"We're just plain gullible."

Not a lot of time to post this week... I just started a full-time job and my marriage is two months old, so I'm busy. But I thought I'd link to this article and leave a quick comment. I have a big-time post series coming up sometime soon, the kind of ideas that (for me) are faith-changing.

Many of you (the three people reading this) have probably heard of Todd Bentley and the enormous "revival" happening in Lakeland. Bentley has stepped down and his marriage is possibly ending. The change in opinion from the author of the above article is amazing. This pentecostal was convinced Todd Bentley was healing hundreds and then thinking it's all fake because of marriage problems.

What were you thinking before, J. Lee Grady? Everyone has personal problems; a broken marriage doesn't make Bentley's ministry a fake. There are plenty of other reasons.

Now, let me make this clear: Bentley's or anyone else's worship down there in Florida is no less legit than mine. Our worship pleases God by his grace, not by our attitude or orderliness or emotions or level of perfection of theology.

On the other hand, the reason Christians were buying into the healings was admitted freely and insightfully stated by J. Lee Grady: "We're just plain gullible."

I suppose it's just human nature to trust something that matches your ideology without thinking critically about it. But I have to admit I am amazed again and again the extent this is true for charismatic-minded believers. Some thoughts:

• The format of these "healings" were just silly. People would come up on stage, either claim to be healed or ask to be healed for this or that, Bentley would interrupt them mid-sentence and push them over, they'd be dragged off stage and you'd never see them again. Not exactly in view for all to examine.
  
  
• The "revival" really didn't demonstrate many people at all moving from "skeptical" about movements of the Spirit to "believers." Indeed most everyone who went down there was charismatic before they heard about it. The reason it was larger than the past was new MARKETING: internet marketing and broadcasts, specifically.
  
  
• The day that someone performs 1000s of legit healings in a couple months time, there will not be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands showing up. There will be MILLIONS. Millions and millions and millions. All the healings will not fade away into unverifiability within a week. They will be touring the talk show circuit, all over the newspapers, etc. The "secular media" will not be able to keep it under wraps but will have to embrace it. If this really happens, everyone will hear.
  
  
• Just because something appears, on the surface, to be a "healing" doesn't mean crap. Lots of things are hard to explain or appear miraculous that aren't. Think magic tricks.

I certainly believe God is capable and willing to do incredible, unexplainable things here and now. But I think, as Christians, it is imperative that we think critically and skeptically to separate what God's doing from what we're making up.

As for those eager for a new movement of the Spirit to overcome our world, I recommend reading this post.

Who is responsible?

At the end of Some “Evil” Thoughts, Joe posted a YouTube parody of the “Mythbusters” television show. In this video, two guys try to disprove God’s existence by testing the effectiveness of prayer. The video is a funny parody, but what caught my attention were these lines:


Jamie: Well the proof that most people cite is that they pray to God, and he answers their prayers.

Adam: Right, like uh when you pray for someone who’s really sick to get better.

Jamie: But that sick person may be getting better due to modern medicine, the skill of a surgeon, or just through their body’s natural healing.

Adam: Exactly, God could be claiming credit for stuff that he has nothing to do with.


I can respect the desire to perform a scientific experiment with controlled variables, but I think this video brings to light a wrong perspective our society (Christian and non-Christians alike) has about God.

Our tendency is to separate events into two categories:

1) caused by God
2) not caused by God

Only the most direct interventions into our world, such as the healing of a terminally ill person or the parting of the Red Sea, make it into the first category. Everything else falls into the second category, which itself has three subcategories: human causes, natural causes, and coincidences.

But if we look to the scriptures, we find a different perspective about God’s interaction with his creation. The Bible reveals to us that God is ultimately responsible for everything, from the rise and fall of civilizations to the provision of food for the birds.

Perhaps we are due for a change in our thinking. While events may appear to be due to human or natural causes, or even pure chance, ultimately God has his hand in all events. Therefore, we should praise him for all good things, and not look down upon the benefits of modern medicine and science, through which God brings healing. In the same manner, we must recognize that even our best treatments and scientific advances are only possible because God makes them possible. He is worthy of all our praise.

Some "Evil" Thoughts

I just got done commenting on a post at one of our favorite blogs, Beyond the Firmament. The post is titled The Problem of Evil. This is a tough topic for Christians and outsiders to Christianity to wrestle with. I definitely recommend reading Gordon's post. Here's some further thoughts on the subject from myself:

Philosophical debate about "the problem of evil" often proceeds with the deck stacked beforehand. We accept the assumption that there is nothing worse than physical pain, no possible result of an event worse than death.

But most cultures throughout history (including the cultures that gave us the Bible), have believed there are plenty of things worse than pain or death.

Our misunderstanding is commonly reflected in our Western understanding of the cross. How many Good Friday services have you been to that described in gruesome detail just how painful the crucifixion was, telling us how he had to push himself up with his feet to breathe, how much flesh was torn because of the cat of nine-tails, etc? Or how about Mel Gibson's passion movie? Talk about graphic violence.

Certainly Christ's death was extraordinarily painful. But I challenge you to find one statement in the New Testament that points out or emphasizes how excruciatingly painful his death was. You won't find one.

On the other hand, you will find statements all over the place about how Jesus was humbled/humiliated in his death. This is because Jesus' choice of humility over honor is much more significant to the Bible's original readers than his choice of pain over comfort. To them there are plenty of things worse than physical pain.

Furthermore, I have been reading straight through the Bible and am in the middle of Kings. And I have not found one tiny hint of concern for the afterlife or trembling fear of death that we in Western culture are obsessed with. We think of death as the worst possible result of life, but to the ancient Israelites, there were plenty of things more important than life's end, such as concern for your descendants. I think they were smarter than us, because eventually death comes for us all, no matter if it is soon or far off!

This leads to some problems for people who rely heavily on the certainty that there can't be a God because of evil in the world. Here's a typical YouTube from an atheist who shows pictures of starving children in Africa and challenges us to tell those kids there's a God.


Apparently these kids would have been better off never being born???? Chances are the kids already believe in God, so I don't have to tell them there is one. But I challenge an atheist like this one to go relate to those starving kids what is said in his/her video: If there was a just God, he would not have created you, because your life would be better off never happening. I'll go out on a limb and say the kids disagree.

Obviously, people suffering as a result of the unfair dealings of men is a tragedy that the church should be ashamed of not doing enough about, as that atheist rightly points out. But to argue that the presence of pain and death proves there is no God is to make two mistakes:

1. It devalues the lives of these starving children, because it diminishes the value of the very gift of life, telling starving kids that if there were any justice in the world they wouldn't have been born.

2. It wrongly imposes our attitude about what ultimately matters most on the majority of cultures in the world who didn't think like us at all. It's a philosophical arrogance to say that we know what's really bad and good compared to non-Western peoples.

Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of evil. That discussion is still a good conversation to have. But hopefully this post illustrates some problems with the debate as it's usually carried out.

The moral of the story? Leave the God-proving to the experts:

Book Review: The Language of God

In his book “The Language Of God,” Francis Collins addresses the question: “In this modern era... is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews?” If you are unfamiliar with Francis Collins, then allow me to enlighten you. Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, a thirteen year long project that involved thousands of scientists and lab technicians. This great endeavor culminated in the mapping of the entire genetic sequence of humans. Francis Collins mentions his involvement with the Human Genome Project throughout the book, but the project is not the focus of his writing. Instead, Collins hopes to enlighten his readers about the theory of evolution, its place in our understanding of life, and how it relates to our faith in God.

“The Language Of God” is divided into three main sections. The first section takes on an autobiographical feel as Collins describes his upbringing and early perspectives on religion. The second section focuses on the origins of the universe and life. Also included is a scientific explanation about DNA and genetics that is very accessible to the general reader. In the third section, Collins proceeds to outline the different perspectives about evolution and creation. The book ends with encouragements for Christians and atheists to recognize both the capabilities and limitations of science, as well as the place of faith in our lives.

I picked up this book expecting a detailed explanation of how genetic evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation of the diversity of life that exists today. Collins certainly delivers in that respect, and in ways that are very accessible to someone without a doctorate in genetics. However, there is more than scientific jargon bound between these pages. Reflections on his own faith journey are a valuable insight into how the reader can begin to incorporate these concepts about genetics, evolution, and the origins of the universe into his own understanding of scientific theory and spiritual belief. Collins reveals the shortcomings of both atheism and Intelligent Design and eloquently provides the reader with a third option that compromises neither the theory of evolution nor a belief in God.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the evolution/creation debate, regardless of your current position or religious attitude. Collins speaks to both the ardent atheist and the devout believer. There are words on these pages for both the mind and the heart, a pair too often in conflict, which Collins challenges the reader to reconcile in harmony.

Inerrancy: Does God tell the truth?

In my last post, I mentioned that I completely trust the scriptures in matters of doctrine (a collection of beliefs) and ethics. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? This is the matter of inerrancy: the idea that the scriptures are completely free of any error in regards to all matters of history, chronology, and science.

Most evangelical Christians would contend that the scriptures are inerrant. Usually, this belief is founded upon the concept that God cannot deceive, and that any error in the “Word of God” would be an intentional deception by God. There are certainly passages in the Bible that assert its veracity, but I think these passages are communicating about the infallibility of the scriptures, how the scriptures reveal the definitive truth to humanity about Jesus Christ and our relationship to him, and not the historical, chronological, or scientific data of the scriptures.

I think this because it only makes sense in context of the intended message of the scriptures. For several posts, Joe and I have been discussing the importance of viewing the scriptures as our greatest tool for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and what he means for our lives. If this is the central point around which all the scriptures orbit, then I am inclined to think that anytime a passage in the Bible mentions the truthfulness of the “Word of God,” the message is that the Bible is our only truthful source for understanding Jesus Christ (not history, chronology, or science).

At times the Bible is a history book, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Certainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are biographies and thus have a historical component. I do not think that these books are wrought with errors. On the contrary, I think they communicate accurately about very particular events in history, but not because of a special act by God.

I think that all the historical, chronological, and scientific information in the scriptures is information that the human authors already possessed through their own experience and research. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect in these matters, so there may be historical, chronological, and scientific errors in the scriptures.

I do not think this is a deception by God because I believe that God’s primary role in the creation of the scriptures was the inspiration (the granting of insight into divine truth and wisdom for applying divine truth) of the human authors. I do not believe God granted the authors access to special information regarding history, chronology, or science. Instead, God allowed the authors to use what they had learned through normal experience to communicate his messages to people.

So the historical and chronological information in the Bible is no more or less accurate than most historical and chronological information that we possess. But what about scientific information? Over the past 2,000 years our understanding of the natural world has changed drastically. It can be difficult to find reconciliation between the scriptures and current scientific theories… but it is not impossible.

Trading in fortune cookies for Biblical understanding (3/3)

(This is part 3 of 3 of a series on Biblical exegesis. If you haven't yet, please read parts 1 and 2 before reading part 3.)

If we take the Bible seriously by reading large portions at a time, trying to understand the gist of entire books, connecting each sentence to the one before it, etc., we may not agree on exactly what it’s saying, but we will have a more truly Biblical basis less corrupted by our own philosophy and agenda. God’s Spirit will work through this understanding to further add to our understanding of Jesus Christ as God.

Here are some practical steps we can take:

Get some decent background materials to fill you in on the world the Biblical authors were writing in. One I’m reading right now is Introducing the Old Testament by John Drane. I’m loving this book. It is written from a scholarly perspective but is not hostile to Christianity. It is honest about when books were likely written, the accuracy of the early stories of Israel’s history, etc.

Ultimately, I recommend purchasing a copy of the International Bible Society’s “Books of the Bible” and making it your regular reading Bible. Besides having great book introductions and a more sensible book order, it gets rid of all the numbers and inserts more thoughtful passage breaks, making it natural and easy to read the Bible with the intention of figuring what you’re reading is actually about.

Most people I present this idea to contend that the reference advantage of chapters and verses are too advantageous to shirk, but “Books of the Bible” still keeps the numbers in the corner so that you can find the general area. What it does do is force you to see the context in which the passage being referenced is in. What a shame!

Since I have started using “Books of the Bible” I started a full read-through of the book and am currently in the middle of Kings. My understanding of Genesis-Samuel has increased ten-fold by reading this Bible.

No matter what the solution, though, it is time to trade in our fortune cookies for a true understanding of the Bible, if we want the good book to direct our faith in Jesus.

A final note: Will I be citing scripture on this site?

I make it my goal at this point to never cite scripture in the format “Book #:##,” even if I’m talking to someone in person. Instead, I’d rather say, “In the middle of Book X, when Character X is doing Y, the prophet Z says to him, ‘blah blah blah blah.’” Not only will this force me to recognize the context of the scripture I am sharing, but it will force the person I’m talking to to think about where the verse is coming from as well.

I intend to employ the same strategy on this blog.

Trading in fortune cookies for Biblical understanding (2/3)

(This is part 2 of a 3 part series on reading the Bible. Please read part 1 if you haven't yet.

In the last post, I talked about why reading the Bible in short bursts (a verse, a paragraph, or a chapter at a time) doesn’t make a lot of sense, as the Bible is 66 books and not 31,000 Bible verses. I said that we’re not getting a clear picture of what the Bible is about this way.

But if we’re not learning what’s truly in the Bible, what are we learning?

Without strong training and concentration, our understanding from a typical Bible comes not from the Bible itself, but from our own experiences, our own theology, or some random thought that pops into our heads.

I have heard a lot of people refer to this as “leaving room for the Spirit” to teach. But that’s silly. In helping understand the Bible, the Spirit should be working in cooperation with the books, not apart from or against them.

I’m not speaking purely on minor points. I would argue that 80% or more of what a Bible reader learns actually comes from what he already knows about theology and his/her own ideas/experiences that he/she remembers as he/she reads the Bible, not from what the Bible is actually teaching.

So what am I saying, that the whole of Christian understand and teaching is totally wrong?

The odd thing about all this is that of course God’s Spirit still works mightily as we read the Bible in any form. A few posts ago I referenced Woodrow Kroll’s “Back to the Bible” radio program, saying it sometimes has very little to do with getting back to the Bible. I said that because Mr. Kroll will sometimes talk about one verse of the Bible for an entire teaching. What does that have to do with understanding the Bible?

Some might portray this as a high respect for the Bible, positing that every verse has a wealth of wisdom for it. The truth is this: That’s absolute nonsense. If you want to show a high respect for the Bible, read everything the author had to say instead of one sentence. Reading one or two sentences like Kroll sometimes does on “Back to the Bible” does not teach us the Bible authors’ agendas. Instead what we get from “Back to the Bible” is teaching on Mr. Kroll’s theology, life experience, and wisdom.

And here’s the tricky part: I still appreciate Kroll as a man of strong, ethical and wise faith in God, and he has a lot of meaningful things to say that God’s Spirit works through him to provide. So why complain, right?

I have to complain because of the potential misuse this kind of “Bible teaching” leaves us open to. Sure, Woodrow Kroll is a nice guy, but what about the people who argue that the Bible says ”God hates fags”? Or what about the people who argue the Bible says that the heavy beat of Christian and secular rock music make it inherently evil? What can someone like Kroll say to them?

He’d probably say they’re taking the Bible out of context. This is the catch-all phrase to denounce someone else’s “Biblical” belief. But we need to stop using this phrase until we ourselves start taking the Bible more seriously as a piece of literature. The sad, sad truth is that most Bible readers are taking the Bible out of context in the same exact manner as those they denounce. The reason it seems better when we do it is because our message our is positive and loving, or because our message fits in with a more mainstream doctrine. And although that doctrine may have come from the Bible originally, as we study the Bible, we usually rely on the doctrine instead of its source.

Skeptics are starting to catch on and are unfortunately reading the Bible with cynical, misguided views about whether or not the Bible’s God is truly loving, rational and forgiving, which he is. If we do not start reading the Bible in true context these problems will only escalate!

In the next post, I will give some suggestions about how we can better read and teach the Bible.