to both Church and State when the two are melded together, but people have an amazing ability to ignore history (See: The Puritans in England under Cromwell) or rewrite it to suit their agendas (See: the Lost Cause in the South after the Civil War).  The Word of God is supposed to be different for Jews and Christians.  It is supposed to have an authority greater than that of philosophers, historians, politicians, and even pastors.  Are those who call themselves Christians in America today willing to listen to God's Word?

Genesis 25:29-34

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!” (That is why he was also called Edom.)

31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”

32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”

33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

So Esau despised his birthright.

At first glance one might wonder what this passage has to do with 'Christian' Nationalism, but it offers up two powerful moral lessons: (1) Perspective is important: Esau overvalued his immediate hunger and undervalued his birthright.  In so doing he placed the fear/worry of now above concern for the future.  'Christian' Nationalism does the same by proclaiming that Kingdom of the World (human nations) cares and concerns are greater than Kingdom of God (The Gospel, the Church, Spirit) commands.  It is an imbalance in priorities, the putting of that which is essential below that which is temporary.  This is a theme we will see repeated in many of the passages to come. (2) God decides who we are supposed to be: 'Christian' Nationalism fails to appreciate the reality of what the Church is supposed to be, i.e. its birthright.  Why are we here in this world, what are we to strive for, and how are we to go about it?  All of these questions are answered in detail in the biblical texts (again, themes we will be returning to) and all are under-represented, if not outright ignored, when following the path of 'Christian' Nationalism.

Lastly, a definition that will help bring this ongoing discussion into focus:

What is 'Christian' Nationalism?  "Christian Nationalism is an ethno-cultural ideology, that uses Christian symbolism to create a permission structure for the acquisition of political power and social control." - Jemar Tisby, author, historian, and committed Christian

Note: The use of 'air quotes' around the term 'Christian' is on purpose.  It is not the generally accepted usage, but one that I will endeavor to remember to always use that signifies my deep felt conviction that there is nothing historically, theologically, or biblically Christ-honoring about 'Christian' Nationalism.  As such, I choose to use the air quotes as a reminder of the danger of allowing people (especially non-believers) to believe that Christians in general support this aberrant heretical position.

Sermon Video: The value of the Judeo-Christian tradition, Romans 3:1-4

Given that ancient Judaism, and the Church of the past two thousand years have both been flawed vehicles of God's will, what do these imperfect communities of faith say about the value of what they offer to individuals and the world?  According to the Apostle Paul, the key reason why both God's people in the Old and New Covenants are necessary and impactful, even while being flawed, is that God has entrusted them with "the very words of God."  The Truths imparted by God, to Judaism and Christianity, today contained in the Bible, are available through no other source in our world.  Natural Revelation tells everyone that God exists and has tremendous power, but only his revealed Word tells us how to be in relationship with God.

In the end, the Church needs to do better, much better, in terms of righteous living.  At the same time, there isn't anywhere else for the Lost to go in this world, God in his wisdom has entrusted us with the Gospel's message of eternal life.

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

If you're like me, this meme below has floated through your Facebook feed at some point since the pandemic hit America.  It presents a binary choice that is not compatible with how contagions work in a pandemic, and of course makes it clear which of the two choices is to be preferred by anyone who is "not afraid" or who wants to choose freedom over the unspoken but implied opposite of tyranny.  Rather than delving into the topic of COVID-19 restrictions (which I'm guessing we're all tired of talking/hearing about by now), let us consider the foundational philosophy of this meme from the standpoint of a Judeo-Christian worldview, that is the way of thinking that is molded and shaped by Judaism (the Hebrew Scriptures) and Christianity (the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament).

A classic either/or false dichotomy

"You do you, I'll do me" is a very American sentiment.  It sums up nicely the Laisez Faire attitude of Ayn Rand {The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the Authority of God}, as well as the 'Rugged Individualism' championed by Rush Limbaugh {Pope Francis' views on Capitalism and Rush Limbaugh}, and the 'Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' mantra that is far easier said by those who had ample help in achieving their level of success than by those with extra hurdles in their path.  "You do you, I'll do me" also touches upon the American distaste for governmental authority, as evidenced by the ongoing popularity of "Live free or die" and "Don't tread on me" slogans.  It is then not surprising at all that the American governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic has created a backlash, nor that the heart of the messaging of the backlash is individualism.

What then is the disconnect between individualism, as evidenced by "You do you, I'll do me" and the Judeo-Christian worldview?

1. God judged Israel (and other nations) collectively regarding both blessings and curses.
The principle of collective judgment, whether it be positive or negative, seems incompatible with modern legal systems and with American civil rights in particular.  It is, however, one of the ways that God consistently acts in history.   When seeking to understand God's judicial actions in the day of Noah, or with Sodom and Gomorrah, with Egypt during the plagues of Moses, or with the inhabitants of Canaan during Joshua's invasion, it is impossible to comprehend the divine justice involved without seeing that entire towns, tribes, and peoples were being judged as a whole for the evil committed by some, many, or most of them {including their ancestors no longer living} .  That these passages are brought up consistently by atheists, agnostics, and apostates as one of their reasons for rejecting either the Bible as God's Word or the idea of God itself, should show just how difficult this concept is to square with modern views, particular those of post-modern Western peoples. 
Israel is treated the same way under the Covenant of Moses.  While there are examples of individuals being rewarded or punished for their actions, there also abound instances where the actions of a leader (think Saul's defeat at the hand of the Philistines) or of a significant portion of the people affect many others, including those who are in our minds, 'innocent bystanders'.  The point is simply this, my actions do not affect me alone, and your actions do not affect you alone.  No man is an island (to borrow the phrase from John Donne's poem), every action of both good and evil has a ripple effect, even if there were no God, doubly so when God's judgment is factored in as well.

Exodus 34:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Leviticus 18:24-28 New International Version (NIV)

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

2. The repeated teachings of Jesus about responsibility for others.
Of the teachings of Jesus regarding our responsibility toward our fellow man, these three will suffice to demonstrate: (1) The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, (2) The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37, and (3) The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46.  When combined with his own actions in reaching out to "tax collectors and 'sinners'" along with the reviled minority Samaritans, lepers, and the demon possessed, it becomes clear that for those who wish to follow Jesus' example and heed his teachings, a philosophy which draws a thick line between myself and other people, for whatever reason, will be unacceptable.

3. The call for Christians to embrace the heart of servant.
Compassion for the needs of others is the beginning, working with a servant's heart is how we put it into action.  Jesus demonstrated this through word and deed, famously washing his disciples' feet before the Last Supper (John 13:1-17).  Likewise, the Apostle Paul was willing to go to great lengths, and set aside rights and privileges in order to fulfill the call of the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Self-sacrifice for the greater good is at the heart of Christianity, as is laying aside 'my rights' to help others.

4. The Church as one body with many parts.
Lastly, the very idea of considering myself as an individual without responsibility toward those around me flies in the face of the way in which the Word of God describes the function of the Church.  The entirety of the Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians has value (in full here: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), but the last three verses in particular make the point:

1 Corinthians 12:25-27 New International Version (NIV)
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Whether or not one agrees with any particular restriction or recommendation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation for that belief cannot be, "You do you, I'll do me" if holding a consistent Christian worldview is to be accomplished.  Individualism is simply not a philosophy/morality of either Judaism or Christianity.  The same principle of collective responsibility holds true in the racial tensions involving the shootings of Ahmaud Marquez Arbery in Georgia on February 23rd, and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25th.  While I may never be targeted for any form of discrimination because of my appearance, it is not 'their' problem, it is our problem. Know this: we share a common humanity with every oppressed and mistreated individual and group.  We also posses the clear teaching of God's Word that we were not called to individually pursue discipleship, nor to care solely for ourselves and are own family, but to an understanding of all of humanity as created in the image of God, of collective concern and responsibility which includes 'the least of these', and of service together to a cause greater than ourselves.  Stop thinking about you and me, we need to figure out what we can do together.

The idolatry of 'relationship but not religion'

 

Remove the 'not' in both of the above memes and we're doing fine.  The internet teems with sentiments like those above, including, "I'm spiritual, not religious", and "relationship not religion".  And while these thoughts appeal to those who have been hurt by, or disappointed in, a particular manifestation of the Church, they are misguided at best, and dangerous at worst.  This is not in any way to dispute the valid criticism of the actions of those who represent the Church, whether that be a local independent church where judgmental attitudes have replaced the spirit of grace, or an institutional church where self-protection has protected child predators.  The Church, both historically (see for example the martyrdom of Jan Hus) and today has much to answer for, flaws both mundane and monstrous, both isolated and systematic.  The Church is far from perfect.  Christianity without the Church, or following Jesus without Religion, thus has an emotional appeal, but it has one fundamental, inescapable problem.  Christianity, or even more simply, following Jesus, without the Church does not exist.  Temporarily, through difficult circumstances, a follower of Jesus might find him/herself disconnected from the Church, but long-term the option of going it alone has not been given to us by God.  We are both incapable of thriving as disciples of Jesus apart from the regular support and encouragement of fellow believers who will share our faith journey, and cut off from the commands of God that we serve one another when we decide to put our own, perceived, spiritual health above the needs of the many.  The Gospel was not given to me, it was given to us.  Discipleship is not my task, it is our task.  Worship is not individual people approaching God with praise, it is his people gathered together in community uplifting his name.  The grace of God is manifested in the shepherd's willingness to leave the 99 and seek the 1, but the glory of God is maximized when the entirety of those redeemed by that grace gather together to praise his name.
Throughout redemptive history God chose to work through Israel, an entire nation called to be holy before the LORD, and the Church, a gathering of people from all nations called to be united in their devotion to Jesus.  The elevation of my own spiritual pursuit, or my own spiritual need, above that of the other people who I should be in community with, and whose needs I ought to be prioritizing, is a form of idolatry.  Individualism above community is idolatry.  To find this sentiment growing in post-modern Western culture is hardly surprising.  We have journeyed a great distance in our worldview from the much more collective/community outlook of our ancestors.  We have staked out individualistic positions in economics, law, politics, and even marriage and family obligations.  It should be no surprise that the Church, as collective an organization as can be imagined, would eventually receive a backlash against its call to subsume the ego-centrism of post-modernity beneath a life of service to others.  {FYI, the Prosperity Gospel, with its focus on what God wants to do for you, rather than what God requires of you, fits well with this, 'its all about me' attitude.}
I understand why people want to emphasize their relationship with Jesus, or even their 'spirituality' above commitment to, the easy to find flaws with, 'organized religion'.  To be a part of the Church is to rub elbows with flawed people.  To be a part of the Church is to risk getting hurt.  As long ago as St. Augustine it was necessary to defend the idea that the Church is made up of people who are being made holy, not people who are already holy.  And yet, in the end the solo path leads nowhere.  Hermits were never the path to holiness that their admirers claimed them to be.  To be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to journey with other disciples, to be a part of a community, and to serve that community.  You may not love religion or the Church, but you certainly need it, and it needs you.

A final thought, if you reject religion/the Church, you're also rejecting the sacraments/ordinances.  There is no baptism or communion without the Church, for baptism is a rite of initiation into the people of God, and communion is a communal meal with the people of God.

For a selection of Scripture that informs this topic, consider these verses below:
Matthew 16:18 New International Version (NIV)
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
John 13:14-16 New International Version (NIV)

14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 
John 17:20-23 New International Version (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Galatians 5:13 New International Version (NIV)

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.
Ephesians 1:22-23 New International Version (NIV)

22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
 Hebrews 10:24-25 New International Version (NIV)
24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission

The list of companies being boycotted by various Christians and/or conservatives has grown rather long: Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, CSV, Disney, Nascar, Amazon, Google, basically the biggest and most popular corporations in America, all having done something regarding guns, homosexuality, or politics to put them on "the list".  No, I'm not going to enter into the boycott argument, and yes, a similar list exists among liberals listing different companies (or sometimes the same companies for different reasons).  What do we make of this, and how does it impact the Church and the Gospel?
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation.  Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide.  The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue.  People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them.  We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe.  Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off.  {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}.  I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'"  In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates.  He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them.  In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”  Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates).  At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ.  Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within.  Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer?  Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society.  In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't.  Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension.  That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension.  It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers}  Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element.  For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing.  We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like.  Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church.  At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."  We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century.  We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us.  We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they?  We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'".  As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot.  We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World.  Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.

The fault in an argument about the Catholic Church firing a gay teacher

 Below is the text of an article written by Ellen Kobe, a professed Catholic.  I will intersperse my response to her argumentation (not the question of whether or not a Christian school should hire/fire any particular staff member per se) throughout using brackets and bold: {Like this}  This is not a question of what ought to be legal in America regarding employment, but rather what moral principles ought to guide any institution/organization which claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ellen Kobe has charged the Church with "repulsive" "bigotry", but on what  basis?

Ellen Kobe is an associate producer on CNN's social publishing team. She is a 2009 graduate of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Why a Jesuit School was right in refusing to fire a gay teacher

(CNN)Catholics in my hometown of Indianapolis are in the midst of a culture war -- a battle between church leadership and some of its parishioners that could be played out in other communities if it hasn't already.
Last month, news broke that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis would no longer recognize my alma mater, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, as a Catholic school. Why? The Archdiocese insisted the school dismiss a longtime teacher who is in a civilly-recognized, same-sex marriage, a statement from the school said.
The archdiocese also released a statement saying: "This issue is not about sexual orientation; rather, it is about our expectation that all personnel inside a Catholic school -- who are ministers of the faith -- abide by all Church teachings, including the nature of marriage."  {An important question: What moral standard ought a Christian school/charity/church require of its non-ordained personnel?  We ought to expect those who have taken ordination vows to uphold a higher moral standard (sadly we are too often disappointed) but what about people for whom their work is more akin to a job than a calling?  The expectation of the Catholic Church, at least regarding school teachers, is that they support Church teaching with the way they live their lives.  If this is unreasonable, are there any standards at all that the Church could enforce without being accused of imposing morality upon its employees?}
Brebeuf firmly pushed back, saying this "highly capable and qualified teacher" will continue to teach here.
Brebeuf's actions protected this employee and other LGBTQ members of its community by sending the message: You are welcome here; you are safe here. On my social media feeds, it was a day of celebration among the Brebeuf community and local Catholics. I saw only positive messages about the decision.  {This is not a moral argument, of any kind, let alone one pertaining to what Christianity ought to be.  Social media opinion is the last place we should turn to gauge a question of theology...Secondly, in order to be "welcome" and "safe" within the Church, the Church must accept/celebrate the choices made by people?  All choices, regardless of what they are, or just the choices being celebrated here?  What happened to the idea of the Church as a place for sinners seeking repentance and depending upon grace?}
But the mood took a turn just days later when nearby Cathedral High School was faced with the same command by the Archdiocese regarding a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Cathedral decided to dismiss, not support, its teacher.
There was resounding anger, heartbreak and disappointment from members of the Cathedral community on social media. It's not lost on me that my social media feeds could be reinforcing my own beliefs or that those who believe these employees should've been fired aren't voicing their opinions. {At least she sees the danger of living in a self-reinforcing bubble.  Again, social media feeds have ZERO to do with what is morally acceptable for a church that claims allegiance to Jesus Christ.  Christianity is NOT a democracy, nor even a representative republic.  It is a benevolent dictatorship; one founded by, directed by, ruled by, and in service to, Jesus Christ.  What we think, how we feel, what we want, is immaterial compared to this question: What promotes holiness and righteousness?  What brings glory to God and empowers the Gospel to save the Lost?}  Nonetheless, there is a distinct fissure in the way many practicing Catholics feel about the LGBTQ community versus how the Church's leaders believe we should treat them.  {Has the Church in the past, and in the present, treated some sins as "acceptable" while harshly condemning others?  Absolutely.  This is human failure, our sinful nature and weakness in action.  At the same time, "the way many practicing Catholics feel" is once again NOT a theological/moral argument but an appeal to numerical support.  Might the majority, or even a vocal minority, be theologically/morally correct on an issue and the Church's leadership wrong?  Certainly, but not on the basis of, "this is how we feel", instead the question must hinge upon a proper understanding of the Word of God, an appeal never made in this opinion piece, nor even hinted at.}
The stark contrast in these schools' decisions is just one of reasons I strongly identify with the Jesuit philosophy. When I think of my Catholic identity, nearly all of it stems from the values instilled in me at Brebeuf.
The Jesuit tradition focuses on the education of the person as a whole, emphasizing these five virtues: being open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious and committed to promoting justice. These "grad at grad" values, as the Jesuits call them, might sound like a hokey mission statement, but they were taken seriously at Brebeuf. They weren't just written on hallway walls, T-shirts and in the school handbook, they were preached and exemplified by each of our teachers on a daily basis. Living out these qualities wasn't simply a goal, it was a duty.
It is the last of these principles -- committed to promoting justice -- that launched me into a career in journalism. When my teachers saw I was interested in writing, they didn't just teach me how to write better. They encouraged me to write for the greater good.  {The Greater Good!  Absolutely, but on what basis is the Greater Good to be determined?  Hopefully not social media support, nor the whims of the culture at large.  Surely Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier had some objective standard in mind built upon the Word of God, Apostolic teaching, and Church tradition.  The Greater Good cannot blow where the wind takes it, it must be anchored or it will twist about endlessly and be capable of justifying anything.}
When Brebeuf defied the Archdiocese's demand, I thought of the "grad at grad" moral standards that Brebeuf is living out and which the Archdiocese sorely lacks.  {This is a high-handed claim, the Archdiocese lacks a moral standard, but the portion of the Jesuits in question have one?}
The Archdiocese is unfairly targeting members of the LGBT community, bigotry {Christianity (as Judaism before it) is inherently bigoted.  Let that sink in.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ claims to be the sole path to God, the only means of salvation, and the necessary answer for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.  It condemns as false all other paths, whether self-help or organized religion.  It condemns as immoral a host of human behavior that affects everyone, and declares that none are righteous apart from a righteousness gifted to us by Jesus Christ.  It declares a moral standard that must be present in its followers and condemns those who speak but don't act as Christ-followers.  There can be no Truth without condemnation of falsehood.  There can be no Morality without condemnation of immorality.  If this essence is removed from Christianity, it ceases to be, becoming devoid of all power and less than meaningless...To make the case that to single out one particular type of sin is unfair, while ignoring others, is one thing (a sense of balance Pope Francis has repeatedly called for), but to label that bigotry is to reject Christianity for what it is and must be.} that is beyond repulsive in 2019 {What does 2019 have to do with a question of morality?  Is the standard by which we are to judge matters of morality based upon the year in which we live?  We all know that our ancestors had blind spots concerning certain immoral behavior (slavery comes to mind, as well as antisemitism) but they were still wrong to behave that way, even if they couldn't see it for themselves...Evidently, by 2019 the author thinks the Church ought to have capitulated and abandoned its teaching regarding sexual ethics and marriage, the past 3,500 years of Judea/Christian ethics be damned.  The "failure" to do so, is evidently repulsive.} but all too real in religious communities across the globe. {The anger here is directed inward toward Christianity, but other religions will be targeted next.}  Gay or otherwise, Brebeuf employees provided me with a rigorous education and a caring environment. Brebeuf's tolerance -- no, outward support -- for its LGBTQ faculty and students has fostered thousands of accepting and loving alumni.  {Results based morality.  A person can accomplish good and positive things without being morally upright, the Church always works with flawed people.  However, "accepting and loving" is an odd standard for gauging success the way it is being used here.  We, as Christians, certainly are called to be loving, and to love both friends and enemies, both family and strangers, but the relatively recent choice to connect "acceptance of behavior" with "loving people" as a take it or leave it, all or nothing, proposition is not associated historically with Christianity.  Jesus called people, all sorts of people, to follow him, but he did so on the basis that all of them needed to repent, to leave their lives of sin, and be like him.}
Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, tweeted about the contradictions of what the Archdiocese is asking Catholic schools to do. If employees must be "supportive of Catholic teaching," as Martin points out, a wide swath of Catholic school employees would be subject to termination, including straight people living with a significant other outside of marriage, married couples using birth control and Catholics who don't go to Mass, {Because Justice is not applied to all, evenly and thoroughly, it must be abandoned?  Fr. Martin is correct that the Church has often focused more energy upon certain sins than upon others, and he is correct that the sins of people who are unlike ourselves are more readily condemned than sins that hit closer to home.  This is a failure of God's people that is neither new nor acceptable.  However, this is NOT an argument against having a moral standard at all, but only one against having a poorly articulated/applied moral standard.} as well as those who practice another religion or none at all. {Do Fr. Martin and Ellen Kobe believe that Catholic schools should be forced to hire teachers who are Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists?  This is a new frontier facing Christian Education, the demand that they abandon the reason why they exist in the first place and replace a Christ-centered education, and a Christ-following staff with something more broad and less restrictive.} I think that's pretty much every person I know.  {I know this is meant to be sarcasm, but really?  Everyone you know is either defying the Church's teaching on marriage, birth control, and/or not going to Mass at all?  You don't know anyone who lives according to the traditional teachings of the Church?  Is this not a cause for concern?  How can one claim ownership over the direction of the Church, call it "repulsive" and "bigoted" when one's viewpoint is surrounded by those who reject the teachings of, and participation in, that same Church?}
Brebeuf didn't have much to lose in its relationship with the Archdiocese, which doesn't provide the school with any funds or ministers, according to the Indianapolis Star. Cathedral's defense of their decision notes everything they would've lost, including permission to refer to itself as a Catholic school, the ability to celebrate the Sacraments and its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
These would be tough challenges to face. But when leaders of Catholic institutions focus solely on doctrine, status or other rules of the Church, {Agreed.  To focus solely upon doctrine is to lose touch with its application among human beings.  Is this really what Catholic institutions are doing?  Have all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities ceased to exist?  Have the thousands of parishes living in community together while seeking Christ disappeared?  When you disagree with a particular doctrine, make a rational case for that disagreement, one that seeks some grounding in Scripture.  To claim those who disagree with you are heartless is not the same as making a case for your position...On the flip side, when doctrine/theology is no longer central, when Truth is relegated to secondary status, Christianity's days are numbered, its churches are adrift, and its people will latch on to all manner of ideas and beliefs that would have found no home among the Apostles.} they lose sight of what this religion is all about -- {What is the purpose of religion?  An important question, but far more relevant here ought to be: What is the purpose of the Church created by Jesus Christ after his resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  What religion, in general, is all about is not a relevant discussion for what Christianity should be.}  God's unconditional love for all people. {Not the right answer by a long shot for one very important reason: God's love is not unconditional.  Period.  God's love is in complete harmony with his holiness and justice.  If God's love for all people was unconditional, why do we worship a crucified and risen Savior?  Why did God institute the Mosaic sacrificial system, why did he call Abraham and replace his polytheism with monotheism?  Even a cursory reading of the Scriptures reveals God's anger at sin, his judgment upon those who defy him, and his absolute insistence upon obedience.}
Brebeuf unified around faith. Cathedral allowed doubt to take over. What good is the designation of being a "Catholic" school if you lose your values in the process? {A very important question: What is the point of wanting to be Catholic, or any subset of Christianity, if that designation is no longer anchored to the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and Holy Scripture?...Is it truly "doubt" to remain committed to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years?  Is standing firm in the midst of change somehow a lack of faith?} As Martin says, Brebeuf protecting its LGBTQ employee "is the most Catholic thing that the school, and the Jesuits, could do."  {Wow, "the most Catholic thing"?  Again, what is the basis for this claim?  Upon what Biblical principle does this rest?  What teaching of Jesus, and how is that being applied?}
By the way, wasn't June Pride Month?  {And this has what to do with a moral question within the Church of Jesus Christ?}

{In the end, this article is an opinion piece, what it is not is any reason to justify its author's very strong moral condemnation of the Catholic Church with anything beyond how the author feels, a reference to the "greater good" that is not defined, and the consensus of a particular social media bubble.  While reasoning such as this may be standard within the culture as a whole, or in the political realm, it is not how the Church of Jesus Christ discusses, debates, or even changes theological positions.} 

Our warped definition of Christianity is disastrous

What, and how, we think is important; very important.  What we believe in, and what we believe about important topics and issues profoundly shapes who we are.  But there is more to it than what and how we think.  It is absolutely true that an individual cannot be a Christian if they do not believe in Jesus Christ, in other words, they believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that he lived, died, and was raised to new life in order to set us free from sin (enslavement to, and debt because of).  {See John 3:16 as an example of this explained in one sentence}  Belief is not the end of the road.  Belief has to be accompanied by repentance {a turning away from sinful behavior} and has to lead to righteous living {by the power of the Holy Spirit} in order for belief to be effective.  In order for it to be real.  A belief in Jesus which does not change the trajectory of a person's life, in ways both small and great, is meaningless.  Herein lies the problem.  Consider the two passages of Scripture below which together illustrate the absolute necessity of "fruit" (ethical behavior) and give nine prime examples of what it looks like:

Matthew 7:16-20 New International Version (NIV)
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 5:22-24 New International Version (NIV)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

To say, "I am a Christian" is not enough.  To have a particular political viewpoint is not enough (and often misleading).  To know the key words one should say in order to "sound like a Christian" is not enough.  To attend a church at Christmas and Easter, or even more often, is not enough.  To own a Bible, or even read it, is not enough.  To give money to Christian charities, or the Church itself, is not enough.  A person could have all of those things, and outwardly look the part, but without love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control; they would have nothing. {See 1 Corinthians 11}  Don't get me wrong, someone who goes to church, reads a Bible, and gives money to Christian charities is better off than someone who doesn't; but only if those factors eventually lead to the radical change of mind and heart that gives evidence to the presence of the Holy Spirit and results in the outflow from that person's life of the fruit of the Spirit.  If a person remains "associated with" Christianity, but never moves forward, they will actually be worse off on the Day of Judgment for having known better without acting.  {See Hebrews 6:7-8}

The Church in America, in particular, has a self-identification problem.  We've allowed cultural distinctions and political viewpoints to more strongly define our view of what Christianity is than righteous living.  We've minimized the immorality that doesn't bother us, pride, lust, and greed in particular, and allowed ourselves to accept the delusion that anyone who looks the part and is on "our side" in the Culture War is Christian enough.  The Word of God says otherwise.  We will be known by God by our fruit, judged as genuine believers in Jesus, or not, by it. 

Those who mimic the look of being a Christian, without the heart-motivated acts of righteousness to go with it, are either self-deluded or charlatans, either a danger to themselves or to the church as a whole.  As long as we accept those who are "like us" as being good enough because we view Christianity as cultural/political feud to be won, rather than a call to self-sacrificially serve the Kingdom of God that must be obeyed, we will continue to warp Christianity into something which is was never intended to be, with disastrous consequences.

Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward?

Something isn’t right in the modern western world in the interactions between Faith and Science.  We may not understand what the problem is, how it started, or how to solve it, but the tension is palpable, we can feel it.  Antagonism is the most visible interaction on the part of Christians (and/or those claiming to be Christians) with science, treating the two as mortal enemies, but we also see accommodation, a long-shot hope of wedding the two peacefully, and finally we see rejection, an attempt to pretend that science doesn’t exist or at least have anything useful to say.  This can’t be the way things are supposed to be, but are they the way they have to be?  Is there an option other than being enemies, part of a one-sided arranged marriage, or strangers?

                To trace the history of the relationship between science and faith is a massive undertaking, but one area in particular is a microcosm of the strange interactions between the two: Creation.  How did we get here, when, and why are universal and fundamental questions of humanity.  They have been asked and answered all over the globe since the beginning of recorded history in innumerable ways.  The people of Israel were given a definitive answer to the question of why in the book of Genesis: to fulfill the good pleasure and further the glory of God.  God created because God wanted to create, and beyond that, God created beings capable of interacting with him because he desired both love and worship from them.  As Christians, heirs to the philosophy/worldview of Judaism, we know why we are here.  We have a purpose and a direction given to us by faith.  Do we also know, from Holy Scripture, how and when?

                It was assumed that we did, that such questions had easy answers related to divine fiat in the not too distant past.  And then science came into its maturity and threw those assumptions into confusion.  Astronomy, archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, and more have each taken a chunk out of the assumption that God created the universe, as we see it today, a few thousand years before the time of Abraham.  What then ought to be the response of faith to these assertions by science?

                Denial was the first response of the Church, beginning with Galileo and Copernicus, and denial still has a prominent role in various Christian responses.  These responses range from saying that the evidence proposed by scientists is wrong (either a claim of ignorance on the part of scientists who don’t understand their own fields, or a conspiracy theory by them to falsify their findings), to saying that the evidence is indeed what it is, but that the interpretation is wrong because the evidence itself is a ruse, a type of red herring, placed there by either God or the devil to lead non-believers astray.  In other words, the evidence is real that the universe is billions of years old, but it should be ignored.  In the discussion of Creation, a denial/aggression against science stance typically involves an attempt to take the text of Genesis “literally” (a word to be used with great caution in Biblical interpretation as it means different things to different people and is often abused as a cudgel against those who interpret a text differently), as in “literally six twenty-four-hour days”.  It also involves viewing the description of the six days of creation as a how-to guide explaining what God did and the order/time frame he did it in.  In this view there is no room for an old universe, no room for a Big Bang, and certainly no room for any type of evolutionary processes.  As Gordon Glover wrote in Beyond the Firmament, Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, “If we raise our children to believe that supernatural explanations are in competition with natural ones, we are basically entrusting their salvation to ignorance and incredulity.” (P. 32) If Glover’s characterization of the various forms of denial offends you, keep reading and keep thinking.

                The second response of portions of the Church to the advancements of science in relation to Creation was accommodation.  If science says that the universe is billions of years old, the response is to find collaboration for that finding in the text of Genesis.  Thus Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory attempt to postulate an alliance between science and faith by molding the interpretation of Genesis to fit scientific theory.  So, rather than insisting upon a Young Earth like those antagonistic to science, accommodation allows for an old one, viewing either time gaps between various points in the story, or the “days” of Creation as the equivalent of eons.  Coupled with this interpretation are things like Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution which preserve a role for God, behind the scenes as the architect, of the natural processes described by science.  Thus accommodation of Genesis with science no longer takes the text “literally”, but allows for both a Big Bang and Evolutionary processes, provided that God is the unseen force behind it all.  This might seem like a win-win scenario, one in which the text of Scripture still has something to contribute while science is not viewed as an enemy, provided that either Gap Theory or Day-Age Theory is a viable interpretation of the text of Genesis, an important caveat.

                The third response, ignoring what science has to say about the origins of the cosmos and humanity, is a self-defeating retreat that will be, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, like that of the Church over Galileo in 1633, a short-sighted decision whose negative consequences the Church continues to reap.

                But what if there is another option, one that retains a faithful commitment to the text of Holy Scripture and works within the framework of the plain meaning of the text, that treats it as God’s Word given to mankind according to his purposes (not ours), but that at the same time doesn’t promote an attitude of hostility to science, nor attempt to force them to exist in the same space, and also doesn’t resort to burying one’s head in the sand or yelling, “Not listening!  Not listening!”  For that to be the way forward, we would need to consider what the purpose of Genesis 1-3 was when it was written, how it was received by its original audience, and which questions it was intended to answer among our most common: How, when, and why.  In the end, it is possible that we can be more faithful to the text of Scripture by admitting that it answers everything we need to know about why (and who), but much less than we had assumed about how and when.

                Perhaps Genesis 1-3 is the story of how God gave the world its functions, taking it from formlessness to usefulness, and setting it up for humanity with God as its sovereign.  Instead of a how-to guide, the text of Genesis 1-3 can be viewed as a Cosmic Temple Inauguration (see John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate), one in which God assigns functions to things he had already created, assigns names to them, and then on the Seventh Day takes his “rest” with the Cosmos as his temple and mankind as his steward.  This viewpoint has the very positive aspect of being compatible with the viewpoints of those living in the Near East in the Ancient World, as most of the ancient accounts which still exist from that area/period involve the ordering of chaos into purpose by a god(s).  In that vein, the Genesis account is not different from them except in its understood assumption that only one God, the true God, is involved, and the clear lack of effort required by that God to make the Cosmos orderly, mere commands suffice to accomplish it.  To the people of Israel being led by Moses out of bondage, then, the story of Genesis would not be odd when compared to those told by the Egyptians or Babylonians except for its monotheism and the universal sovereignty claimed by God (as opposed to the typical local/shared sovereignty of the pantheon of gods).  In other words, perhaps God utilized a format for explaining humanity’s role/purpose that made sense to the ancient people he was telling it to rather than a format that would answer all of the questions asked of it by a naturalistic/materialistic society 3,500 years later.  That might seem like an easy point to arrive at, but human beings have a hard time setting aside their own worldviews in order to see things from the perspective of another culture or time period.  Modern human beings are so immersed in the post-Enlightenment naturalistic worldview of an ascendant science that we by default view ancient documents through our interpretive lens without even knowing it.

                Why would God choose to focus upon the functionality of the Cosmos in the account given to Moses rather than an explanation of the material origins of the universe?  Most importantly, it fit his purpose, which was not to share with his people how he created the Cosmos, but why.  When Job asked God for an explanation which his experience of injustice certainly seemed worthy of, he wasn’t given one, in part because God told Job that he did not have the capacity to understand the answers to his questions.  The collective human wisdom of modern science has scratched the surface of answering questions of how and when, and much remains beyond our grasp; in what way would a materialistic/scientific explanation be possible or even useful to those who lived 3,500 years ago?  When God brought his people out of Egypt with signs and wonders, he didn’t bother to explain to them how he turned Nile to blood or where the plagues of locusts or gnats came from.  How was immaterial, why was the key; they were signs of God’s power and warnings to Pharaoh.  The purpose of being told that God is responsible for an event in history (like Creation or the Plagues upon Egypt) is so that humanity can recognize God’s power, submit to his authority, and worship him.  The purpose is not to satisfy our curiosity, to answer all of our questions, or to convince the skeptical, as if God’s revelation of himself to us has to be on our terms; the “gap” between God’s proclamation (revelation) of his activity and our own understanding of it is the place filled by Faith.  If answers to our questions are available, that’s fine, but we don’t need them when we put our trust in the faithfulness of God.  We don’t need to know how and when if we know who and why.

                If Genesis is indeed not an attempt by God to explain how/when he created the Cosmos, including humanity, it leaves Christians free to accept scientific explanations if they prove plausible, and if those explanations are later refined or rejected thanks to new evidence or new theories, to not have that process impact our faith.  Faith is no longer on defense against science, forever trying to fend off its attacks, nor is it endlessly trying to accommodate science, hoping to be able to squeeze the latest developments in numerous scientific fields into the sparse text of Genesis 1-3.  Christians are thus free to focus upon the most important question: Why did God create us, however and whenever he did so, and what does that tell us about the purpose of our lives?  God is still the ultimate cause, God is still the intelligence behind the natural laws set up by his hand and maintained by his will, and God remains the final destination of each human soul.  Science cannot answer questions of why, it never could and it never will.  Philosophy and Religion are not scientific fields, they seek to answer questions beyond the materialistic realm of science, questions that cannot be verified or disproved by experimentation.  These are the questions which have been of the utmost importance to humanity throughout the ages.  Our ancient ancestors in the faith, the children of Abraham, had comparatively little scientific knowledge to work with, but it did not impact their ability to be a people of faith, dependent upon God and in obedience to his will.  Today we know many things about how the natural world works, but the truly important questions remain dependent upon revelation from the spiritual realm.

                Faith and Science are not enemies, nor are they bosom buddies, and they don’t have to be strangers; they answer different questions in different ways.  Science can make our lives better, faith makes our lives meaningful.  Science can fix some of the problems that humanity has brought upon itself, faith can fix humanity itself.   Science can expand what we can do, faith can tell us what we should do.   Science if forever learning and growing, faith rests upon a bedrock of Truth that stretches back beyond Abraham and calls us to live righteous lives by faith just as did our ancestors in the faith.