Good with or without God

I normally don't fuss with nontheists like those at the United Coalition of Reason, because in many ways I can sympathize with their skepticism. In a world like ours today, I can understand why nontheism would be attractive to people who exalt reason to the highest place. In our culture, faith is often associated with extremism, hate, and ignorance.

However, these ads popping up all over the subways here in Boston are obnoxious. So, I felt compelled to respond with an ad of my own.

It's almost as if these nontheists intend to imply that millions of people can't be wrong. But this is not as wise an argument as they might presume. If vast numbers make a solid argument, the billions of religious believers around the world would put the argument for faith far out in front.

E.T. & God

The Vatican is interested in knowing whether it is possible scientists will discover other intelligent life in the universe.

CNN covered the story and asked some interesting questions.

One question this search evokes is: What would the discovery of extra-terrestrial life mean for Christianity?

Gary Bates, of Creation MInistries International, is quoted by CNN as saying,

"My theological perspective is that E.T. life would actually make a mockery of the very reason Christ came to die for our sins, for our redemption."

Likewise, Father Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory, was asked for his thoughts and this is what was reported by the Catholic News Service:

"When asked whether God would have to be incarnated elsewhere if there were intelligent life on another planet, Father Funes recalled the parable of the lost sheep.

God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was a singular and 'unique event not only in human history but in the history of the universe and the cosmos,' he said."

So, what are your thoughts?

What would E.T. mean for your faith?

Would the discovery of other life in the universe adversely affect the message of the Gospel delivered in God's word?

Must humanity be unique in the universe?

FlashForward and the Openness of the Future

My friend Jimi hipped me to the existence of a new TV series called "FlashForward." When he explained the premise, I was so immediately interested that I am now caught up in the season after only one night (which is at episode 7 as of this post).

Here is a summary of the show's premise from Wikipedia:

A mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds, during which people see what appear to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future - a global “flash forward”. A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Fiennes), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford contributes a unique perspective on the investigation; in his flashforward, he saw the results of six months of investigation that he had done on the flashforward event, and he and his team use those clues to recreate the investigation.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flash forward, including "Suspect Zero," who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flashforwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpected or surprising revelations in their flashes forward.

Determinism and Freedom are rarely as overtly and prominently featured in a television series as they are on FlashForward. It is also equally (if not more) rare that a philosophical subject such as this is combined with such excellent writing and acting.

So far, while it is clear many of the characters hold a fatalistic view of the future, it is obvious that the openness of the future is a given in the FlashForward universe---as it should be.

In the most recent episode, a character speaks of the future saying this:

"[The future] is no longer going to unfold as I had feared. My gift to you is release from… the feeling that you're no longer in control. The future is unwritten. Make the most of it."

I'll continue to watch and perhaps write more updates of any significant developments.

White Jesus Wrote the Constitution

There is so much wrong with this painting, I hardly know where to begin. To address only a fraction of its mistakes, misrepresentations, and theological inaccuracies would require a blog series I honestly don't have time to write. But I couldn't resist the urge to publicly condemn this painting as the nationalistic idolatry that it is, in contrast to the true faith of Jesus-followers all over the world. Here are just three things I'd like to point out:

1) White Jesus

The artist who painted this painting, answers what he calls "liberal criticism" on the page where the painting is displayed. The first criticism he addresses is the depiction of Jesus as European/Caucasian. He responds,

"I don't pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would be instantly recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way."

This is so poor an excuse for this categorical fallacy, it does not even deserve to be considered a response. The entire painting is a political statement, complete with crying supreme court justices and "heroic" soldiers. Yet, he claims his reasoning behind intentionally misrepresenting Jesus' human ethnicity is merely for "recognition." He is clearly deluded or deceptive. Furthermore, there is no lack of evidence for Jesus' human ethnicity in the Bible, nor his physical features. Is there really any debate among Christians whether or not Jesus was a Palestinian Jew? Further still, would not a man with darker, more Middle Eastern facial features, dressed in white and gold robes and with a glowing halo REALLY be unrecognizable as Jesus??

2) "Founding Fathers"

Like so many ignorant American Christians, this artist also believes the myth that the United States was founded by Christians. This is patently false and has been so thoroughly refuted it should not need to be brought up again! Right-wing conservative evangelicals in America are among the worst at rewriting history to have them in it. Its like when someone from High School remembers you but you don't remember them, and they say you were good friends. Its sad really.

3) War, Violence and Jesus

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this painting is congruent with one of the most disturbing aspects of Americanized Christianity. This is its endorsement and advocacy for violence and war, often even invoking Christ's name. The artist here honors several soldiers who represent those who fought and killed in wars ranging from the Revolutionary War against Britain to the Vietnam War. (The absence of a representative for Gulf War and Iraq Veterans is highly conspicuous.) The glorification of war by conservative Christians in America is nothing new nor is it particularly surprising. However, what does strike me as very telling, is the artist depiction of the Civil War soldier crying. The caption explains that this is the only war where "brother fought against brother." This is very telling because, of course, the Revolutionary War was fought against a "Christian nation" …Britain. So, here, the author betrays his deep-seated view that in his mind brotherhood is derived from common citizenship in an earthly kingdom as opposed to the citizenship in God's kingdom that redemption supplies in Christ. The Colonial soldiers who were professing Christians and killed fellow professing Christians from Britain didn't kill their brothers. They just killed enemies. By contrast, white, slave-holding Southerners who did not profess Christ but killed Northern soldiers who also did not profess Christ as Lord, killed their brothers because of their common American-ness. Interesting, isn't it?

Space and time does not permit me to conduct as thorough a refutation of all this painting's errors (both theologically and historically) as I would like. But suffice to say this painting is a clear representation of the Americanized and bastardized "Christianity" that is imagined all too often by conservative evangelicals in this country. It is not based on Scripture and it is nationalistic idolatry.

PS - Shout out to Greg Boyd for exposing this painting on his blog

Peace.

Vince Campbell Further Debunks the Myth of Christianity as "Western Religion"

I was so very proud to see my friend and former CUME comrade Vince Campbell featured on Prof. Soong-Chan Rah's blog recently. Vince flew through the program at CUME and went on to Princeton and is now working toward a PhD at Catholic University. I can't wait to start seeing his writing published!

In this particular post, Vince provides some brief but poignant glimpses of African Christian history. I strongly recommend not only reading this piece but keeping an eye out for Vince in the coming years as a powerful and important emerging voice!

John Piper: Weather Oracle

Wednesday, tornadoes caused a great deal of damage in the Twin Cities (where both John Piper and Greg Boyd pastor churches.) As we have seen in the past, these two pastors often have very different interpretations of events that occur in their proverbial backyard. This event is no different. Informed by either his deterministic theological framework (as is the case for Piper), or by his open theological framework (as is the case for Boyd), each pastor arrives at very different conclusions regarding the tornadoes' destruction-causing touchdowns.

What does make this disaster different (at least for Piper) is the tornadoes' appearance during the conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA). Due to the fact that one of the issues the ELCA was slated to discuss was the denomination's stance on homosexuality, Piper boldly claims the destructive storms are God's work. Calling it "Providence" (with a capital P), Piper "ventures an interpretation."

According to Piper,

"The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin."

Thankfully, Greg Boyd responded to Piper's post today on his blog. Boyd's response brings a much-needed rational, Christ-centered perspective to the incident. Boyd makes several very important points that are important for us to read.

You can read Boyd's response HERE.

Crosswalk.com Apparently Allows Only Ignorant Comments

Dr. Soong-Chan Rah was recently interviewed about his book The Next Evangelicalism by Crosswalk.com. When I read the comments left by "readers," I was amazed by the level of ignorance they display. One commenter's remarks particularly caught my attention. He calls himself "metaphysicalmike," and this is the comment he left:

"This is like our Constitution is a living and breathing document - wrong. The Bible is not either. I have been a member of many churches and have yet to find one that is really directing itself to be a captive white church. Some of the churches have tried to attract non-whites to the church by offering alternative services and Sunday school classes, etc., but without a minority minister it doesn't seem to work. This article misses the mark. It is not the evangelism that misses the target, but the fact that the cultures are different and as in regular life society the two have not yet meshed into one society, but are made up of many small ones each with distinct differences. Further this article only seems to point out that there are differences, but not what can be done to change the system. Without the constructive part of the criticism showing what needs to be done and how it can be done does not offer much other than criticism which detracts further from bringing the groups together."

While the comment by "metaphysicalmike" has been allowed to remain visible for over a week, my comments posted last night were immediately removed.

"@metaphysicalmike: Your comment is alarmingly ignorant and defensive. Why Rah's thesis concerning the church evokes from you the need to share your political bent is beyond odd. And even though it is grossly off-topic, you are flatly wrong about the Bible. Hebrews tells us explicitly that the Scriptures are "living and active." However, what is worse is, when you arrive back at the relevant topic of Rah's book, you clearly demonstrate you are not a bit more informed. You assume you can judge Rah's thesis based on this single interview alone. You obviously have not touched the book, let alone read it, but yet you consider yourself qualified to condemn it. This is a sad mistake.

Moreover, you display a seriously unfortunate lack of understanding of the New Testament. There have been few cultures in recorded history with less in common than the Hebrews and the Hellenists, yet it is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that God's mission was to unite the disparate peoples of the first-century in Christ. So much so that Paul's journeys and exploits to do this very thing make up the majority of the these 27 books.

Are we any different? Has the mission of God ceased since Acts? Is not God's redemptive purpose still to call out from among all the nations one bride of Christ? Or do you supposed that the scene in heaven which John describes omits the necessary segregating compartments of God's throne-room? Are American Christians exempt from the duty of all believers to reflect the heavenly worshipping reality that it is God's dream to manifest?

One third of _The Next Evangelicalism_ is devoted to strategies for combating the rift between American Christians of diverse ethnicity. Three chapters. Since you have not actually read the book, you wouldn't know that."

I have written to Crosswalk.com and will update this blog post if I get a response:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing regarding comments that have been removed and allowed to remain on a recent interview conducted by and posted on Crosswalk.com. The interview was with Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, author of _The Next Evangelicalism_. Several comments left by readers are ignorant and unhelpful to anyone, yet they are allowed to remain. However, comments I posted addressing and correcting their ignorance were removed.

If Crosswalk.com desires to be a place where people are free to post ridiculous, and unhelpful comments, while also censoring those of us who actually have read Dr. Rah's book, then Crosswalk.com will not be a place that attracts and keeps an intelligent and helpful readership.

Please either remove the ignorance that is currently displayed or repost the comments I left addressing and correcting the ignorance.

T. C. Moore"