This Moment Isn't What You Think It Is.

There are many historical factors at play in our current divisive political moment. A political class that has allowed itself to become disconnected from their bases, economic dislocation due to globalization and the Great Recession, a Millennial generation denied access to many opportunities but uninterested in traditional organizations that offered other benefits, political operatives have turned to psychology and social science to exploit natural differences, etc. It has dissolved many of the "glues" that held our society together and lead to an increase in partisanship and division. None of this is a surprise to anyone on Facebook, Twitter, or who watches political programming. Shouting and propaganda is the norm. Discussion and polite argument are nearly extinct.

While this is having a huge impact on our whole culture, it dawned on me during my morning walk just how much of an impact it is having on the Church. If you think back to only a few years ago, the Church as a whole was on a track towards unity. Denominations that had separated decades or centuries before were flirting with reunification. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who had condemned all Catholics to Hell were open to the idea of a brotherhood of all believers. Interfaith gatherings were becoming more common, and there was a common belief that radical Islam and the secularization of society were the true "enemies".

But all of that swing towards unification went away almost overnight. In my awareness, it came with the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. But I have read many others who pointed to other events as the start for them - the Great Recession, the Affordable Care Act, etc. Suddenly, society was fractured and the Church allowed itself to fracture along the same lines. People are leaving churches over political issues. And some Christians who used to sit side by side in the pew are calling each other heretics and worse over which political "side" they are on or which social issues they feel are most important.

It occurs to me that while we are all distracted talking about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" on social media, we're missing what the real point of this moment is. Political trends come and go. The supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson hurled accusations that make our modern disagreements look tame by comparison. But the wounds caused by and in the Church take far longer to heal. Those alienated from a local body of believers because they don't post the right memes may never return to any church. Congregations who can't speak to each other because of odious political disagreements can not be effective working towards the goal of spending the Gospel. Christians who confuse empathy for their brother with sympathy for a political cause will never be able to relate to him or stand alongside him in his hour of need.

"A house divided against itself can not stand" was not only spoken by Lincoln about the Union. Jesus said in Mark 3:25. The Enemy knows this. And I suspect this divided political moment is all about leaving us with a divided and ineffective church for a generation, rather than about which is the next Supreme Court pick or budget maneuver.

My two cents, for what it is worth.

Billy Graham as Saint *AND* Sinner

Reverend Billy Graham died on Thursday, February 22 at age 99.

Most of the articles about his passing were laudatory, but there were a few that excoriated Graham for charges ranging from misogyny (for his "never eating along with a woman other than his wife" rule) to anti-semitism (for failing to chastise Richard Nixon for comments about Jewish leaders) to prejudice against same-sex couples (for standing against marriage equality).

It was easy to dismiss most of these criticisms as out of touch with history and/or an attempt to use a good man's death to grab pageviews and advertiser dollars.  But the more I thought about them, the more annoyed I became at the attempts to tarnish a good man's name without allowing family, friends, and admirers time to mourn.

Then, while sitting in church on Sunday, God began to work on my heart.  "What is wrong with noting the failings of a Christian who has died?" He asked. "My word is unflinching when presenting the failings of my people.  Moses was unforgiving and guilty of manslaughter, David was an adulterer and a murderer, Jonah had no compassion, Peter was violent, and Paul was a political extremist who demanded the death of his enemies.  Even the relatively modern saints you know are deeply flawed.  Martin Luther was an anti-semite and John Calvin was a tyrant.  Only Jesus was without sin so that he could die for all who did."

The thing is, Billy Graham wouldn't have minded his sins being made public.  He was very clear in his sermons that all have sinned.  That we are creatures of sin.  And that apart from God, we are doomed to remain in our sin forever.  He taught that we need Jesus to find forgiveness in God, and that seeking forgiveness is not a one-time thing but a lifestyle.  He taught that we will fail and we will be wrong in our lives - just as God says in the Bible.  That is exactly why we need a Savior.   Every day.

So go ahead and list the sins of Billy Graham.  That doesn't tarnish or reduce this man of God.  It reminds us of the very lesson he most wanted to preach - We are all sinners in need of the grace of God.  And Jesus Christ offers that grace free to all.  Amen.

Hell & It's Critics

I am not sure how many Mod-Bloggers have been paying attention, but a recent book has renewed an old debate about the existence of Hell and it's place in Christian doctrine. It is easy to forget just how controversial the idea of a place of eternal punishment can be to a non-Christian or humanistic mind. In the mainstream press, people are airing defense of the doctrine of Hell and strong criticisms of it.

The central question of the book - and most of the critiques of it - is "Is Gandhi in Hell"? i.e. Is a man universally recognized as a moral champion who is NOT Christian bound for eternal torment. I imagine similar questions could be asked of other great moral leaders.

To be clear, I believe the general answer of orthodox Christians to this question is "Salvation is found ONLY in Jesus Christ, and as far as we know those who die without saving knowledge of Him are in Hell. However, God is sovereign and if He chooses to make exceptions, He can do so. But if He makes exceptions, it is not indicated in scripture."

Interested to see what Mod-Bloggers think about this controversy. I've already discussed with a few of you. (And yes, I know we need to differentiate between the controversy raised in the book and the controversy triggered by the book.)

Christ in the Passover

With the audience that normal browses Mod-Blog - and the fact that we are now in Passover week - it seemed like a good time and place to post this video from Chosen People Ministries on how Christ is prefigured in the Passover Seder meal.



I always find it fascinating to see how the Old and New Testaments intersect. Feel free to post any other such cases - or your objections - in the comments.

Codices older than the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Jordan's Department of Antiquities is claiming a new archeological find that may provide Christian writings older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. How old? Possibly within a few decades of the Crucifixion.

They seem almost incredible claims - so what is the evidence?

The books, or "codices", were apparently cast in lead, before being bound by lead rings.

Their leaves - which are mostly about the size of a credit card - contain text in Ancient Hebrew, most of which is in code.

If the relics are of early Christian origin rather than Jewish, then they are of huge significance.

Of course, the Jordanian claims should be taken with a grain of salt. They have a vested interest in this discovery being huge. But it is still exciting.

Lent Reading: Quote of the Day

Sean, who has largely left Mod-Blog for his own personal blog posting-wise, has put out a challenge to his friends. To read thru Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Meditations on the Cross over the season of Lent. I am not sure how each of us will share the journey with Mod-Blog... if at all. But I thought I'd start off with a "quote of the day" from the book. Something which got me thinking. Feel free to respond, react, and make fun of me in the comments.

What is the peculiar thing you are doing? The extraordinary - and this is the most scandalous thing - is something the disciples must do. It must be done - just like that better righteousness - and must be done visibly. [Emphases his]

Reminds me of James 1:22: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

Do programmers find it hard to be Christians?

When I was growing up, I loved science - biology, geology, physics, meteorology all fascinated me. But my teachers told me the same thing again and again, "It is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian. So, if you choose to become a scientist, be ready to throw away your faith forever." As a middle schooler, that scared me and made me reconsider my future career. But as I grew in knowledge of science and of my faith, I quickly learned the battle between science and religion was largely a myth. Most scientists have a faith, and most of the faithful respect and study science.

So, I was unhappy to see this same old idea recast in a new light, which claims programmers and Christians are incompatible. Most of you know I work in the Information Technology field, and have been a programmer at various points in my life/career. I have never found my faith to conflict with my job/hobby... and neither have almost any of the programmers I work with. And my particular company hires from all over, so I know programmers who are Catholic, Protestant, Coptic, Muslim, Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, and Orthodox.

This persistent idea that Christianity and logic are somehow in fundamental disagreement needs to be taken down. Some of the greatest thinkers of history (Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, etc.) were Christians, and none could be said to be enemies of logic or science, and none would be enemies of programming if they lived today.

How badly are Christians portrayed in Hollywood?

Yes, I know that programs like Focus on the Family have beaten this to death, but it is still worth considering. Why does Hollywood believe it is okay to beat on Christians more than any other religious group? Is it that familiarity breeds contempt, or that the only overtly religious figures who catch the attention are stereotypes and hypocrites? Or is it simply lazy writing? (Warning, link has some non-family-friendly language.)

On the other hand, we’ve got Conservative Christians who are statistically far and away the most generous people on the planet (whether you’re judging by missionary work or basic tax returns) consistently being portrayed as hateful villains often using scripture to justify horrifying acts (see nearly every spiritual horror/psycho thriller movie made in the last three decades). Disregard the fact that people like my middle-class father annually give more to charity than President Obama and Joe Biden combined...

I am interested to know the opinions of Mod-bloggers on this. I think the comment about the charitable nature of Christians vs. the current president/vice-president is significant, too. Mostly because I know a few (non-rich) people who have confirmed the same thing about their own giving when compared to our leaders, including Hollywood's leaders.

Good Friday

You cannot serve two masters

Hat-tip to Sean for posting this one on twitter. Apparently, there is an Episcopal priest in Seattle who is being defrocked for a simple reason. She has converted to Islam. And yet, apparently she is fighting the move.

Ann Holmes Redding, who marks the 25th anniversary of her ordination on March 25, says she believes she can practice both faiths and should not have to recant her Muslim beliefs...

Wolf has told Redding that her conversion to Islam constitutes an abandonment of the Christian faith and she must recant by March 30 or lose her status as a priest.

Jesus spoke to this pretty directly in Luke 16:13, "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Ash Wednesday and the Beginning of Lent

Ash Wednesday is not something that any of the churches I have attended have ever celebrated. And Lent has really always been a time of preparation for Easter, but the tradition of giving something up over that time was never taught or preached. But as I grow older, I wonder if there is not value in the tradition of introducing some mild suffering to ourselves, in order to remind us of the ultimate suffering that Christ endured on our behalf. Not sure what I will do, but I am considering it.

What do other Mod-Bloggers think? Are you planning to observe Lent this year by giving something up for the next 40 days?

I can't stop smiling at this comic

Where should politics and religion intersect?

Another interesting post went up recently at Revolution in Jesusland, a blog by a former (?) atheist who is studying the movement in Christianity today to revitalize itself. There is a lot of interesting stuff in there, but the piece that caught my attention was this.

On those points, the movement answers: "Okay, maybe, but Jesus never taught us to ‘take power.’ And so we must limit ourselves to witnessing from the ‘bottom’ and never try to put ourselves on ‘top’ in positions of power."

In college, I had friends who went off to join a weird little secretive Maoist party that was active on campus. It was a crazy thing to watch as they transported themselves back in time to the China of the 1940s. All their calculations about making social change here in America were messed up because their paradigm was based on the regime that Mao Zedong’s communists lived under as young persecuted revolutionaries. I think there’s a bit of that going on with this movement of Christian revolutionaries today. Too often, they’re applying the Way of Jesus to our modern-day world as though nothing has changed since the first-century Roman Empire.

But haven’t 2,000 years of redemptive history taken place since then?

This is a debate that Ward and I have from time to time. Where is Christianity supposed to be a "personal" phenomenon and where it is supposed to be a larger political force in the world. To break it down to the bare essentials of our argument, I would say the two sides are: (Nomad) "Jesus did not work on a political level and overtly rejected politics as a means to his ends. Thus, we should focus on the person-to-person side of our Christianity." (Ward) "Jesus's teachings affect all aspects of our lives and politics are just one more extension of our lives. Thus, our politics should be an active reflection of our morality and our Christianity." (This is obviously so simplistic as to almost be a caricature of the arguments, but I trust you get the point. Please be charitable in your responses.)

The question I continue to struggle with is how our personal sphere and the political sphere should intersect as Christians. Some people have wrought major change with political movements - Pat Robertson, the Moral Majority etc. But in the end, most of these are seen as failures or even embarrassments to the Church. But overall, the Christian movements that I see which have transformed our society have been apolitical - Promise Keepers, Billy Graham, etc.

What do Mod-Bloggers thing?

Penthouse goes after Christian singles?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The concept behind Holy Water

Having been a Protestant my whole life, my only real experience with Holy Water has been its use in vampire movies as a prop to fight the monsters. But I knew it was widely used by Cathoics and Eastern Orthodox Christians in their rites. I could see no biblical support for such a practice, so I was curious to see how it is justified. Wikipedia had some interesting answers.

Biblical References:

In the Old Testament, holy water is mentioned in Numbers 5:17, with regard to the preparation of the Bitter Water in the rite of the Jealousy Ordeal. Numbers 5:17 actually uses the phrase "holy water".
Other verses they may be used as reference for understanding the sacrament (not so much its effects) are Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 8:6; Exodus 30:17; Numbers 5:17; Numbers 8:5-7; 1 Kings 7:38-39; John 9:6-7; John 13:4-10; John 19:34
In John 9:6-7 we see Jesus using clay, spit, and the water of the "pool of Siloam" to heal a man. In John 13:4-10 Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles and seems to imply that the water cleanses. This event occurs right before the Last Supper, where Catholics believe that Jesus established the Eucharist and the Priesthood, thus John may be alluding to the rites described in the Old Testament (such as in Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 29:4, and Numbers 5:17)

Another View:

The use of holy water is based on the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the River Jordan, and the Orthodox interpretation of this event. In their view, John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, and the people came to have their sins washed away by the water. Since Jesus had no sin, but was God incarnate, his baptism had the effect not of washing away Jesus' sins, but of blessing the water, making it holy—and with it all of creation, so that it may be used fully for its original created purpose to be an instrument of life.

A very interesting view, to be certain. I still do not think there is any real Biblcal mandate for "Holy" water in Christian practice, but now at least it makes more sense to me. And I will admit I find the second quoted view to be quiet poetic and beautiful.

Woody Allen & Billy Graham

I had no idea this conversation ever took place. Proof that a Christian need not shrink back, even before the sharpest wit. Had tip to Boing Boing for finding this one.

Russia tries to turn back the clock on the Reformation

In this day and age, it is uncommon to hear about Christians persecuting other Christians. The Popes tend to talk about reconciliation rather than confrontation, ecumenical movements seek to minimize even honest doctrinal differences, and the major clash of religions discussed in most places is between Islam and Christianity.

But in Russia, it appears the prosecution of Christians by Christians is going strong, as Vladamir Putin's government looks to use the power of religion to strengthen the power of the state.

There was a time after the fall of Communism when small Protestant congregations blossomed here in southwestern Russia, when a church was almost as easy to set up as a general store. Today, this industrial region has become emblematic of the suppression of religious freedom under President Vladimir V. Putin.

Just as the government has tightened control over political life, so, too, has it intruded in matters of faith. The Kremlin’s surrogates in many areas have turned the Russian Orthodox Church into a de facto official religion, warding off other Christian denominations that seem to offer the most significant competition for worshipers. They have all but banned proselytizing by Protestants and discouraged Protestant worship through a variety of harassing measures, according to dozens of interviews with government officials and religious leaders across Russia.

How many times will Russia repeat the totalitarian cycle? America looks to "export freedom" to the Middle East, we need to remember that even in Europe freedom is not an irresistible march toward victory.

"Not My Ministry" Syndrome

Back in the 80s and 90s, there was a lot of talk in business about NIH Syndrome: Not Invented Here. Among companies, there was an unwillingness to accept change that came from the outside. Any approach or new idea that did not come from within the company was rejected out of hand, and often a perfectly good solution to a problem would be abandoned because it was not an in-house solution. Apple was particularly guilty of this, and got a lot of bad press for it. But as the decades waned, the companies willing to adopt outside ideas and acquire other companies grew and strengthened, and those who did not failed. Apple was the rare exception to survive, but that did so by overcoming "Not Invented Here" by embracing outside ideas like Intel Chips, a UNIX core, the Webkit engine, etc.

I have been observing over the last decade that evangelical churches have begun their own version of this that I call "NMM Syndome" -- Not My Ministry. Churches which have maintained successful ministries for decades are abandoning them because they were not the idea of any of the current pastoral staff. Current ministries which are successful - but done by the laity - are ignored and starved for funds and attention. And any ministry which has existed for more than 10 years is actively discouraged, unless it happens to be the baby of one of the current pastors, elders, or deacons. If it is "Not My Ministy" then it is inherently a bad thing. Even trends embraced by churches from the outside are no longer "Helping Women in Need", but now has to be branded as "Mary Smith's Outreach to Redeemed Women". Everything is about whose fingerprints are on a ministry, and not about the fruit it is brearing

I guess this is part of human nature. But why does the church embrace a way of thinking which has already been shown to be a failure in business? Are you seeing a similar trend at your church? Am I wrong and this is nothing new? Let me know in the comments below.

Good Friday

I always have a problem saying "happy Good Friday", because it's not really a happy day. So, instead I'll say that I hope you all celebrate Good Friday in a way that feels appropriate to the day.

RIP Larry Norman

Most of the writers on this blog grew up around the glow of the Christian music industry. Whether it was Petra, Steve Taylor or Geoff Moore and the Distance we were all fans of some Christian singer or group. On Sunday Larry Norman, the man most responsible for the development of what we now know of as the Christian music industry, died. While I never listened to a Larry Norman album and only heard him sing on a couple of occasions, I know of his impact because of the way those who grew up in his era remember him. Larry was a culturally relevant singer that had no qualms in singing or talking about Jesus to anyone or singing about the torture of seduction and yet his music was as good or even better than a lot of what was coming out in the 1970s. It's too bad his legacy, the Christian music industry, has become so culturally irrelevant and generally not as good as their mainstream counterparts.