Healing the Divisions of Religion?

Obama spoke today at the Notre Dame University commencement and was honored with an honorary law degree. I’m not sure exactly which act he has done that was being honored but he was honored nonetheless. Before being awarded his honorary degree, Obama was recognized with these words:

… The University of Notre Dame Confers the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on the 44th president of the United States, whose historic election opened a new era of hope in a country long divided by its history of slavery and racism. A community organizer who honed his advocacy for the poor, the marginalized and the worker in the streets of Chicago, he now organizes a larger community, bringing to the world stage a renewed American dedication to diplomacy and dialogue with all nations and religions committed to human rights and the global common good. Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.

Did you catch that last part? “Through his willingness to engage with those who disagree with him and encourage people of faith to bring their beliefs to the public debate, he is inspiring this nation to heal its divisions of religion, culture, race and politics in the audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.”

Since when are Christians interested in healing the divisions of religions and politics? Why should we be? I respectfully remind Notre Dame of the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Christ didn’t heal divisions – He made them and He didn’t water down His message to appeal to the masses. You’re either with Christ or you’re against Him (Matthew 12:30). Jesus didn’t just speak the truth, He was the Truth (John 14:6). To compromise on even one point on order to win converts would make the truth a lie. I could almost understand the argument that we need to give a hearing to different points of view. But do we have to honor them? Obama is perhaps the most militant, pro-abortion politician in Washington today. For a strongly Catholic and (supposedly) pro-life institution to award him an honorary degree should be a scandal.

And now there are some in the GOP who believe we should abandon our conservative principals and move the party toward “the center.” Excuse me? Do they mean we should be more like Obama? What exactly do they think the objective is: to win people or to win elections? I’m sorry but I don’t go for the Arlin Specter model of politics (“if you can’t beat them, join them”). I prefer to stand on my principals and try to win others to my point of view. If anyone is persuaded, great; if he refuses, then I continue without him.

“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14). In other words, there’s no room in the truth for a “big tent.”

Taking the Bible Literally

A complaint often leveled against believers in the Genesis account of creation is that we are hyper-fundamentalists that read the Bible “literally.” Usually, the people who make this claim call themselves Christians and even claim to believe the Bible. They just believe that Genesis is an allegory for creation given to the ancient Jews in a language they could understand.

Why do people believe Genesis is allegory? It’s because they have trusted the opinions of certain scientists over the word of God. Now remember, these “scientists” believe in a brand of science that dismisses the possibility of a miracle a priori on the grounds that miracles cannot be verified by science. In other words, they have dismissed the Genesis account because it’s not “scientific.” And if you look at the evidence determined to only find a natural explanation, you’re guaranteed to find one. Their natural-only explanations are theories like the Big Bang and evolution.

But not all people who believe in these natural explanations want to reject the Bible so they reinterpret the Bible to fit their personal worldview. Genesis says God created the universe in 6 days? No problem! It’s just a metaphor for what really happened. It’s a story meant to teach that God is the Creator. That’s all! There’s no need to take the Bible “literally”!

To back up their claim, they point to passages like 1 Samuel 2:8 that says, “for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.” Obviously, the earth doesn’t rest upon pillars so the Bible must be using a metaphor. Furthermore, some people will haggle over the meaning of the word “day” in the text. "A day can mean any number of things," they often say.

So, is there any merit to their arguments? In short – no! You see, the complaint that we read the Bible “literally” is really a straw man picture of what creationists believe. We don’t read the Bible “literally”; Rather, we read it as we do any other piece of literature (with the caveat that it was written by God). And yes, it uses literary devices like metaphor, analogy, simile, and personification. But just like any other book, most people don’t have trouble identifying what is what.

Consider the following sentences:

“I could eat a horse.”
“I rode a horse.”

Do you have any trouble understanding which statement is factual and which is hyperbole? I didn’t think you would. Most second graders can figure it out. So when we read the Bible, we don’t need an English professor (or Hebrew professor in the case of the original language) there to help explain to us which are factual statements and which are literary devices.

I sometimes am confounded at the mental gymnastics some people go through to deny the plain reading of the text. The danger in such a practice is the slippery slope phenomenon where everything we disagree with becomes metaphor. What’s next? Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead because that’s not scientific either? Look at these two verses:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” (Exodus 20:11).

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40).

Now, from a simple reading of these two verses, what makes one factual and one allegorical? All I can say it that some people want to believe one and not the other. So they force the words to say what they want them to say.

As to the word “day,” it’s true that the word can mean different things. Look at the following sentence:

“In my grandfather’s day, a man could ride a horse 40 miles a day, riding by day.”

There are 3 meanings of the word day in that sentence. Do you have any trouble figuring out what each one means. Again, I’m sure you can. I did a quick search on Biblegateway.com and saw the word day appears in the KJV 2,263 times. Why is it that ordinary people can figure out the meaning of the word everywhere else in the Bible except Genesis?!

In conclusion, I reject the notion that I or other creation-believing Christians read the Bible literally. I say we read the Bible and understand the plain meaning of the words. It seems to me it’s the people who make the claim we’re “literalists” that have trouble reading the Bible!

A Slippery Slope

We live in a society today full of compromise. Absolutes are for the narrow-minded. Morals are relative. Tolerance is the new gospel and being judgmental is a sin.

The recent break of a California diocese with the Episcopal Church is an example of the end result of decades of compromise. The tipping point in that case was over the roles of homosexuals in the Church. But a church body doesn’t just wake up one day and decide to overturn 2 millennia of doctrine; the decision to ordain openly gay bishops comes at the end of a growing influence of liberalism in the church.

An old saying is that people don’t trip over mountains - they trip over molehills. The first compromises are very small. A person might, for example, begin doubting something seemingly benign like the inerrancy of scripture. After all, the Bible was written almost 2 thousand years ago; how do we know mistakes haven’t crept in?

But then how can he know which parts of the Bible are God’s word. Anyone could say of any part of the Bible, “Well, I don’t know if that’s what Jesus really said.”

Next, he begins to let human wisdom trump God’s word. So, if evolution tells us that we descended from lower primates, then that must be how God created us. And God didn’t do it in 6 days; He did it over 16 billion years. I know what He said, but these “scientists” help me understand what He meant.

But then, if someone can’t understand the clear meaning of the words in Genesis, how can he really understand any part of the Bible? “You say that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but that’s just your interpretation.”

Then he begins to make bigger leaps. Was Mary really a virgin? To a liberal, it doesn’t really matter if Mary was a virgin. The importance of Jesus is what He said and did, not if He was born of a virgin.

And if Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, then He was really just a man like everyone else. He wasn’t Emmanuel, God with us. He was just a good teacher.

But hey, Jesus taught 2,000 years ago. It was a different world then. Perhaps the Bible says that women shouldn’t be pastors but that was just His society. And besides, the Bible’s been rewritten so many times I can’t believe it anyway. And Jesus certainly didn’t understand the importance of inclusion and tolerance. If Jesus were on earth today, He would not condemn homosexuals.

But God doesn’t condemn anybody anyway. Doesn’t the Bible say that God is love? How could a loving God send anyone to Hell?

And on and on it goes....

Have you ever heard anyone make any of these statements? It’s a dangerous road to travel when you begin doubting the Scriptures. I had a pastor who used to say that sin will take you farther than you ever intended to go, keep you longer than you ever intended to stay, and cost you more than you ever intended to pay.

We have to decide here and now where we draw the line. We have to say, “this far and no more.” The future of our country depends on it. We cannot start down that slippery slope.

What do they believe anyway?

I watched the GOP debate on CNN last night, well, most of it anyway. Some of the buzz leading up to it was about Mitt Romney being asked about his Mormon faith. Maybe he was asked but I must have missed that part. I did hear, though, a few other questions about the candidates' personal beliefs. One person asked what would Jesus do (WWJD) about the death penalty? Another person, holding up a Bible, asked about 5 times if the candidates believed everything in the Bible was true. And of course, in a previous debate, one person asked which of the candidates did not believe in in evolution.

As far as Romney is concerned, I have serious disagreements with Mormons on doctrine. If it came to choosing between a Mormon and a Christian candidate for President, with all other things being equal, I’d vote for the Christian. But Romney seems to be somewhat conservative on the issues even though his history on conservatism is a little spotted. I guess a Massachusetts Republican can’t be expected to be as conservative as those Republicans from, say, a more southern state. Heck, I’d take Democrat like Zel Miller over a MA Republican; I don’t use that little “R” after someone’s name as an excuse to vote for him. But between Romney and any current Democrat candidate, Romney wins hands down.

But I’m not here to talk about Romney today. I’m really a little more interested over this curiosity about the Republican candidates’ beliefs.

Why is it that the press (or “the drive-by media” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say) is only concerned about the religious beliefs of Republicans? We hear all this talk about the religious right; is there not a religious left? What aren’t more Democrat candidates asked about their personal beliefs? I think I already know the answer. The radical left does not have religious beliefs, unless you count militant atheism or secular humanism as a religion.

It’s funny to listen to non-religious people pretending to be Christians. When Howard Dean was asked which was his favorite book in the New Testament, he said, Job. Uh, Mr. Dean, Job is in the Old Testament. Likewise, when Al Gore ran for President, he said, “In my faith tradition, it is written in the book of Matthew, 'Where your heart is, there's your treasure also.'” I guess he’s never bothered to read Matthew 6:21 because he quoted it exactly backward. But then again, maybe he knew he quoted it backward but just assumed nobody would catch it since nobody really reads the Bible anyway.

Here’s a question I’d love to ask the Democrat candidates who claim to be Christians, “Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6), Do you believe that is true?” I predict their answers would spin around being "inclusive," "tolerant of others' beliefs," etc. To be a Christian literally means to be a follower of Christ. I can’t understand how these people rationalize their beliefs. Do they really believe they are Christians but just don’t believe any of that stuff in the Bible? They would benefit to read Luke 6:46, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Now if Democrats want to be atheists, agnostics, or (at the very least) irreligious, that’s they’re choice. But I think they should still stand up and voice their non-belief in the same way Republicans have to stand up and express their beliefs. The reason they don’t is simple – as much as they hate the religious right, they know that being non-religious or atheistic is far more unpopular among American voters. So, in spite of their contempt for Christians, they still like to play Christians on TV.

The New Bigotry

My name is Robert and I’m a Christian. There, I said it. Does it sound like I’m in an AA meeting? It feels that way sometimes. Some people think it’s more noble to say you’re a recovering alcoholic than a Christian.

Actually, anyone who’s carried on a conversation with me for more than a few minutes knows I’m a Christian so it’s not like I’m coming out of the closet with my Christianity. But I’ve noticed that, in society today, people seem like they would rather have Christians keep quite about what they believe. Being open about one’s belief automatically earns one the label of being an intolerant, fundamental, right wing, Christian zealot.

The funny thing is I guess I’m really all of those things. It’s kind of like hillbillies; they know they’re hillbillies, but they don’t like being called hillbillies by people who think there’s something wrong with being a hillbilly. When people call me a “right wing fundamentalist,” they’re not trying to describe me - they’re trying to insult me. Being called a “Christian” has become a pejorative term akin to being called a “racist.”

I sincerely believe the last bastion of discrimination that exists (that which can be expressed without fear of reprisal) is against Christians. If I made the comment, “blacks are weak minded,” I would earn the title of racist - and deservedly so because it’s a racist remark. However, in Playboy Magazine, Jesse Ventura, then Governor of Minnesota, said, “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” When asked about the outrageous comment, his spokesman, John Wodele, clarified that the Governor was only talking about the “extremists of the religious right.” Oh, thanks Governor for clarifying that. So I guess it’s only those people who sincerely believe that Jesus is God who are weak minded.

I think I know why people who aren’t religious hate Christians so much. It’s because they don’t like being told they’re wrong. The old saying is that there is safety in numbers; well I guess there’s comfort in numbers too. So a new catch-word has made its way into the vernacular – “tolerance.” People who disagree with Christianity stopped making the argument that it was wrong; they made the argument that it was “intolerant.” It’s OK to believe something, just don’t tell anyone he’s wrong if he doesn’t believe it too. In other words, we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. Jesse Ventura, in the same interview, said that religion, “tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.” That says it all.

It’s rather confusing when you think about it. The intolerant left says it’s OK for people to be Christians but if they believe anyone else is a sinner then the Christian is being intolerant. So the Christian is wrong for believing someone else is wrong. But doesn’t that mean the person who calls the Christian wrong is himself wrong because he called the Christian wrong?

Let me just say that I support any person’s right to be wrong. But believing a Christian is wrong for simply believing someone else is wrong is lunacy. There are people who hate Christians for no other reason than they don’t want to believe they are themselves wrong. It’s funny but sad that these people somehow think of themselves as enlightened and tolerant. Let’s just call them what they are – bigots.