Terry Jones and American Christianity

It's been a long time since I've written anything remotely theological at this blog but today I felt compelled to quickly discuss the Terry Jones Qur'an burning issue. And to be even more amazing, I am responding to something I read by my arch-nemesis Dan Phillips at Pyromaniacs, whose blog "Biblical Christianity" is often just another anti-Obama boilerplate. Surprisingly I agree with Dan on this issue:

According to associate pastor Wayne Sapp — yes, evidently a church with around 50 people has an associate pastor; go figure — said that God told them to do it.

"God is leading us right up to the moment. It's no different than Abraham and his son. God didn't tell him, 'Go right up to the point where you might sacrifice him.' He wanted him to be fully committed. We're prepared to do what we're called to do."

As a Reformed Christian, I believe the Bible clearly teaches Sola Scriptura - that the Bible contains all that Christians need to know about God, about the Christian faith, and about how to live their lives. Dan Phillips, despite his own political baggage (which means that he somehow thinks that Social welfare policies are forbidden by scripture; go figure) hits the nail right on the head at this point:

God told them to do it, then God told them not to do it. But when God told them to do it, they built in the wiggle that God might change His mind. Yet then when God tells them not to do it, there is no wiggle-room: "Not today, not ever. We're not going to go back and do it." Sounds final. Nice that "God" seems to have settled His mind on the issue, finally (I speak as a leaky-Canoneer).

.........

Let's be more specific: the Wayne Grudem type of Charismatics — and everyone who gives Grudem cover — "own" Pastor Jones.

How so? They give Jones cover by their desperate re-defining and Clintoning-down of the Biblical gift of prophecy. What is prophecy, to Grudem? He explains it as the errant reporting of inerrant revelation. It is precisely like the old liberal redefinition of Biblical inspiration: the writers of Scripture received inerrant inspiration from God, but they wrote it down errantly. Grudem simply transfers this to NT prophets, instead of the writers of Scripture: they give errant reporting of spontaneous inerrant revelation. The message they receive is right, but it may be garbled in transmission.

And that is the issue. When Christians focus upon what God is supposedly trying to say to them, they often forget what God is actually saying. When a Christian spends his or her life trying to discern the Holy Spirit's secret messages via their own faulty radio transceiver, they will forget what God is trying to actually say in the Spirit inspired Word of God.

In many ways the Jones kerfuffle is no different from Christians who try to discern what special plan God has for them, while forgetting the most obvious plan of eternal life through Christ. In the end it is a reliance upon the subjective, which is interpreted and acted upon according to the amount of power that person has. If shut-in Joe Bloggs from dumpsville felt compelled to burn Qur'ans then no one would care; but a pastor with power over people in his church, that's a different issue.

So Dan Phillips is right, even though he's terribly and embarrassingly wrong on so many other issues. God can certainly speak through an Ass.

More on Evangelicals and Global Warming

A comment I made here:

I suppose my point is about urgency and common sense. If a man is tied to rail tracks and a train is approaching, do you a) untie him or b) preach the gospel to him? Obviously you would do the first, then hopefully the second.

Global Warming has come about because of sin. Mankind has not looked after the earth that God left him to be steward over. Ultimately the answer to this sin is the preaching of the gospel, but there does need to be some "untying from the railway tracks" as well.

Sadly, many evangelical Christians have been convinced of the sceptic argument - a far greater proportion than the rest of society (probably due to their links with conservative politics). They have essentially "backed the wrong horse" to use a racing metaphor. They are tightening the ropes of the man on the railway tracks while preaching the gospel to him. Not a good situation to be in.

When environmental disaster strikes, and millions do die, will unbelievers see evangelical Christians as rescuers from the disaster or enablers of the disaster?

Abortion laws caused the Victorian fires

Well this is a novel concept:

“Yesterday (Monday 9th February 2009), the front page of the Herald Sun newspaper reported “The Darkest hour for Victoria”. A few months ago the news media should have reported “The darkest hour for the unborn” but unfortunately the “Decriminalization of Abortion bill” went through parliament and was passed, thus making many people call Victoria ‘the baby killing state of Australia,’” Mr (Danny) Nalliah said.

He said on November 7 last year we had sent out an email to our national network and a posting on our website (www.catchthefire.com.au) carried an urgent post titled, ‘STOP PRESS. URGENT PRAYER NEEDED REGARDING AUSTRALIA, ESPECIALLY THE STATE OF VICTORIA’ following a dream he had on the 21st of October 2008, which he shared with his team on 22nd October.

Following is an excerpt from the dream which was published in the article.

“In my dream I saw fire everywhere with flames burning very high and uncontrollably. With this I woke up from my dream with the interpretation as the following words came to me in a flash from the Spirit of God.

That His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.”

“We at CTFM have spent the last few days in prayer and weeping, watching the news and learning that more than 170 people have perished and more than 750 houses have gone up in flames with much property and personal belongings of people all wiped out within hours,” he said.

”Australia is based on Judeo-Christian values. How far have we as a nation moved from these principles instilled in our nation’s inception. How much does it take for a nation to return to God? The Bible is very clear, if you walk out of God’s protection and turn your back on Him, you are an open target for the devil to destroy.

“Can we stop the fires? Yes we can! But it will take God’s children to rally together and repent and cry unto Him as in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (The Holy Bible). We at CTFM have seen this happen several times in the past in Australia, which was also covered by many mainstream media outlets.”

*Sigh*. What can I say? This is exactly the sort of thing that gets my goat up.

You see, the reason is that I am an evangelical Christian. It's there in the blog title. To read how I became a Christian, click here. For a detailed explanation of my opinion on abortion (I am generally pro-life but with important differences to most pro-lifers), click here.

I've included those links in the previous paragraphs to point out to you all the substance of what I believe because I am about to give Nalliah a real serve about what he has done.

Many of you, I am sure, can remember back to the dim dark days following 9/11. One thing you might remember is when evangelical leader Jerry Falwell said this:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Of course, such a statement was made during a time of great grief and anger and Falwell later apologised for it, though it was one of those "I'm sorry you feel this way" apologies.

Danny Nalliah's recent comments are similar in tone. They blame a disaster upon the presence of moral evil within society. So, in Falwell's case, it was Paganism + Abortion + Homosexuality = God removing His protection = Terrorists destory the World Trade Center. In Nalliah's case, it is Victorian Abortion Laws = God removes His protection = Fires that kill nearly 200 people.

I'm not going to approach this from the typical perspective (ie the guy's statement is insensitive and shows how horrible he is) because that is a given in this case. No, I'm going to approach this from a Christian and Biblical perspective, to show from that perspective how wrong he is.

Central to Nalliah's belief is his interpretation of 2 Chronicles 7.14, which says:

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (ESV)

I've included verse 13 in that quote to show you exactly what is going on. This is a statement by God made to King Solomon after the temple has finally been dedicated. What we see here are two very important things:

1. God is speaking to King Solomon.
2. God is speaking about the nation of Israel.
   

Now the thing about interpreting the Bible is to ensure that you don't misinterpret words or commands. The Bible is not a magical quote machine. You don't open the Bible up and point at a random verse looking for direct guidance. When the Bible is being read, it needs to be read according to its literary genre, which is often quite plain.

There's the great story of someone who opens the Bible and plunks his finger down to find the verse "Judas hung himself". Confused, he then opens it again and plunks his finger down again. This time the verse says "Go and do likewise". Is God ordering him to commit suicide? Or is the man being stupid?

So when Danny Nalliah comes to this passage what does he assume?

1. God is speaking to Australians.
   
2. God is speaking about Australia.
   

Now that is a really long bow to draw. When Nalliah says that abortion causes deadly bushfires he is saying that the "land" in 2 Chronicles 7.13-14 is Australia. But it isn't. The land is Israel. Moreover, you can't make the association without doing violence to the text. Ancient Israel was, according to the Bible, God's special people who lived in the land God gave them under the rules that God gives in the Old Testament. But when we read the Old Testament we discover that God has chosen to create a "New Covenant" because Israel has broken the old one. This "New Covenant" is explained by the Apostles of Jesus as faith in Christ. In other words, Israel as God's special people has been replaced by the Church. This idea is called supersessionism and is found in places like Galatians 3.29, which says:

if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

"If you are Christ's" = being a Christian.
"Abraham's Offspring" = the nation of Israel.
"heirs of the promise" = the promise God made to Abraham and Israel also applies to Christians.

Therefore, the concept of "Israel" post-Christ is no longer a political and geographical entity, but a "spiritual nation" that is the universal church.

When it comes to reading 2 Chronicles, therefore, we can interpret it to mean that Israel's relative safety has a lot to do with their covenant keeping. If Israel does not keep the covenant, God will take away his protection from them. That is very clear from the passage. Yet what we see in the Old Testament is God's covenant people NOT keeping the covenant, and disaster befalling them as a result (including political division, invasion and eventual exile by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires).

But does the passage mean the same today? If Australia were to, for example, outlaw abortion, homosexuality and paganism, would God bless us with prosperity and happiness and spiritual utopia? But what if Australia did not do this? Are we going to be visited by more fires and earthquakes and terrorists attacks if we don't outlaw abortion, homosexuality and so on? No. Of course not. For the passage to be applicable today, the "Israel" ("land") spoken to in 2 Chronicles 7 is replaced not by the nation of Australia, but by the church. It is the church who will suffer if they do not keep the covenant, not Australia, not Britain, not America.

Of course, supersessionism (and, by implication, Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology) is not always held by Christians, meaning that Nalliah is probably one of those who still place some level of emphasis upon Israel.

Yet there remains a real problem with Nalliah's understanding of how God blesses people. Western Europe is one of the most secular places in the world, with liberal abortion laws and societal acceptance of them. What disaster has befallen Europe? Even considering the latest financial distress, Western Europe is one of the safest and most prosperous places in the world, and they do that without honouring God. You can say the same thing about Japan, which is full of non-Christians and non-Christian thinking. Conversely, Ireland, where abortion is illegal, is collapsing economically. Moreover, nations with very conservative abortion laws are often developing nations whose economy and society have not necessarily been improving because of their "godly" abortion laws. In other words, there is no actual empirical evidence which suggests that nations who have outlawed abortion are socially and materially superior than those who allow abortion.

There is in eastern philosophy the concept of Karma. This idea has been appropriated and distorted by Western culture and has also infiltrated the church including, I might add, the thinking of evangelical leaders like Danny Nalliah. This Westernised bastardisation of Karma can be best described as "what goes around comes around". In other words, a person who does bad things will experience bad things in return. So when Nalliah says "the state of Victoria allows Abortion, so God takes away His protection and Victoria suffers bushfires" (my paraphrase), he is merely repeating the bastardised, western idea of Karma and applying it to Christianity (syncretism).

The reality is that rain falls on the good and bad alike (Matthew 5.45). Moreover, Jesus points this out in Luke 13.1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (ESV)

What Jesus is saying here is that those who suffered particular horrible deaths did not suffer so because of some particular sin in their lives. He also points out that judgement is universal and that everyone should repent - from the worst sinner to the least sinner. In conjunction with my critique of Nalliah's beliefs, Jesus' words here completely negate Nalliah's understanding of 2 Chronicles 7 while reinforcing my argument that the 2 Chronicles passage can only be applied today in reference to the church (eg 1 Corinthians 11.30).

One thing which I have not addressed here is Nalliah's "vision of fire" which he believed was a message from God reinforcing this idea that Victorian abortion laws = God removing His protection = deadly bushfires. All I can say is that even the Prophet Jeremiah heard this from God:

"The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.

Ironically, this quote (from Jeremiah 14.13-16), is one of those passages in which God portends suffering and judgement for Israel for not keeping his covenant. In the context of what I have been arguing, such a passage speaks volumes for today's church who follow dreamers like Danny Nalliah rather than following the Word of God. Nalliah may be rightly concerned about abortion, but his dreams and his erroneous interpretation of the Bible have led him to say things which have hurt the families of the dead and injured while simultaneously bringing disrepute to the church and to God. I call on Danny Nalliah to repent.

What's driving American Evangelicalism?

I must yet again reiterate my adherence to the Christian faith in the manner described commonly by many as "evangelical". Not only do I believe such antiquated documents like the Westminster Confession and not only I believe that Christianity is the only one and true religion (all others being wrong) but I also believe in such things as the Bible being inerrant, sufficient, etc etc etc.

But being an evangelical seems to be getting harder by the day. Not because I somehow think that there's evil ungodly atheists or Darwinists out there who are going to destroy the world - they're hardly going to do much anyway. No. What makes it hard being an evangelical these days is the actions of other evangelicals.

My goodness I sound judgemental... but hey, evangelicals are for truth so let me just say that there seems to be this really worrying group of STUPID, RUDE and DESTRUCTIVE people who have the same faith in Christ that I have and with whom I will share eternity.

The car above illustrates this. It was photographed only in the last few days by someone who had just seen Religioulous at a movie theatre in Florida, so it was oddly appropriate for him to photograph it.

The vehicle is a four-wheeled stereotype. Everything people can identify with modern evangelicalism can be found on the stickers: Pro-Republican, pro-life, anti-homosexual, anti-evolution and willing and ready to propagate political rumours.

For most of my Christian life I have railed against the "Christian Subculture" - the inward looking, controlling, commodification of the Christian faith. At the age of 19 I was going to Christian bookshops and shaking my head at the trinkets, paraphernalia and bad music. I would pick up books outlining various government conspiracies and the spread of witchcraft, as well as books that promised healing and happiness and new breakthroughs in Christian living. 20 years later and things haven't changed - I walked into a Christian bookshop 12 months ago and felt ill at what I saw.

As a movement, Evangelicalism, especially in the US, has morphed into an aggressive, threatening and controlling movement. "The world" is no longer seen as souls that can be won over by good people preaching the gospel, but as enemies that need to be disciplined, controlled or vanquished.

This has come at the expense, I believe, of biblical literacy and careful analysis. The fact that a bunch of Christians could pray at the Wall Street Bull and not realise the irony of their actions is one indication of a lack of biblical understanding. The fact that Christians can and will easily fall for rumours and false stories of people they feel are "enemies" indicates a lack of spiritual maturity. The fact that Christians can argue that free market capitalism and the US Constitution are virtually mandated by God shows a social and economic syncretism.

The car above is an example of what I am speaking of. If you wish, you can download the big version here (1.5mb) and you will be able to see some of the detail.

For me, perhaps the most problematic stickers are located on the far right of the bumper bar. The first sticker shows a Christian "fish" eating a Darwinist "fish" with the title "survival of the forgiven". Ignoring for the moment the issue of evolution, the sticker itself is almost a declaration of war. The Christians are "eating" the fearful Darwinists. It has an aggressive tone to it that is quite different to that found in the New Testament. New Testament Christians are called upon to love their enemies, to turn the other cheek, to walk two miles those who force you to walk one mile.

The second problematic sticker is the one which shows the sad face with the words "My life before Jesus", then the smiley face "My life after Jesus" and the words "any questions?". This communicates a terribly false idea of what the Christian faith is like - as though the entire purpose of Christianity is to make a person happy. This is a most pernicious teaching that many Christians have imbibed - one which is more aligned with the world of consumerism than the teachings of the New Testament. As a Christian - as an evangelical - I would definitely agree with the idea that Christ gives my life meaning and fulfilment. At the same time, though, I would also point out that suffering is a natural part of the Christian faith. Like many Christians, my life has had its share of sufferings - much of it undeserved and undergone without any real meaning. Yes, Jesus gives me joy, but he also gives me strength in my sufferings.

Lest this article turns into a sermon, let me just point out that I believe evangelicals should be people who are liked and respected by society. I'm not talking here about churches or church leaders gaining community "respect", but rather individual Christians being both likeable and open in their faith. Rather than homosexual people being insulted and protested against by Christians, homosexuals should feel comfortable talking with and being friends with these people who nevertheless disagree with their sexuality. Muslim Americans should feel safe with Christians who befriend them and protect them if need be. Atheists should feel joy at the thought of robust intellectual argument from their smiling, intelligent, respectful Christian opponents.

You see, that to me is the best sort of thing Christians should do. Christianity isn't about political power struggles for the soul of the nation - it is about the transforming power of the Gospel which enables people to live holy lives for God.

These days, while surfing the net, I often come across people criticising Christians and religious belief. Despite my own faith, I often find myself in agreement with their complaints.

Evangelicalism in the US is about to experience major changes. The loss of their political clout along with a deep recession (which will make Christians suffer and feel bad) will cause the movement to reassess itself. Many of the "old guard" will remain, but in a steadily eroding power base. Church attendance will decline - most noticeably in the South as many irregular attenders undergo a crisis of faith and have a greater willingness to reject the church.

I don't really know how to end this except to point out that if anyone can be blamed for the state of the evangelical church in the US, it is evangelicalism itself. America will become a more secular nation this century, not least because of public reaction against over-the-top political evangelicalism.

The Gospel of Christ, though, will endure, as will The Church.

The anti-Obama Christian bloggers

One of the more painful things I have had to read in the past few weeks has been the growing chorus of panic and dismay amongst Christian Bloggers who are going crazy over the prospect of a Barack Obama/Democrat victory.

I have had to remove one Christian blogger from my bookmarks because the standard of his writing now befits that of a propaganda apparatchik. Lee Grady, the editor for Charisma magazine, has also gone ballistic over Obama and has also found himself removed from my bookmarks.

Look - it's not that supporting McCain/Palin and the Republicans is the issue. The issue is when Obama/Biden and the Democrats become agents of the devil who will destroy America.

There's also the sources that these bloggers use that is concerning. When reporting events they tend to link to Drudge, Worldnet daily, neo-con commentators, Townhall and other "reliable" sources of information. This is not to say that "the MSM" are wonderfully accurate - but the fact is that "the MSM" depends upon more readers and watchers and there is a greater element of responsible veracity in "the MSM" than there is among Right-wing rumour sources.

I honestly think many of these Christian bloggers are bearing false witness by repeating the lies that they have heard without checking them properly. Moreover, they speak so badly of Obama that they come close to Jesus' warning about those who speak evil of others being just as bad as murderers.

This is not to say, of course, that it is somehow wrong for Christians to be critical of politicians. A casual perusal of this blog will show you my opinion of George W. Bush, John Howard and others. By contrast to the "Obama is evil" Christian bloggers, I have spoken kindly about John McCain and tried to examine his religious beliefs more objectively. In regards to Sarah Palin, I gave as objective a summary of her background at first, and then spent considerable time examining and then debunking many of the smears on her character that appeared soon after her VP nomination. Yet I do not think the McCain/Palin ticket is the better solution.

In short, I have not demonised McCain/Palin in the same way that Christian bloggers have demonised Barack Obama.

Moreover, I have to say that I am starting to get concerned about where this will lead. Polls suggest a much greater chance of an Obama win than a McCain win, which means that a situation might arise in which a great number of angry, terrified Christians are faced with an Obama White House and a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

What will these Christians do? Hopefully they will settle down, look back at what they believed in the lead up to his victory and then begin to exmaine their beliefs more objectively. Unfortunately, given the propensity of American Christians to be convinced that fiction is fact (eg Harry Potter and Satanism) I don't think this is going to happen. I'm worried, though, that violence may occur in response to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi victory as Christians take up the arms guaranteed by the constitution, refuse to pay taxes and begin overt resistance to the world of evil that they believe exists in the form of Obama and the Democrats.

I'm an Evangelical Christian. That means I do believe in the spirit world, including the existence of Satan. At the moment, though, I would guess that Satan is hiding more behind the actions of out of control American Christians than behind Barack Obama. If violence does ensue after the election - violence backed by and instigated by Christians - it will be the worst thing to happen to the church since the Spanish Inquisition. This time, however, at least I am expecting it.

Dear God, I do not pray for an Obama victory. Neither do I pray for a McCain victory. I pray that whomever you have sovereignly chosen to occupy the White House will be a man whose actions and policies make America and the world a better and more peaceful place. I pray that your church maintain its faith in you through this process and not be tempted by the excesses of any political belief they may hold, whether that be "politically conservative" or "progressive" in nature. Give your church a desire for personal holiness, an enthusiasm for your Word, the Bible, and a focus upon Christ on the cross, the empty tomb and the prospect of his eventual return. Amen.

Well this is ironic...

Apparently a bunch of my fellow evangelical Christians decided to get together and pray for the economy. Nothing really wrong with that. The problem is that they decided to gather and pray at The Wall Street Bull. Probably because they somehow feel that touching an object while they pray somehow releases some sort of spiritual anointing, a number of pray-ers prayed while touching the bull, as per the photo above. A video of the event shows the crowd singing "God Bless America", though not the Bull-touching bit.

What is ironic, though, is that these fellow believers of mine forgot very disturbingly about a rather important event in biblical history - namely Israel's worshipping of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) which made these rather fervent believers look like they were involving themselves in idolatry. Furthermore, the irony continues when it was progressive, non Christian blogs and commentators who picked this up (see here and here).

Even more ironic, if that were possible, is Colossians 3.5, which says:

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (ESV)

The English word covetousness here is the Greek word pleonexia and is roughly translated as "the wish to have more". The NIV translates the last few sentences more roughly as "greed, which is idolatry".

So you have a bunch of Christians praying over a golden calf which looks suspiciously like idolatry. But then when you take it to its next level, they're not really praying to a statue, they're praying for the economy. But by meeting at the Wall Street Bull, they are essentially aligning themselves with the financial industry, which means they're really praying for Wall Street who, through their greed, has ended up causing misery for the entire nation. So in many ways these Christians are praying for an institution which is based on greed - and that, according to Paul in the Colossians, is idoltary.

As someone who knows a little bit about the Bible, this sort of event is shameful to the Christian faith, no matter what the intentions of the participants were (unless there's footage of them cursing the bull as being a representative of greed, then I might think they were okay).

Fundy or Trendy?

I've just been reading a rather famous and controversial Christian blog posting that's been floating around the net for the past few weeks. I haven't read it all, but this part of the post stands out:

A recent cover story at World Magazine about "NextGen Worship" inspired a strong desire to smack the pastors depicted in the article and in the photos. The cover photo alone enraged me, with the pastor wearing baggy jeans and untucked button-up shirt with flip flops and an ear microphone. Later, the same guy is shown out front of a church holding a paper Starbucks-like cup of coffee. Could he try any harder to be lame?

I'd have liked to have taken that cup of coffee and dumped it on his head. But it's nothing personal against that guy or his beliefs or sincerity. It's an anger at something else.

I'm not going to be one of those starched-collar Christians who, based on personal preference, say that this is a sign we're going to hell in a handbasket and that all things are wrong unless they are done as they were with the Puritans. What I'm saying is that I can't stand the phoniness, or trendiness, or sameness -- or whatever I'm trying to say here -- that the church seems to catch onto at the tail end, not even aware of how lame it is. The fact that this is not only actually successful in appealing to people, but attracts them, also disgusts me.

It makes me want to throw up.

It's buying into some kind of lie or substitution of cool culture as being relevant when it isn't.

If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that's untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like "dude" and "sweet", I will kick their ass. It's like the Christian version of annoying hipsters, an overly-studied and homogenized "with-it" faux coolness.

Right on sister! I hate it when Christians get all trendy and "with it" to try to attract people. I quite often see "hip young youthworker types" wearing the clothes of young people. It makes me sick. Young people don't respond to adults wearing their clothes or listening to their music - they respond to honesty and genuineness.

Nevertheless, the comments above can also make us wonder about the appropriateness of wearing the standard fundamentalist "suit and tie" to church. Being Fundy is just as bad in my book because it adds a "dress code" to public worship - something that is not legislated in any way in the NT and is, in fact, prohibited.

The church that I go to - Charlestown Presbyterian Church - does not have a dress code. By this I mean that there is no explicit or implied code that people should abide by when it comes to what they wear. People come in wearing baggy pants, and in summer some people wear thongs (which, for shocked Americans reading this, is what Australians call flip flops). A friend of mine is often seen wearing heavy metal or skater T-shirts.

But, remember, there is no "code" that we are abiding by. The reason why people who attend our church with the clothes that they wear (and many older people dress more conservatively while at the same church service) is NOT because we have some far-out hippy trendy get-with-the-times sort of attitude emanating from people. We just wear what we wear because its comfortable.

To me, and for many Australians who attend conservative Reformed churches, we neither enforce a Fundy suit and tie dress code nor have a trendy get-with-the-times dress code. What people wear when they go out shopping is the sort of thing we do - but without any sort of explicit reason. We just do it.

Part of the reason for this is the influence of Sydney Anglicanism. The Anglican diocese of Sydney is the strongest evangelical diocese in the world. Anglicans, or Episcopalians as you call them in the United States, often wear robes and cassocks and dog collars. Back in the early 1970s, some evangelicals began not to ask questions like "how can we be more trendy" but "why should we bother wearing this garbage?". Since then there has been a revulsion towards dressing in ways that communicate self-importance.

But the other reason for this in Australia is that fundamentalism - the American variety - has never really been strong here. In the US, evangelicalism is broken up into three broad groupings: Pentecostals and Charismatics, Arminian Dispensational Baptist Fundamentalists and Calvinists and Reformed. That is a very broad group - many churches and people fit into multiples groupings. But of that group, the Baptists are the strongest while the Calvinists are the smallest. Here in Australia, the Arminian Dispensationalist Baptist Fundamentalists are the smallest group. The Pentecostals and Charismatics are the biggest group, and Calvinists are second in line but are stil substantially large. Here's a summary of that breakup:

America: 50% ADBF, 40% P/C, 10% C/R
Australia: 10% ADBF, 55% P/C, 35% C/R

This means that the whole "suit and tie" culture was never really a central part of Australian evangelicalism.

Of course, this is not to say that Australian churches don't suffer from the trendy hip get-with-the-times problem. Many do. But wearing informal clothes to church is only an issue when it is an integral and explicit part of the church community. If a pastor gets up and says "I wear baggy pants so I can get hip with da yoof!" then I have a problem with it. If a pastor gets up and says nothing about his baggy pants then that's fine. Wearing baggy pants is not the issue - having some stupid, extra-biblical cultural reason for wearing them is. Moreover, it's the same issue with wearing suits and ties.

Jesus' presidential bid panned

Jesus Christ, the central figure of the Christian religion, has been panned by critics on both sides of the political divide after he entered the US presidential race.

"This guy, this guy thinks he's the Son of God for crying out loud!" said talkback host Rush Limbaugh, "He thinks he's the Messiah! How can we allow an effete elitist like Jesus run our country?"

Armed with Jesus' biography and the writings of his followers, political commentators have had a field day.

A panel on Fox News debated Jesus' biography, called "The Gospels", and showed up just how out of touch the candidate is.

"For starters, why was it necessary to have four different biographies?" asked right wing author Jerome Corsi, "Four different accounts of Jesus' life. And you know what - there is still so much missing. What happened to Jesus in between his time visiting the temple with his parents and when he called his first so called 'disciples'? What was he doing? Which school or college did he attend? Given his secrecy and his attitude towards sharing wealth, I would say that wherever it was was as socialist as they come."

Corsi also indicated that he had an unnamed insider who has spoken to him recently about life inside Jesus' inner circle.

"This man, one of Jesus' closest advisors, came to me personally and spoke about how much he hated the man, how much he despised his teachings. This man spoke about his misgivings on how money was spent in the organisation and gave examples of people wasting resources that could have been used more profitably. This brave man kept his thoughts to himself and kept his mind free from the cult-like atmosphere that pervaded Jesus' inner circle. He should be an example for us all!"

Free market promoters are also concerned with Jesus' economic ideas.

"Jesus and Jesus' followers commanded their people to redistribute money. I mean where is the incentive in that?" queried Grover Norquist, "And you know what happens when you don't bow down to the powers that be and reveal your taxable earnings? Well, God strikes you dead. Ananias and Sapphira, were supposedly killed by God, but more likely they were executed by the fascist state that Jesus' followers were implementing in order to frighten others into subservience."

Others have serious questions about Jesus' attitude towards terrorists.

"It says here in one of his biographies that we should 'turn the other cheek'!" said Hugh Hewitt "Does Jesus seriously think we should become the world's punching bag? If the country followed Jesus' teaching we'd be overrun by Islamofascists within days. Not to mention the complete shutting down of our armed forces which would leave our proud men and women in uniform without the means to support their family. Jesus is anti-America, anti-freedom and hates our troops!."

More seriously, Jesus' teachings have come under fire from religious conservatives like James Dobson.

"Jesus tolerates sin. There is no doubt about it. When confronted with an adulterous woman he steps in and prevents the natural course of justice with some tortured rhetoric. Not only was he destroying the rule of law, he was more or less condoning her behaviour. Jesus was saying to everyone that sexual immorality is fine! More than that, I have yet to find any mention in Jesus' direct teachings that addresses homosexuality or abortion. Fine, he says 'let the little children come to me' but where does he define when a person comes into existence? And the fact that he doesn't even talk about homosexuality must mean that he secretly endorses it. Jesus is as liberal and as effete as they come." Dobson argued.

Bill O'Reilly focused more on Jesus' attire. "I mean here's a guy with long hair, a beard and a robe. He's a hippy! He's an unwashed hippy! No wonder he gets his followers to wash his feet for him. That's what it says in his biography! It's all there on the public record - Jesus orders his followers to wash his feet!"

Jesus' entrance into the presidential race has also angered many progressive commentators and politicians, not least his stance towards women, as Hillary Clinton noted.

"When Jesus started his ministry, how many of his 12 special friends were women? I mean forget the fact that there were some women disciples... I'm talking about women in leadership here. And when the church was formed, how many books written by his followers were written by women? Weren't there intelligent, faithful women in the church who could contribute to the narrative? Apparently not. From the moment he turned up looking for disciples, Jesus was a macho misogynist!"

Episcopal Bishop of New York, John Shelby Spong, criticised Jesus' teachings about other religions.

"Jesus teaches only one religion. Only way way to God. Only one truth. There is no room for debate or different experiences. In a pluralistic society is Jesus the right man for the job? We've already had seven and a half years of a president who somehow thinks God talks to him and who is rigid in his views. Do we need another one?"

Spong also continued about Jesus' view of sexuality

"Although Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, his followers certainly did and the only opinion they had was that they were against it. More than that, Jesus and his followers frowned upon any form of sexual expression outside the rigid boundaries of a monogamous, church blessed heterosexual relationship. If Jesus becomes president and Jesusism is promoted through faith-based government programs we will see an America in which sexuality is repressed and the state using its muscle to enforce a particular brand of sexual belief. Is this what we want for America? For the state to control our private lives and tell us who we can be in bed with?"

Martin James, a psychoanalyst and member of the center for American progress, wrote on his blog recently about Jesus' psychological problems and why they would exclude him from being a serious presidential candidate.

"Jesus was the first child in his family. A lot of weight and expectations were forced upon him from a young age. Then his father died. Since then he has been projecting his dead father into his so called relationship with God, as though he was God's specially anointed son sent to the earth to save it. Jesus suffers from delusions of grandeur, a Messiah complex and deep seated emotional problems due to an unhappy childhood in which his natural father dominated him. But instead of his father's death being a release for him, it made his psychological condition even worse as he began channelling his impaired relationship towards a personal deity instead. A person as psychologically wounded as Jesus would never make a good president, let alone a productive member of modern society."

Meanwhile, in middle America, Jesus' candidacy has not gone down too well.

"I have no idea what he stands for" said Sally Unwin, a librarian from Nebraska, "I suppose I could read his biography and all but its so wordy. There's a lot of people out there who hate him, that much I know for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if someone gets a gun and kills him, you know?"

Is John McCain a Christian?

This is in response to comment on my previous article on John McCain. During the Saddleback forum, there was this section:

Warren
You publicly say you are a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you and how does faith work out in your life on a daily basis? What does it mean to you?

McCain
Means I'm saved and forgiven and we're talking about the world. Our faith emcompasses not just the United States of America but the world. Can I tell you another story real quick? (goes on to plagiarise Alexander Solzhenitsyn).

At no point during this conversation does McCain say anything specific about Jesus. He doesn't talk about sin or judgement or repentance and faith. He says "I'm saved and forgiven" but that is not enough to determine whether or not he is a Christian.

Now, what about Obama's response to the same question?

Obama
As a starting point, it means I believe in that Jesus died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don't walk alone, and I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away. But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds the expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting - well, acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with our God. And that, I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis knowing that you are going to fall a little bit short each day and kind of trying to be able to take note and say, well, that didn't quite work out the way I think it should have but maybe I can get a little better. It gives me the confidence to try things including running for president where are you going to screw up once in a while.

A far more substantial answer than what McCain would give. He talks explicitly about what sin is (though not terribly well) and says that Jesus died for them so that he could be redeemed. His extended response then talks about the struggles of repentance. This almost makes me think that Obama is a Christian. Almost.

As the McCain interview progresses, we get another hint at McCain's beliefs:

Warren
How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival in the previous thing. Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?

McCain
Defeat it. Couple points, one, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I follow him to the gates of hell I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one should be allowed to take thousands of American - innocent American lives. Of course evil must be defeated. My friends we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, radical Islamic extremists (branches into talking about Al Qaeda and Iraq).

So. Nothing there about Satan. Nothing there about Jesus Christ defeating him at the cross. Nothing there about taking up the spiritual armour of God. At no point does McCain use this question to further explain any Christian beliefs he may have. Strangely enough, this was Obama's response to the same question:

Warren
Okay we've got one last time - I've got a bunch more about let me ask you one in evil. Does evil exist and if it does do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?

Obama
Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it.

So while McCain focuses solely upon Islamic terrorism as a definition of evil, Obama's response is more rounded. Rather than seeing evil just in one simple emotive subject, Obama expands it. Moreover, Obama even says that defeating evil is not our job, it is God's job. Of course Obama doesn't go on to talk about Jesus defeating evil either, but it is obvious that his understanding of evil has a more Christian basis to it than McCain's.

Of course, it would be rather silly to make this judgement of McCain based solely upon his performance at Saddelback. Fortunately he was interviewed at some point by Dan Gilgoff, the politics editor at beliefnet. This interview gives a much more complete picture of McCain's religious beliefs. Here's a series of interesting questions and answers:

Gilgoff
For years, you've been identified as an Episcopalian. You recently began referring to yourself as a Baptist. Why?

McCain
[It was] one comment on the bus after hours. I meant to say that I practice in a—I am a Christian and I attend a Baptist church. I am very aware that immersion is part—as my wife Cindy has done—is necessary to be considered a Baptist. So I was raised Episcopalian, I have attended the North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years and I am a Christian.

Gilgoff
What prevents you from taking that final step of undergoing the baptism?

McCain
I've had discussions with the pastor about it and we're still in conversation about it. In the meantime, I am a practicing Christian.

Gilgoff
So the baptism is something you still might do?

McCain
Oh, sure, yeah. But, some of the factors haven't got so much to do with religion as they have to do with just—I'm in conversations with [my] pastor about it, as short a time ago as last week. But I would not anticipate going through that during this presidential campaign. I am afraid it might appear as if I was doing something that I otherwise wouldn't do.

At issue here is McCain's reticence to be baptized as an adult in his Baptist church. Why is this a problem? As a Baby-baptizin' pedobaptist I too would find it difficult to be rebaptized in a Baptist church. But what McCain doesn't speak about here is the meaning behind baptism - that it represents (either as an ordinance or sacrament) a spiritual reality. ie, that we have been born anew. If McCain really was a born-again Christian, he would probably have emphasized that point very firmly in his explanation of his reticence to be re-baptised. I'm not asking McCain to speak about deep theology, but I want him to be clear on the basics. Gilgoff himself gives McCain an opening later on to explain his understanding of human sinfulness and "transformation". It's a gimmee that McCain fails to capitalise upon:

Gilgoff
In Hard Call’s chapter on Reinhold Niehbur, you write about his evolution from sharing a Social Gospel emphasis on human perfectibility to a more fundamentalist Christian emphasis on human sinfulness. As someone raised in a mainline Christian denomination but now attending a Baptist church, have you undergone a similar transformation?

McCain
On the subject of Reinhold Niebuhr, I think his realization and appreciation that we have to combat evil even if that means that we violate some of God's commandments was an interesting journey that he took, particularly when at the end he arrived at the conclusion that I agree with—we are not perfect. We are imperfect. And at the end of the day, for our sins, we have to ask for the judgment of a loving God. He had to confront with his conscience this overwhelming evil that he couldn't sit by. But, yet, at the same time, he violated one of his fundamental principles of pacifism.

Hmmmm. "At the end of the day, for our sins, we have to ask for the judgement of a loving God." That is the "conclusion" of Niebuhr that McCain agrees with. This is, of course, partly true - but is there the assurance of forgiveness for the believer? More seriously, where is Jesus? Where in any of McCain's interviews does he talk about Jesus? He doesn't mention Jesus at all during his Saddleback interview or his beliefnet one.

When it comes to people using Christianity to gain some sort of power, it is important to carefully check their beliefs to see whether they are in line with actual Christian beliefs. As far as I can tell, McCain's various responses to questions about his faith do not show a belief that I could classify as "born again Christian". The problem is not in what McCain says, but what he doesn't say when he has the opportunity. The person and work of Christ is central to Christianity, and the meaning of the cross - why Jesus died and rose again three days later - is an integral part of the Christian faith. If John McCain was truly a "born again" Christian, he had plenty of opportunities to explain his faith when asked. While it is true that McCain has a religious faith, it is not a faith that would be synonymous with being "Born again". Moreover, it is clear from McCain's responses to Gilgoff's questions that his religious faith is not simplistic but has some level of intellectual maturity about it, which is what we can tell from his answer about Reinhold Niebuhr. Obviously McCain has thought a lot about his faith - enough to interact with the teachings of a famous American theologian. Yet it needs to be pointed out that evangelical Christians - "Bible believing Christians" - would not be happy with the lack of Christ in McCain's belief system.

I have read nothing that John McCain has said that has convinced me that he has repented of his sins and trusts in the death and resurrection of Christ for his forgiveness.

Update
I have been informed (see comments) that McCain's story was not a plagiarism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and was genuine. I'm willing to believe that and so I'm happy in this case to admit being more influenced by the left wing echo machine than by facts.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Christ's death - for sins or for (insert problem here)?

Over at The Boar's Head Tavern, Travis Prinzi, writing about Black Americans and their lower socio-economic status, says this:

But what that change looks like, I still don’t entirely know, except that I know it needs to be rooted in the death of Jesus for all tribes, tongues, and nations - and not in the American Dream’s “myth of meritocracy,” nor in the welfare-state and unfounded optimism (detached from the hope of Christ) of the so-called “progressives.”

What Travis is describing in his extended post is his struggle to come to terms with his conservative upbringing (which pretty much argued, and I quote, “racism is over, black people need to just not be lazy”) and his current position of being in urban ministry and ministering the Gospel to black folk.

Having already seen his conservative beliefs on this issue challenged to the point where he has jettisoned some of them, Prinzi is unsure of where to go. What will bring Black Americans out of their low socio-economic position in American society? What will it involve? Well, he says, whatever it will be it will be "rooted in the death of Jesus".

Whoa. Hang on there. Is he seriously suggesting that the only solution for black America's situation is Jesus? Hmmm. If I disagree with such an assertion I might sound terribly unchristian. So let me extrapolate a little.

The idea that Jesus' death on the cross is the ultimate answer to any and every question has some truth in it. Christians believe that our world is beset by sin and that all problems have their ultimate root in the spread of suffering and evil emanating from Adam's original sin in the Garden of Eden. Christians also believe that Jesus came to earth and, through his death and resurrection, defeated death and solved the problem of sin through faith in his atoning death. That's what Christians believe, and it's what I believe too.

But to suggest that Jesus' death is a meta-answer to all the world's problems NOW is different from saying that Jesus WILL BE the meta-answer to all the world's problems. A man with a broken leg needs to be told the Gospel, but he also needs his leg mended. His acceptance of the Gospel will not heal his broken leg.

Christians need to understand that accepting Christ as saviour and Lord is NOT necessarily going to lead them to greater prosperity, it will NOT necessarily make them happier, it will NOT necessarily make their family relations better, it will NOT suddenly cure them of illnesses or addictions.

To my shame, I made this mistake many years ago as a young Christian in my early 20s. At the time, a cousin of mine approached me about his impending divorce and needed advice. He was hurting. He had children and the kids were going to hurt bad as well. He wanted to share his experiences with me. In return I basically told him that he needed to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and everything will begin to work out right. Of course he didn't take up my offer, and we haven't spoken of this matter again. He ended up getting divorced (it was always going to happen with or without my input). Rather than provide any practical help - like offering to mind his kids or something like that - all I did was earnestly and naively tell him something that was simultaneously unhelpful and unbiblical.

It is possible that many problems in this world have solutions in this world. God has used developing technology to help our world enormously. Vaccines have prevented many horrible viral outbreaks; Sewerage systems have prevented many bacterial outbreaks because of better hygiene; Electricity provides heating in winter and cooling in summer, making our lives more pleasant and saving us from the dangers of temperature extremes.

Of course, it is true to say that Jesus is ultimately the answer to all these problems - sicknesses and plagues will no longer exist once a Christian resides on the new earth, as won't the dangers posed by extreme temperatures or lack of a sewerage system. Yes, Christ is the answer. But if an entire society accepts Jesus as Saviour and Lord, that will NOT protect them from viral or plague outbreaks or deaths resulting from very hot summers or very cold winters. At least, they won't be protected this side of the return of Jesus.

Seeing the death and resurrection of Christ as the meta-answer for everything is true in some respects, but it will not put food on your plate or provide you with paid employment or keep you warm when the temperature drops below freezing.

Travis Prinzi is right to focus on the cross of Christ - that is appropriate and correct. But having him say that the only solution for Black Americans to improve their socio-economic status can only be found in Christ is a little bit like saying "there is no answer, only Christ, so let's do nothing except preach the Gospel".

Preaching the Gospel is, of course, the role of the church. It is not the role of the state, nor is it the role of communities. Christ's death is not going to fix my broken leg or put food on my plate or create better employment conditions or remove carbon from the atmosphere or put more liquid hydrocarbons into the ground or make my home more valuable. Christ's death is for sin, it is not for fixing up the world's issues now.

I think there are solutions to many of the world's problems that can be found in our own world. This is not some Christ-denying heaven-on-earth utopia but simply an understanding that problems can be fixed. Broken legs can be healed, people's plates can be filled, global warming can be averted and socio-economic problems with Black Americans can be solved - and they can be solved without Christ.

Sin, however - the thing that cuts us off from God and is the reason why our world suffers so much - can ONLY be addressed by Christ's death and resurrection. Healing broken legs and fixing global warming will get no one to heaven.

Christians should, of course, focus upon Christ and the preaching of the gospel. They should not see the Gospel, however, as being the sole solution to the problems of sin that occur this side of the return of Jesus. The Gospel will lead to eternal life, but it won't magically put food on your plate. The Gospel will lead to a future where there is no more tears or pain, but it won't magically heal your broken leg now or cure emotional or psychological wounds now. The Gospel will lead to a future where God's people will live in paradise on the new earth God promised - but it won't magically stop global warming.

On this side of the return of Christ, Christians should act to preach the gospel to unbelievers - but they should pray that God blesses our world with prosperity, health, safety and abundance. These qualities don't magically appear through the preaching of the Gospel, they are a result of God blessing our world through the use of market economies, businesses, individuals, families and governments. They are a result of God's universal grace towards all mankind, rather than a result of his specific grace that he grants those who respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith.

If we as Christians wish God to continue blessing the whole world through his universal grace while he also blesses the world by bringing unbelievers to repentance and faith, then we should preach the gospel to unbelievers while also praying that God blesses our world, while also seriously considering how markets, individuals, businesses, households and governments can function best to provide a better life for all on this side of the return of Christ.

Mercy Ministries in trouble

From the department of church and state not separate:

They call themselves the Mercy Girls. And after years of searching they have found each other.

Bound by separate, damaging experiences at the hands of an American-style ministry operating in Sydney and the Sunshine Coast, these young women have clawed their way back to begin a semblance of a life again.

Desperate for help, they had turned to Mercy Ministries suffering mental illness, drug addiction and eating disorders.

Instead of the promised psychiatric treatment and support, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students, most of them under 30 and some with psychological problems of their own. Counselling consisted of prayer readings, treatment entailed exorcisms and speaking in tongues, and the house was locked down most of the time, isolating residents from the outside world and sealing them in a humidicrib of pentecostal religion.

This is a very damaging news report. I have heard a lot about Mercy Ministries - they are an arm of the Hillsong church in Sydney's North West.

The fact that a report has come about detailing alleged abuse is not surprising to me. Within the church today - especially amongst Australian Pentecostal or Charismatic churches - there has developed a "semi-cult" mentality that is not truly part of biblical Christianity. This mentality has resulted in many damaged lives.

This is not to say that Hillsong, Mercy Ministries or Australian Pentecostal churches are some gigantic cult trying to harm people. Such an idea is rubbish. What I am saying is that there are tendencies in these groups to have controlling behaviour.

I have no doubt that there are many women who have been helped by Mercy Ministries... and I also have no doubt that there are many women who have been harmed by it. This is not as strange as it seems. Throughout recent history - pretty much since the early 1970s - new religious movements within Christianity that evolved out of societal change have tended to develop very authoritative structures. This has been felt in, for example, Youth With a Mission and Jesus People USA, over many years. Moreover, churches like The Potter's House have also developed similar controlling behaviours. All of these groups have well documented cases of abuse and control - but also people who have benefited greatly from their work.

What is different about this issue is that, from what I understand, Mercy Ministries is both a charitable organisation that advertises in the Gloria Jean's coffee shop chain (which is owned by Nabi Saleh, a member of the Hillsong Church), and receives some form of federal government funding for the welfare work they do.

That tales of abuse should be present in Christian organisations is one thing - that such tales of abuse should come from a charitable and government-funded organisation is another. If these allegations prove true, it will bring the matter of the separation of church and state here in Australia to a head. After all, if an organisation receives money from the "world", shouldn't they have to run by the "world's" rules? Moreover, are people giving charitably to an organisation whose religious beliefs do match those of the giver? It would be like me - an evangelical Christian - giving charitably to an Islamic welfare group whose first priority would be to convert its clients into Muslims.

These reports are disturbing. They have not been created out of thin air by Christian-hating reporters in the media. There is obviously some truth in them, and there needs to be a further investigation.

Apocalypse when?

From the department of predictable social reactions:

Louisiana pastor Larry Stockstill had a disturbing dream last week. He saw military trucks and armored vehicles getting in formation for a surprise strike on an American city. Stockstill felt alarmed, but when he tried to warn a pastor in his dream, the man ignored him.

“I knew in my dream that a siege was going to happen the next day,” Stockstill says. “The enemy was being positioned. But no one would listen to me.”

Stockstill, pastor of the 10,000-member Bethany World Prayer Center in Baton Rouge, believes his dream was a prophetic warning about the spiritual condition of our nation. While America teeters near an economic and political precipice, many American church leaders are going on with their business as usual—without realizing that the church is in a state of serious moral crisis.

“I believe we are facing a window of opportunity for repentance,” Stockstill says. “Unless the pastors wake up to avert judgment, there will be judgment on America. If we don’t respond we are going to lose this nation.” Permanent link here.

A few bad employment reports and someone thinks the world's about to end. Is that it?

This article was written by Lee Grady, my favourite Charismatic Christian commentator. The guy is an interesting "prophetic" voice within the American Charismatic church because he seems to focus mainly on forthtelling God's anger towards the current American church, which is beset with bad theology and sexual and financial sin. He's done a good job of doing this.

Sometimes, though, Grady goes overboard, which serves as a reminder of the fact that, well, he IS Charismatic after all.

Let me first respond to this article from a theological perspective. Like Stockstill, I too believe that the American church is in for a big fall, but I don't claim direct divine guidance for this opinion. There are a number of problems that I see for the American church which will, eventually, result in some level of decline over the next two decades. In short, I would summarise them as follows:

• Adherence to worldly philosophies associated with modern conservative politics.
  
• A militant, abrasive and separatist attitude towards unbelievers.
• A failure to focus upon the Gospel of Christ in public worship.
• The propagation of unbiblical teachings like the "prosperity gospel".
• A failure to act consistently and in accordance with the bible's teaching on godliness - a failure which is seen at both the private and the public level (the latter especially with a litany moral failings amongst leaders dating back decades).
• An inability to discern truth from fiction, leading to numerous urban myths being propagated about modern culture, such as the Harry Potter Satanism link.
  
• An inability to read and understand the bible properly, which leads to the development of ungodly teachings, adherence to worldly philosophies and everything else mentioned above.
• An almost wholesale support of the Iraq War, not just when public support for it was high, but also now when public support has turned against the war. The embarrassing and fawning tone of The Land Letter is an example of this.
• The tacit assumption that true Christians will only vote Republican, and that the only issues worth battling about are Abortion, Homosexuality and Evolution.
  
• The rapid secularisation of American society and the rise of popular atheism.
  

If you put all these together, we see a church that is in trouble, and a church that is in for a fall.

Of course, as an Australian Christian, I would say that many Churches in my own country here suffer from the same problems. However, Christianity in Australia is relatively small and does not have as much influence in modern society or politics as our American brothers and sisters.

Unlike Stockstill, however, I am loathe to link the current malaise in the church with the current economic situation. I suppose some links could be made, namely that the church has supported Republicans who have, in turn, created policies that have led to the current economic problems - but that is about as far as I can stretch it.

From a sociological perspective, though, Stockstill's concerns are quite predictable and normal. Think back to the last time America was in an economic malaise - the mid to late 1970s - and ask how many people appeared as "prophets" who worked to call the church back to its fundamental principles. One "prophet", of course, was Keith Green, whose music and lyrics at the time reflected a restlessness with the state of the church. I'm certain that other Christian leaders - especially those linked in with The Jesus Movement - had similar concerns at the time.

Economic and social conditions in the US are currently declining. Unemployment is on the up, as is inflation and mortgage foreclosures. There is a general trend of unhappiness spreading across America that is leading people like Stockstill to call the church back to action, and people like those on the Calculated Risk comments thread to seriously consider purchasing firearms... "just in case".

Yet while I have been predicting big economic problems for America for quite a while, I have never become apocalyptic in tone. America will eventually recover from this unofficial recession but it will take time. It is not the end of the world, it is just the end of an era.

Project Chanology

The internet attacks Scientology:

Project Chanology is an Internet-based protest against the controversial Church of Scientology by the Internet group Anonymous. Project Chanology also refers to a website of the same name, used by the group to chronicle ongoing and planned actions by Anonymous, who state they are "everyone and everywhere", with "no leaders". The project was started in response to the Church of Scientology's attempts to remove material from an exclusive promotional interview with Scientologist Tom Cruise from the Internet in January 2008.

Our Church has a website

If you want to find out what sort of people would ever want me to go to church with them, click here.

Charlestown Presbyterian is part of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and is one of two regional churches that form the parish of Charlestown Eastlakes in Lake Macquarie (Newcastle, NSW).

The other church is Swansea Presbyterian. We are committed to the Bible as our final authority as we seek to serve and honour Jesus.

The Westminster Confession of Faith sets out how we understand the Bible.
It is our desire to provide a context where you will find warm friendship, clear practical Bible teaching and help with what it means to follow Jesus in our daily lives.
We are keen to have others join us as we grow and serve together as God’s people.

Focus on Folly

I just read this brilliant critique of James Dobson and his refusal to support John McCain. It's from SBC Outpost:

Dr. James Dobson is probably a good man. He loves his wife. He loves his children. I’m pretty sure he loves Jesus. He also loves the spotlight that comes with political influence. For this, of course, I do not fault him. Something about glass houses comes to mind.

Yesterday James Dobson released a statement opposing John McCain’s candidacy, and thus he lined up with Limbaugh and Ingraham and Coulter. The reasons for Dobson’s opposition were clearly enumerated: McCain would not support a constitutional amendment to “protect” the institution of marriage; he supports embryonic stem cell research; he opposed ending the “marriage penalty tax”; and he “has little regard for the freedom of speech.” In his bill of particulars, Dobson might have revealed more about himself than he did John McCain.

James Dobson is an idealogue. You’re either for him, or you’re against him. More than ten years ago Dobson rattled his sabre at a meeting of the Council for National Policy meeting in Phoenix by threatening to bolt from the Republican Party. The party bosses got weak at the knees, and Dobson’s little tempter tantrum won him greater influence in the GOP. But Dobson’s tribe is diminished, and not a day too soon.

Pat Robertson went with Rudy Giuliani. Paul Pressler went with Fred Thompson. Jack Graham and Danny Akin went with Huckabee. Jerry Falwell, by some estimates, was poised to support McCain before meeting his Maker last May. The Religious Right has come of age and no longer looks to God’s gurus in Colorado Springs or Lynchburg for election day directives.

Unlike other prominent religious conservatives who possess deeply-held religious views, James Dobson has never tried his hand at public office. Huckabee left a Texarkana pulpit for the Arkansas governor’s mansion. Pat Robertson mounted a tremendous effort to gain the Republican nomination in 1988. These men knew that there are two options in life: you can either stay on the sidelines and whine, or you can get into the field and make a run for it. Huckabee has had more success than anyone imagined. Robertson learned his lesson another way.

But Dobson just sits on the sidelines — election year after election year — and threatens to pull his support or stay home. Ten years ago, most evangelical voters would have listened attentively. Many would have followed his lead. Today, we just watch with waning interest as James Dobson grows increasingly shrill and unimportant.

I wonder what might have happened if the child psychologist turned evangelical superstar had made a run for the United States Senate from Colorado a decade or so ago. He very well could have won. If he ran today, he would suffer resounding defeat in a state where twice as many Democratic voters went for Barack Obama as Republicans went for Mitt Romney. I’m sure that Dobson would tell us that “God didn’t call him to run for public office.” It’s funny how God seldom calls evangelicals to suffer political defeat.

Ronald Reagan was responsible for giving the GOP their eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” I’m not asking Dr. Dobson to observe laws from Simi Valley with the same commitment as he would observe those from Sinai. Neither am I asking Dr. Dobson to stop exercising his right of free speech.

All I’m asking is for evangelicals in the Republican Party to give James Dobson the same kind attention we would give to our senile and increasingly erratic grandfathers.

Love them. Listen to them. Laugh with them.

Then make sure they take their medicine.

And "Steve" in the comments has this little gem:

Even though Romney is the architect of gay marraige in Massachusetts and announced last week that he supports “gay rights,” Focus leaders, for some strange reason, think Romney should be the man we all get behind. These Focus officials have been pressuring Dobson to endorse Romney so the Romney attack on McCain — and an earlier attack on Huckabee — is a discreet effort to urge Christians to support Romney.

I never thought I would see the day when one of the leaders of the Christian right promotes the one politician in America who legalized gay marraige.

The Christian right needs to get its act together. Rather than supporting this candidate and or that candidate (which has resulted in Dobson's tacit support for a Gay marriage legalising Mormon) the religious right need to get their own man in there. In theory, Huckabee is the only real choice but Christians all over the U.S. don't see him as "conservative" enough because he is in love with big government (which is conservo-speak for having a centrist fiscal position).

But, then again, all this shows just how silly it becomes when Christians start only wanting to vote for politically conservative born again Christians.

My position on Abortion

As an Evangelical I believe the bible. I believe that it was written by God, whose Holy Spirit ensured that its human writers were able to write what was correct and true. I'm also fairly strong on the issue of Sola Scriptura - the belief that the Bible is the sole authority that believers should turn to to discern what to believe and how to live. This is not to say that I worship the Bible (I don't) - but what it does mean is that I believe that the Holy Spirit lives and works in us whenever we read and study the text of Scripture (which includes private study, small group bible studies and preaching from pastors / teachers / presbyters / overseers). If we are to listen to God, then we are to listen to Him speak through the Bible, in the way that He has written it.

The practice of Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, we can discern from scripture that an unborn baby in whatever form it takes is considered a living human being by God. Bible references for this include Psalm 139 and Exodus 21.22-25 but include many others.

Given that this is the case, the only true attitude that Christians should have towards abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of a human life. As part of our ministry in the world, which includes the preaching of the Gospel, must be the clear proclamation of God's ethical standards. Moreover, Christians should take steps to protect the weak and unsupported - it was, may I point out, Christians who were the most vocal opponents of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries.

So. Abortion is wrong and Christians should do something about it. But what?

Ever since Roe vs Wade in the United States essentially legalised abortion, Christians have been at the forefront of fighting against it. The effect of Roe vs Wade has not just been to legalise abortion, but to also legitimise it in society. Since the early 1970s, our society has become increasingly tolerant of abortion. In Australia, a Roy Morgan Poll in 2006 indicated that about 65% of Australians supported abortion, while 22% were opposed with 13% unsure. Polling in the US shows a similar trend.

Of course, ethics and morals are sourced from God, not public opinion. The fact that a supermajority of people in Australia and the US support abortion means nothing when it comes to determining right and wrong.

Nevertheless, the sheer amount of people who support abortion should give Christians pause to think. Ever since the first protests against abortion were made by Christians in the 1970s, the focus has been solely upon prohibition - making abortion illegal. Moreover, this focus has meant that politicians have been able to use the issue as a way to get people's votes. This is very much the case in the United States, where Republican politicians are more likely to indicate a pro-life stance than their Democrat colleagues. Along with attitudes towards homosexuality, the Republicans in the United States have become the party which Christians want to vote for. Here in Australia, none of the three major parties (Liberal, National, Labor) welcomes an anti-abortion message, though the more conservative parties (Liberal, National, Family First, Christian Democrat) are more likely to have pro-life people active in them.

The problem (the "elephant in the room" as Craig Schwarze would put it) is that the pro-life movement has failed - completely and spectacularly. Despite 30 years of protests, political action and even violence (albeit from a militant minority), western society has embraced abortion. Despite the efforts of the pro-life movement, support for abortion has increased since the early 1970s. While pro-life people argue and agitate to make abortion illegal, a considerable majority of people wish to keep it legal. Moreover, voting for politicians who support the pro-life camp has resulted in absolutely no change at all in abortion laws. For example, from 1994 until 2006, the US congress was controlled by conservative Republicans who had been voted in by the American people to enact conservative legislation - which included support from pro-life groups. Despite 12 years of congressional control (of which 6 years were spent under a conservative president who would not veto conservative legislation), Roe vs Wade was never repealed, abortions were not reduced and public opinion of abortion did not swing enough towards the pro-life position (if it swung at all). So much for political agitation.

So while I believe that abortion laws have resulted in the deaths of millions of unborn infants over the years, I cannot support the current pro-life strategy. Barring a revival in Western Countries and a subsequent acceptance of biblical ethics, a substantial majority of people in our society will support abortion and prevent any attempt to make it illegal. The efforts of the pro-life movement are essentially in vain - their strategy ensures that they will lose.

And that is, of course, the tragedy. While pro-lifers jump up and down and protest, unborn babies are still being aborted. By focusing upon prohibition, pro-lifers are failing to protect the innocent and are failing to stop abortions. Not only are their efforts in vain, their efforts are actually encouraging abortion by not taking an alternative stance. This is because pro-lifers have not examined any alternative strategies.

The best sort of strategy is the one which will result in the best outcome. I am a fan of measurable outcomes, which is why the pro-life movement does not impress me - the outcome of their efforts is worse than when they started out. If pro-life people really want to make an impact, they need to adopt a strategy that will result in the best outcome.

And what is the best outcome? Is it the prohibition of abortion (making it illegal)? No. Believe it or not, that is the wrong objective to have. The correct objective, when taking the biblical evidence in hand, is for abortion rates to reach zero. The best outcome is zero abortion, and that can be achieved without focusing upon prohibition making it illegal.

To understand where I am coming from, pro-life people need to step into the shoes of pro-choice advocates. No matter what we think of them, the fact is that pro-choice people do not see themselves as evil, fascist, demon possessed servants of Satan. Instead, they see themselves as defenders of personal liberty, which is why they call themselves "pro-choice", rather than "pro-abortion". You see, this is because pro-choice people focus upon the freedom for a person to choose between keeping a baby or aborting it. Regardless of the theological and ethical problems of this attitude, pro-life people MUST understand that the issue for pro-choice people is choice.

I have spoken to pro-choice people over the years, both on the internet and in person. I have read their statements of values and their arguments. Pro-choice people do not think abortion is a wonderful experience that every woman should go through. Pro-choice people know that complications sometimes do occur after abortions which may prevent conception and child-bearing later on. Pro-choice people do know that abortion is a surgical procedure that has risks. And, most important of all, pro-choice people have no problem with declining abortion rates since they know that preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than abortion.

You see, pro-choice people are more concerned about a woman's choice to have an abortion than they are about the procedure itself. All pro-choice people believe that preventing unwanted pregnancies is an essential feature of woman's health, but, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur, they would argue that abortion should be a legal and safe option for the woman to consider. Moreover, they would support a woman's choice to keep her baby if that is what she wants - it is the choice that is important to pro-choice people, not the abortion procedure.

And this is where both pro-life people and pro-choice people can have some level of commonality. If pro-life people want zero abortions, and pro-choice people want safe and legal access to abortions, then surely there is common ground. But where?

Well, imagine a country in which abortions are safe and legal and where no abortions occur. Is it possible? Certainly. If women have the freedom to choose between keeping their baby or aborting it, and then all choose to keep them, then we have a situation in which both sides are happy. But is this possible?

A 1999 study by Henshaw, Singh and Haas examined the incidence of abortion throughout the world. What it discovered is that abortion numbers varied widely from country to country. Australia, for example, had an abortion rate of 22.2 (abortions per 1000 women) in 1995-96. The United States had a rate of 22.9. Germany, however, managed an abortion rate of 7.6. Other low rates include Belgium at 6.8, Finland at 10.0, Netherlands at 6.5 and Switzerland at 8.4. Spain and Italy, two very Roman Catholic countries, have abortion rates of 5.7 and 11.4. Countries that have large abortion rates include Bulgaria (51.3), Belarus (67.5), China (26.1), Romania (78.0) and Vietnam (83.3).

There are some rather important lessons to learn from this 1999 study. First of all, abortion rates in western countries are much lower than in developing countries. Second of all, countries which legalise abortion have lower abortion rates than countries where it is illegal.

Now I realise that might go against certain assumptions - yet it is clear that low abortion rates and legalised abortion do actually go hand in hand. For those who wish to make abortion illegal, it seems logical (though hard to accept) to assume that making it illegal will actually increase it.

But why so much disparity between countries? Why do secular Western European nations have lower abortion rates than conservative Christian America? Why are abortion rates lower in countries where abortion is accepted, and higher in countries where it is illegal or at least controversial (as in America)?

The key, I believe, is that legalised abortion in western nations has gone hand-in-hand with higher rates of prevention - that is, women in countries with legalised abortion are more likely to prevent conception from occurring in the first place. When women prevent unwanted conceptions, they are less likely to seek abortions.

And this is where I believe that both pro-life and pro-choice people have an area of commonality - the desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. If pregnancies can be prevented, it means less abortions can take place. That would please the pro-life person because it would mean less deaths, and it should please the pro-choice person because women are choosing to prevent pregnancies.

So, what practical steps should happen?

Well, it means that new pro-life groups in Western countries need to form with the express purpose of reducing abortion to zero but without demanding that abortion be illegal. In other words, these pro-life groups would accept that abortion be legal so long as steps are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies to ensure that abortion rates reach zero.

It would also mean that research needs to be done into why it is that abortion rates are so low in certain nations and so high in others. Why is abortion so low in Germany? Is it the culture? Is it due to government funded public education programmes? Are school sex education curriculums partly responsible? Rather than making an ideological choice (eg "government programs can never work"), the choice needs to be made based upon evidence and pragmatism. I suspect that much of the reason why Western European nations have such low abortion rates is because women in these countries are better educated in sexual health and prevent conception - and the education has come from publicly funded sources. If this has worked in these nations then it should be tried in places like America and Australia - and these new pro-life groups should be at the forefront of lobbying government to act.

Reducing abortion to zero through education and changes in public attitudes will take time - but it will happen. Every year we can expect abortion rates to drop. But if pro-life groups continue to take a hardline stance and demand that abortion be illegal, then we can expect little to occur and for abortion rates to continue as they are. I would rather real, measurable outcomes (a drop in abortion rates) rather than hardline rhetoric that solves nothing.

As Christians, we can assume that sin will continue to rule our society. Abortions may continue in our lifetime regardless of what we try to do. Moreover, despite the solutions I have offered in this paper, I am not trying to argue that some form of "utopia" can exist on earth whereby government laws prevent us from sinning. The only thing that truly saves us is the Gospel, and that is what Christians should be trying to achieve. God's ultimate solution to sin is the message of the cross. The solutions I have offered here may reduce abortion to zero in countries that practice them, yet this will not let people into heaven.

In other words, Christians should preach the Gospel first and foremost, while praying for a society that looks after those who cannot look after themselves.