Should we pray for Hitch?  If yes, what should we pray for? Should Christians announce that they are praying for Hitch? Finally, what should we expect in return?

The answer to the first question seems simple. As one blogger put it, “Of course. What part of ‘love your enemies, pray for your persecutors’ isn’t clear?”

The more interesting question not directly addressed by Jesus’ admonition is for what should we pray. Should we pray for his healing? his conversion? that God would show himself to Hitchens? Some people have a hard time praying for the continued existence of a vitriolic ne’er do well who once called Mother Theresa “the Ghoul of Calcutta” and Jimmy Carter “a born-again creep.” But there is good reason to pray for Hitch to get better. The least of which maybe that the longer Hitch stays alive the longer the hound of heaven has to hunt him down. After all, it already found his brother Peter. In Peter’s case God used a late medieval painting to bring Peter back. Its not too far fetched that throat cancer could do the same for Hitch. Of course, that last sentence would be looked on by Hitch and most atheists as immoral and repugnant–the idea that God would inflict cancer in order to corral Hitchens into the fold. But this post can’t quite delve into the problem of evil this week, so I will set that one aside. There is one other good reason to pray for Hitchens’ remission. He’s part of the loyal opposition. Militant atheists keep us on our toes as well as on our knees. They sharpen our arguments quicken our sense of urgency. As Peter Hitchens says, “My brother and I agree on this: that independence of mind is immensely precious, and that we should try to tell the truth in clear English even if we are disliked for doing so.” If there is one thing Hitch champions its an independent mind that says what it thinks is right regardless of the hatred that accompanies such exercises. This brings us to the last, perhaps most integral questions of this whole controversy: Should make our prayers known and if so what should we expect?

One Rabbi commenting on the controversy advises us not to expect too much: “I would say it is appropriate and even mandatory to do what one can for another who is sick; and if you believe that praying helps, to pray. It is in any case an expression of one’s deep hopes. So yes, I will pray for him, but I will not insult him by asking or implying that he should be grateful for my prayers.” When we make our prayers public, what is our motivation? Is it, as the Rabbi implies, simply an expression of our deep hopes or rather do we hope to persuade them to our cause.  Some believers, it seems, made their prayers public specifically hoping to express themselves and be heard by Hitchens. One blogger writes:”Dr. Hitchens as a person of faith, the thought of your early departure seems to me unbearable. Who else could there be to keep us on our toes and thinking? For this I am truly thankful. May your recovery be swift and without incident. You and your family will be in our thoughts and prayers.” I do think we should make our prayers known and to do it as part of our persuasion of the viability of faith. For anything less would be insincere and hypocritical. Two things Hitchens finds as repugnant as theistic belief.

“Religion,” he wrote in God Is Not Great, “does not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous claims and sublime assurances. It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths.” Never were truer words spoken. But when one realizes that Hitchens thinks this abhorrent, one wonders why? If Christians truly believe as they do, of course they want to interfere. If they didn’t, they’d be immoral. At least one ardent Atheist recognizes this. Penn Jillette confesses that he admires Christians who proselytize. Hitchens, on the other hand, loathes believers for their interfering. This, I must confess baffles me. Why the vitriol? If an independent mind, as his brother says, is valuable then why not admire passionate proselytizing especially if it comes with some intelligent argument? That’s certainly something for which to pray–Hitchens to get over his hate and open his heart and mind, since hatred isn’t even remotely necessary to be part of the loyal opposition.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990′s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

• “Muslim immigrants…constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.”
• “Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”
• “Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.”
• “Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem…”
• “Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.”

As I pointed out in What of “Social Justice”? that those who promote “social justice” begin from the premise that life ought to be perfect, it isn’t perfect and capitalism is the reason. Once we establish a socialist society where all workers and non-workers share equally in the benefits of the workers, then all will be well. It eliminates the idea of personal responsibility or the demands of the uninvested. The uninvested are those who contribute little or nothing to the whole but make the most demands. We see it in the Danish statistics. 5% of the population is Muslim but consume 40% of the welfare spending. The increasing insistence on not mixing with the native Danes and demand for the introduction and imposition of their on the Danish population.

We have a similar problem here in America. Not just Muslim but those in the entitlement state. A large voting bloc are those on welfare. They too are not invested and yet derive their support from those who are working. No demands are made on them to contribute or take responsibility for their lives. If such stipulations as, say, drug testing or work fare are suggested, it is decried as unfair and immoral. Several years ago there was a split over food stamps in congress. Conservatives tried to ban their use on cigarettes, alcohol, or potato chips. The next part of this saga is breathtaking in its utter lack of logical thinking. The liberals were adamant that we cannot legislate anyone’s morality. When conservatives tried to take a firm stand the liberals said it would be immoral not to pass the bill. In other words, it is perfectly fine to legislate the morality of wage earners by forcing them to fund this charitable food program but wrong to legislate how the uninvested recipient uses the program. Voila! Social Justice in action. No personal responsibility for the non-contributor but extreme legislation and controls on the wage earners making care of the entire population their responsibility.

Biblically, we find that the world is not perfect because all humans are sinners (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Sure we can do good things. Jesus even pointed this out within the context of our sinfulness we can still do good things:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?(Matthew 7:11)

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:13)

He also pointed out that there may be ulterior motives in why we do things:

And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. (Matthew 14:12)

What this demonstrates is that as humans we tend to do good things for those we know and care about our family and close community or for what we may derive from it. Such is the plight of sinful human nature. As believers, we can be more altruistic because we realize that He provided salvation for us who could not gain acceptance from God on our own merits. Out of thankful hearts we in turn serve others as a way of serving and glorifying Him. But even in that we find biblically that there is an expectation of personal responsibility on the one receiving.

As Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10:

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”

While either avoiding Scripture altogether or simply reading into the text (eisigesis) things that are not there, the rising Evangelical left, including such notables and Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Don Miller and many others, take the position that the existence of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy proves the church has failed in its mission since its inception. In other words, the gates of hell did prevail against the church which in turn would mean that Jesus Christ is a false prophet for He declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The problems here are manifest and apparent. The mission of the church has not been to Christianize culture, force unbelieving leaders and dictators to behave according to biblical morals or to fix the unregenerate to behave more like regenerate believers which simply gives you better behaved unbelievers content in their own self-righteousness. Christians and other charitable folks send literally tons of food, medicine and other supplies as well as provide medical care and even education to many nations around the world The biggest hurdle is getting past corrupt national leaders who leave the food, medicine and supplies sitting on the dock with no intention of distributing or allowing distribution and in some cases they sell it for personal profit. In what way is the church responsible for this? The emerging left doesn’t say, they simply waggle the church lady finger and accuse faithful believers of being unfaithful for not meeting the demands of the emerging left. The proclamation of the gospel is less or even not at all important to this group when, biblically speaking, that is the mission of the church according to Matthew 28:18-20 and 2 Corinthians 5:20 is to be ambassadors, proclaim the gospel and make disciples. It isn’t eliminate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and help unbelievers be the best behaved unbelievers we can muster.

I wonder if Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) has anything to do with the differences between the rising Evangelical Left and Conservative Evangeklicals see the world?:

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.”

“I’d encourage you to pause and think about the significance of losing people’s confidence. A leader can only sustain forward movement if he/she has the confidence of the people being led into battle. Now, if a church is simply providing a safe comfort station for hurting people, that’s one thing. But if a church is intent upon facilitating a moral and spiritual revolution, recognizing that doing so is a declaration of war on current cultural preferences and values, the loss of confidence is a devastating setback. And – strategically – such confidence cannot be restored by simply waiting for the tide to turn; church leaders must intentionally win back people’s confidence through visionary leadership, holy character, and guiding people in transformational ministry efforts.”

This past weekend before even seeing Barna’s report, this is also one of the main emphasis I was making. You might say it has even been a theme of mine for some time. The church is in a state of confusion and the result is many are not certain what it’s mission and responsibilities are in an increasingly pagan culture. Even reading the comments on Barna’s short article show the lack of biblical literacy on our calling. “B Crump” has a lengthy comment in which they decry the non-acceptance of them by the organized church. There is a lot of truth to that. There seems to be an almost natural attempt to cause everyone to conform to the group. Independence is not encouraged in many cases. If you happened to really be called as a missionary to your culture, you will likely be a round peg in a square hole in many churches. Working with people is messy and churches don’t like messy because it is, well, messy. The ministry of the church in the first century was mostly about training, equipping and comforting hurting people who had come to the faith from paganism. It was a time to be loved in spite of your differences and readied to get back out into the mission field. The Apostle Paul in Romans 14 reminds the Romans to accept one another in spite of their differences.

Some comments imply that Jesus cared not a fig for doctrine. He wasn’t a theologian according to one but we can hardly read the gospels and come to that conclusion. He often appealed to Scripture for what He was doing or derided the religious leaders of the day for ignoring Scripture and even accused them of biblical illiteracy. For example, when the Sadducees tried to trap Him He responded in Matthew 22:29:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Another of the commenters, Vsheehan, targeted their comment on “Social Justice.”

“Social Justice was what Jesus was all about!!!! The Catholic Church trying to block healthcare for all is a perfect example of how Churches are more interested in shoving their worldview down peoples throats instead of caring for others.”

The first comment I have on this is to point out that we do not find anything in Scripture giving believers the responsibility to force non-believers, or unbelieving governments to take from one segment of society (believers and unbelievers alike) and dole it out to another segment of society who feel it is their due.

Christians down through the generations have been enormously charitable even to the point of sending vast amounts of food, clothes and medical supplies to nations where the dictators let these things sit and rot on the docks or sold them for their personal gain and left the starving to continue starving. Why are those who are calling for Social Justice unwilling to call these evil leaders to task?

Social Justice is a phrase that we hear often these days but will search the Scriptures in vain to find the concept. In addition, Vsheehan, like so many, distort and/or ignore what contributions many churches have made. Whatever our views of the Roman Catholic Church, they have done a great deal in addressing poverty. I believe and have argued that Rome proclaims a false gospel and yet, it is hard to argue with the vast amount of help Catholic Charities has given to so many for so long without expectation from the recipients. The flaws in the claim that Jesus “was all about” Social Justice are more extensive than I can address in this short piece but the core is important. It is an idea that comes not from Scripture but from Marxism. It assumes the world ought to be perfect and since it is not perfect it is our job to make sure every human has not only equal opportunity but equal stuff. The way to work this out is to steal stuff from those who have material possessions and give it to those who lack. Now we are not really talking about charity here but rather an equalization and redistribution of material wealth in an effort to eliminate poverty, sickness and illiteracy.

In Mark 14 a woman brought a very expensive vial of perfume and poured it over Jesus feet. The disciples were very upset and in their indignation pointed out that it could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. His response is quite telling:

”For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them;”(Mark 14:7)

Poverty is not something we will be able to solve this side of the Lord’s return. That doesn’t mean we ignore the poor. As the Lord said, “Whenever you wish you can do good to them.” That kind of charity is done best one on one. The one helping the poor is rewarded by the personal contact, the one being helped is helped and becomes known to those in their community. Relationships are built, caring relationships which are beneficial to all. In the Social Justice environment no one really benefits. The one whose stuff is taken is not happy because they were stolen from, usually by the government. The one who receives is not happy because they think they deserve more. The bureaucrat is the middle man to who gets it from both sides. The result is making all equally poor. The Scriptures show quite a different way of addressing physical need. In the Old Testament, farmers were not to harvest the corners of their field nor glean (pick up everything) the harvest (Lev. 23.22). The expectation was that those in need had to do something, accomplish some work, in order to have food. Here they were given opportunity on the farmers land, to gather and harvest food. They didn’t sit around and wait for someone to deliver it.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 the Apostle Paul clearly stated the same principle when he said:

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.“

The Apostle Paul makes a distinction between “widows” and “widows indeed” and gives strict guidelines:

“Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.” (1 Timothy 5:3-16)

What we don’t find here is a women living in a taxpayer provided apartment, collecting a check (or credit card), food stamps, with a Droid mobile phone, color T.V., etc. There are responsibilities to be met before even being considered for church charity. Does she have family who should be taking care of her? Does she live out her faith? How has she treated others? She must stay busy and not be a busy body and gossip. All of this demonstrates that charity is something that should happen locally where the one in need is known and those helping can determine if the one in need has the ability to provide for themselves.

Throughout Scripture, the tenor is one of personal responsibility on the part of the one in need in a community environment and varying levels of responsibility on the part of those around the individuals in need.

“… every civil government had the right to determine whether monogamy or polygamy should be the law of social life under its jurisdiction.” 1

The Federal Courts left the final determination on monogamy vs polygamy to the states. It wasn’t a Federal issue. The question of sex and sexual partners and governmental restrictions is not limited to the United States. It surfaced overseas in 2006 when the Dutch Court OKs Pedophile Party Why did they do this? Their thinking is consistent with what we are finding in the U.S. Courts:

“It is not illegal to try democratically to change the system – which is what these people are trying to do,” said a Hague spokesperson, summarizing the ruling of Judge H. Hofius.

“They are exercising their freedoms of speech and association, and as such cannot be banned by the state.”

These stories are related. Sexual obsession has taken over the minds and hearts of many. In nations where freedoms are determined largely by mob rule, which ever mob is ruling names the freedoms and morals for the rest of the nation, this is how things operate. The tradition of one man, one women constituting marriage have largely been protected because of the influence of Judeo/Christian, particularly Christian, teaching and values. Although all are guarenteed the right to marry, different states have had different criteria regarding various points. The age of consent varies from state to state.  Can first cousins marry? In 26 states, this is legal. In the remaining states, it is not. However, in all states it is not legal to marry one’s parent, sibling, aunt or uncle, and until this decade someone of the same sex. In all states it has always been one man and one woman since the founding of the nation!

The recent ruling was clear that religious views have no place in U.S. law. It is not surprising. Culture shook off the Christian worldview in the 1960s and 70s and the hangover of Christian morality is lifting. Once the transition is made to same sex marriage there is no real reason to prevent any other form of marriage or sexual behavior. As FOX News was debating the recent ruling, one of their legal experts, Lis Wiehl said that two people who love each other, “not 13,” regardless of gender is protected under the constitution. But why not 13? Why not 25 in a complex marriage? Why not a father and his daughter or a mother and her son? Why not an 8th grade school teacher and her student? On what constitutional basis can there be an “age of consent”? After all, preteens can choose to kill their unborn why shouldn’t they have the legal right to choose to marry a 30 year old man if that is their desire? Decisions have ramifications and once this door is open, it won’t be closed. Lis Weihl, attorney Ted Olson who argued the case for the homosexual couples and others who are arguing to read the constitution in this way will bear the responsibility for the results. However, as with all good liberals, they will try to blame others for letting them get away with it and the consequences which grow out of these decisions.

So vast is biblical illiteracy inside and outside the church that Brian McLaren and other emerging church leaders claim we need to wait for 5 years for the Holy Spirit to tell us what is true about homosexuality. The confusion seems to be that unbelievers and Scripture don’t agree and AMcLaren and others are waiting for the Holy Spirit to bring unity betgween them. We have such luminaries as author Anne Rice who quit Christianity in part because she couldn’t find anything wrong with homosexuality and radio host Dr. Dean Edell who is favorable to polygamy and polyamory as well as homosexuality. Fairly recently Edell challenged his listeners to show where the Bible forbids homosexuality. Within a few minutes an evangelical called in and as he began making his case Dr. Edell simply dismissed him by saying that Jesus never said anything about this. Now, while I may not be qualified to fully address the legal or constitutional issues, I can address the ill-informed or perhaps militantly ignorant, like Dr Dean Edell and Anne Rice on this issue and challenge believers.

First, if the criteria is that Jesus must have spoken on the issue otherwise it is okay, than child molestation must be okay. Jesus, being Jewish living in Israel was living in the Roman Empire. A common practice was for an adult Roman male to have a catamite, a young boy, for the purposes of sexual gratification and Jesus never spoke to against pedophilia. This is of course, absurd.  Homosexuality and other sexual sin was addressed at least indirectly when He said in Matthew 19:4-5:

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

The passage is pregnant with meaning. He spoke this to Jews who were living in a culture (the Roman Empire) that was rampant with homosexuality and pedophilia and laid out His view of the right sexual relationship from God’s stand point. One man and one woman, united together for life. The immediate context revolved around the question of divorce. Why, they asked, if this was the case, did Moses allow divorce? Jesus didn’t hesitate. It was because of the hardness of their hearts. The proper marriage relationship is one man and one woman for life. Not only did God allow divorce but polygamy due to the hardness of mens hearts. Brian McLaren and the emerging church crowd aren’t sure if Jesus is to be believed on this issue. We must teach  within the church that sexual sin is sexual sin. We should be certain that Jesus is to be trusted regardless of what courts, authors, politicians, radio hosts and even touchy feely church leaders say. Having said that we also need to prepare and review how the believers in the first three centuries lived and challenged culture. Oddly enough, they seemed to spend little time condemning culture. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 5:12:

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

Christians changed the minds of the culture around them because of their holy devotion, holy living, high regard for critical thinking, ability to debate and articulate the issues, caring for those around them, adopting children who had been abandoned in attempted infanticide, honoring women. The last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate, shows us how effective they early Christians were in changing culture. He was trying to resurrect the pagan religions of Rome’s past and wrote to his pagan priest in Galatia the following:

“Why do we not notice that it is their kindness to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [i.e., Christianity]? I believe that we ought really and truly to practice every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practice them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception…In the second place admonish them that no priest may enter a theatre or trade that is base and not respectable…in every city establish hostels in order that strangers may profit by our generosity; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money…for it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg and the impious Galileans [Christians] support both their own poor and ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.”

I am not saying that as citizens of the United States we shouldn’t take stands as citizens to register our concerns, vote for candidates that represent our views and support those who will represent traditional marriage in court. I am saying that we need to incorporate apologetics, discernment and actual missionary training within the walls and meetings of Christians instead of doing polls and figuring out how unbelievers think in order to better market to them, if we are to make an impact similar to that of the early Christians.

1 Perry L. Porter, “A Chronology of Federal Legislation on Polygamy,” http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm

“What you are doing speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying.”

Beside privacy issues in arguing for abortion, one of the reasons cited was child abuse. An unwanted child, it was argued, increased the instance of child abuse. So, by giving women “choice” that supposedly translated to “every child a wanted child.” That this policy hasn’t dimished child abuse but perhaps has permitted its increase is a discussion for another day. In Do Humans Have Rights That Can Be Violated? I demonstrated that in American law and legislation, humanness and personhood have traditionally been two different things. Human is a statement of biology not personhood. Someone could be biologically human but not legally a person. Since they are not legally a person they have no rights or protections under the law. The one who owns them as property have rights and can pretty much do what they want with their property. According to the Prolife Action League there has been 1.3 million abortions annually since 1973 and as of May 17, 2005 that brought the number to 46 million. This becomes important for two reasons. Economic and end of life questions. A majority of the aborted would have been wage earners and tax payers. By killing off these humans there are less persons available to support the aging cry-baby boomers. As the current administration embarked on “health care reform” one of the questions was how that would impact healthcare for the elderly. Assurances were given that the healthcare would be as good as or better at a lower cost than is currently being charged. Conservatives were firm this was untrue. Now that it has passed, unread by most in the House and Senate who voted for it, we see that conservatives were right, Medicare Reform Means Some Seniors Face Benefit Cuts.

As the legislation neared passing Sarah Palin raised the issue of what she called “death panels.” As a side note, end of life issues are difficult and the majority of money spent on care of the elderly will be spent in the last few weeks of their life. It is something that needs to the thought about and discussed within the family but is it something which should be legislated by the Federal Government? Of course the ruckus that was raised caused Barack Obama and others to verbally deny that this was their view. Other times of candor demonstrates his actual views. This happened, as Stephen Mosher points out Obama to Seniors: Take Two Aspirin and Call Me When You’re Dead. Eileen F. Toplansky in Death Panels and Mom had to revisit this issue

When the health care reform bill was still in its infancy, I read with dismay about the so-called death panels. I knew that Barack Obama was a vigorous proponent of late-stage abortions, which spoke to his detached view of life. Then I discovered that since there really were no “death panels” in the bill, Congress decided to eliminate the confusing language. Of course, if these panels were not in the bill in the first place, what was being deleted?

Therefore, that nagging feeling never quite went away. And so now I read Michael D. Tanner’s piece entitled “Death Panels Were an Overblown Claim — Until Now” and my earlier suspicions have been reinvigorated. Thus, we learn that Obama’s pick for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services “is romantic about the [British] National Health Service,” where “every year, 50,000 surgeries are cancelled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed.” Thus, rationing and death panels hover at the borders of this health care reform law. Just because the term is not used doesn’t mean the intent is not clear to anyone who can connect the dots.

Actions speak louder than words which means, what you are doing speaks so loud I can’t hear what you are saying.

From an Evangelical and, I think biblical perspective, humans are persons created in the image of God. They have intrinsic value even in their fallen state because they still have the Imago Dei (image of God). That does not mean they are saved or even in the family of God. Sin brought about a separation which can only be bridged by faith in Jesus Christ who paid for our sins and we are adopted by God and the sin separation is eliminated by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But, State governments, the Federal Government and Supreme Court have been clear and consistent. Humanness and personhood are different things. One (humanness) is a biological statement which does not promise, secure or protect inherent rights while the other (personhood) does. I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet and I work for a non-profit organization so this is not a prophetic proclamation but an educated prediction. Those who have fought so strongly for abortion will most likely have their views and positions turned on them in coming years. Cry-baby Boomers will begin retiring very soon and, since they are the largest segment of the population with tax the system in ways we cannot imagine. The tool to the solution which will be turned to will be appealing to an already approved definition of person. Geography. Those living in nursing homes will be legally made non-persons whereas those living outside nursing homes will still be legally persons. That will make the emotional decisions of what to do with grandma a little easier. She is human but not legally a person and will be abandoned or abused in her old age. You know the line; every grandma should be a wanted grandma.

“The government of Vietnam’s desire to reap the benefits of the global economy must be matched by efforts to respect comprehensive human rights,” a bipartisan group of 19 members of Congress wrote to Clinton on July 15.

This was an interesting paragraph in the article Clinton pushes Vietnam on human rights progress. It also helped to begin crystallizing something I have been thinking about. Do humans have rights solely based on being human? Rather than simply making an assertion I decided to put the question to an organization that specializes in addressing human rights violations the Amnesty International. I emailed them and asked:

There seems to be some confusion when using the term phrase “human rights.”Do you mean by this that humans have rights based solely on being human? If a nation decides that a human is not legally a person and therefore has no rights, for only persons have rights, is that something you affirm?

The question is fairly simple and straightforward. Do humans have rights because they are human or are there some other criteria for protecting rights. Perhaps a human has no rights because they law makers used come arbitrary criteria to define personhood and then only protect the rights of those who are legally a person. In this scenario non-persons, human or not, do not have any legal rights nor are deserving of protection. I received a response back in less than 24 hours:

Thank you for your interest in Amnesty International and the work that we do.

I’m unaware of the confusion that you mention.

Human rights are those which all humans should be entitled to, regardless of legislation introduced by an individual country that may undermine any of these.

I do not understand your differentiation between people and humans, but I hope that this goes some way to answer your question.

I have spoken with others about this question recently and have watched as they also short circuited and changed the parameters of the question from “person” to “people.” There is an important distinction here. The word “people” is used interchangeably with “human” whereas “person” is a legal designation. Now, writing as an Evangelical I believe that person and human are also interchangeable. I responded back:

Thank you for your timely response and clear answer. The confusion wasn’t between “people” and “human” but between “person” and “human.” For example, in the United States when slavery was legal, no one denied that slaves were human. However, in the eyes of the law they were not “persons.” Several state legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this position (they were viewed as 3/5 persons). Therefore, even though they were human but not persons they had no rights or protections under the law. They were simply property and could be cared for and protected or beaten, sold, dismembered and even killed without legal reprisal since they were not persons and had no rights. This classification was based on the arbitrary criteria of skin color.

Currently, preborn human are legally classified as non-persons based on the arbitrary criteria of geography. They are living inside the womb vs. outside the womb. Based on this arbitrary criteria state legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend “personhood” and the attendant legal rights and protections afforded “persons” until a geographical change occurs from inside the womb to outside the womb. Even though human, they are property and can be cared for and nurtured until the make the geographical change or they can be dismembered, burned to death with saline or even have their brains vacuumed out a few centimeters away from a full geographical change since they are property and not persons even though human. As long as this arbitrary classification stands I am not really sure on what basis someone could say that slavery was wrong or in the case of other nations, if they are abusing humans who have been legally classified as non-persons on what basis they could be charged with human rights violations. In the U.S., legally, persons have rights, humans do not.

Now I am not sure how they will respond. They may even choose to ignore this question at this point. After all, if they affirm that the law can use any arbitrary criteria to determine a legal definition of personhood which excludes certain humans from protection, there is really no basis on which to say slavery was wrong. After all, it was all legal because legally the slaves were not fully persons even though they were human. We could say that it would be wrong to own slaves in the United States today but that is only because the law has changed and eliminated the skin color criteria not because blacks are any more human than were their ancestors.

Other nations that commit so-called human rights violations may not be doing anything wrong if this arbitrary criteria stands. They may simply choose a different set of criteria but if it is arbitrary it doesn’t matter because it is the criteria their government has chosen. North Korea, Vietnam, China and others may have legally defined those who are being abused as non-persons. If that is so, what right do we as a nation have to try to force our arbitrary definition on to other nations and cultures. After all, our current arbitrary definition is, as I pointed out to Amnesty International, based on geography. A human in the womb is not a person but once they make a move of a few inches from inside the womb to outside the womb, the new location makes them legally persons and affords them protections under the law. If the arbitrary criteria above is false and humans deserve protection solely on the basis of being human that changes how we view the issue of being pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion. Dr. Seuss might say, humans are human, “No matter how small.” Preborn humans are small but human none-the-less. If humanness and personhood are interchangeable terms, then the small preborn humans deserve protection. If these are not interchangeable but one is purely legal and arbitrary (person) while the other biological, then we can no longer view slavery as having been wrong and should abandon any attempt at correcting human rights violations in other nations who have simply chosen a different set of arbitrary criteria.

I will be interested to see the response from Amnesty International if they don’t choose to ignore me.

Being a missionary, like being an evangelist, pastor or teacher, requires that we are good stewards with our time as well as our finances and talents. One of the more frequently asked questions I receive is, “How much time or energy should I put in to someone who seems to be unreachable?” The answer is not simple or clean. Different settings dictate different responses on a case by case basis.

Years ago, when Joy and I regularly posted on AOL boards, we debated JWs who would never leave the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. We did so with full knowledge this was the case because there was a larger group we called the “lurkers.” They were JWs who had questions and were regularly reading and thinking about what we wrote, our responses to the JWs who posted trying to defend their positions or challenge our positions. The “lurkers” had the luxury of reading and thinking about what both sides wrote because they were not on the “hot seat” to respond. This afforded us the opportunity to proclaim the gospel, layout essential Christianity and demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s history and theology. It was a worthwhile endeavor and we saw and have since met those who have become Christians due to that effort. Bill Cwik and Brian have been in the midst of the next generation of Internet evangelism by creating and posting YouTube videos which generate debate in a similar way that we were able to do on AOL 15-20 years ago which reach a broader audience.

Phone calls, like the one I had last week, only include the caller and myself. This is not a long term relationship, like a family member, work mate or neighbor so the answer is a bit easier. There is no one else listening or observing. Long term relationships move slower with information, usually questions are better than assertions and giving time for them to process is helpful. For these settings I would recommend David A Reed’s How to Rescue Your Loved One From the Watchtower in paperback or How to Rescue Your Loved One From the Watchtower ebook. Although this is written about the JWs, the principles translate to most every group and worldview.

If individuals are asking real questions in an attempt to understand the issues, we take as much time as necessary to answer. Figuring this out takes a few minutes. This call may be instructive for our readers who have found themselves in similar situations.

As I mentioned, the phone call began with assurances from the caller that they were not “one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The reason I said this was a tipoff is that this is not a phrase that non-Jehovah’s Witnesses use. The two words, “one of” is very much an insider phrase. The caller went on to say they had just seen the YouTube on blood and could I talk about that. They asked what “authoritative study” we had which would prove that the JW position on blood medically wrong. The caller insisted they have spent time talking with physicians they came to believe that having transfusions are more dangerous than not having them and bloodless surgery has been developed which is superior to surgery requiring blood. This is nearly verbatim from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I let them know that works like David Reed’s Worse That Waco have done a good job of addressing these questions but that our concerns are primarily biblical and not medical. This is important. In the process of deciding how far to go, stay focused on the actual issues and the areas you are prepared to defend. Although I can generally address the medical issues, medicine is not the be all end all. Modern medicine is mostly good but there are side effects and dangers to any and all medical procedures. I pointed out that the Watchtower’s position is very odd in the sense that they allow blood fractions (components of blood) but not whole blood. It is like saying, “You can eat ham and you can eat cheese and you can eat rye bread but you can’t have a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread.” You can take nearly all of the parts of blood except water but you cannot take whole blood.

As interesting as that might be, what is most important is, what does the Bible teach and does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society misuse the Bible in order to validate their teaching? In this case they do. When the Bible talks about not eating or drinking blood, that is what it means. It has nothing to do with blood transfusions. What it is addressing was part of pagan worship which included eating or drinking blood. In fact, before going to battle some soldiers would cut the throat of an animal and drink its blood with the belief that they would be getting its spirit and strength. As we began to look at this the caller let me know that he is currently disfellowshipped due to sin he is presently involved with (which I will not make public). So, although he is disfellowshipped, he still believes the Watchtower teaching and wants to defend it. Considering that they may be wrong was not an option for him. This is not unusual. In some ways, a disfellowhipped JW is more difficult to debate the issues with because there is a sense that if they work hard enough at holding on to their beliefs they will be reinstated and rewarded with a place in the kingdom.

As we address the blood issue I pointed out that each of the practices in Acts 15 which the Jerusalem council agreed that Gentiles refrain from were all related to pagan worship. Before we finalized that he asked if I believed in the Trinity. This is a fairly common tact. When losing ground in one area they will deflect into another topic which they believe will be stronger. I said that I did and asked if they had a JW Bible. Of course, he did. In order to be on the same page I asked, when we read a phrase such as, “Jehovah of Armies has said,” whose words will follow? He was befuddled and so I asked, if we read an article that says, “President Obama said,” whose words would follow. We agreed that the next words would be President Obama’s words. In the same way, the words following a phrase like “Jehovah of Armies has said,” those would be God words. We then began reading Zechariah 2:7 and following. We find out within a couple of verses that Jehovah of armies was sent and that Jehovah of Armies sent him (for a fuller treatment of this see our article Questions and Reflections from Cyberspace which begins on page 2). We spent about 20 minutes on this and in the end he said, neither he nor I can read Hebrew and therefore we can’t really know what the passage means. This lead to the big question. “If I can show you that the Watchtower is not a trustworthy teacher of the Bible and that they have been regularly dishonest, would you repudiate them and consider evidence that Jesus Christ, Lord (YHWH), God and Savior?” The response was, “No, the Watchtower is God’s organization.” It was then time to thank them for their call and move on to the next thing. This isn’t to say we won’t talk again or that I don’t care if they come to the faith, I do. It does mean they are not really asking honest or real questions and being a limited human being I need to make choices about where I invest my time. This is not unlike the words of our Lord to the disciples when He sent them out to preach to Israel in Mark 6:11:

Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them.

God is not dependant on our abilities to reach someone and we can’t argue anyone into the kingdom. The Holy Spirit does the convicting and convincing, we are simply Ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) to a lost and condemned world.

Despite most commentators’ lamentations about the death of courtship and their concern over students’ “new,” morally questionable sexual activity, the term “hooking up” has become commonplace and the practice an accepted part of the college experience. For campus administrators, counselors, and professors, whose only exposure to hooking up has been media accounts or pop-culture references, it is important to know what hooking up really involves.

To the authors of the article, hooking Up itself, of course, is not a worry. That would involve judging some sexual activity as “morally questionable.” The real worry is concern over what the Hooking up might lead to: Sexual assault and alcohol abuse. Actually the last part isn’t exactly true:

However, the link between alcohol and hooking up should perhaps be understood differently. It may be that the hookup system drives student alcohol consumption rather than the other way around. One reason that hooking up requires alcohol is that students need it to alleviate anxiety. Drinking provides liquid courage with which to express interest, initiate a hookup, and allay fear of rejection. Alcohol also helps to dismiss — temporarily, at least — concerns over the sexual aspects of hooking up: deciding how far the encounter should go or being sexually intimate outside of an exclusive relationship.

Here’s a rule of thumb. If you have to get drunk to do it, it’s a bad idea. The author reports drinking is designed to alleviate anxiety. It is more likely that students need to numb their consciences in order to engage in such a parody of dating? I once heard an ex-stripper explain that she had to have a few shots just to get up on stage every night. That wasn’t stage fright. That was soul fright. As if that weren’t enough:

Given that alcohol-fueled (consensual) hookup encounters are common, it can be difficult for students, as well as administrators, to distinguish between a hookup and a sexual encounter that crosses the line and becomes rape. As a result, victim-blaming and underreporting remain rampant, despite decades of work by women’s advocacy groups.

Here’s another rule of thumb. If it’s hard to tell the difference between what you are doing and rape, it’s a bad idea. Underreporting of rape remains rampant I assume because the victim convinces him or herself that since they were drunk it would be too difficult to prove rape. Likewise, if the victim is drunk they are to blame. This is rampant despite decades of work by women’s advocacy groups. It’s just speculation on my part but I bet the work that has been done for decades does not include denouncing the hook up culture that is the impetus for all of these truly horrific things that happen to women. Here’s one reason for my skepticism:

College administrators cannot change the fact that hooking up dominates campus culture. They should not denounce it, given that it has been going on for decades and encompasses a wide range of behavior. But by striving to understand it better, they can help to educate students.

Administrators should not denounce the hook up culture? They should seek to understand it and educate students so that they don’t abuse alcohol and rape or get raped. Yes, the sexual revolution had a grand baby and it’s hideous to look at. Heaven forbid some adults in the room actually tell college students not only that hooking up can be dangerous but that it’s stupid and immoral. And the reason we shouldn’t engage in the centuries old practice of public judgment? It’s been going on for decades and encompasses a wide range of behavior. I’m sorry. That is the most offensive, wheedling, and irresponsible thing I have heard . . . since Lindsay Lohan’s last court appearance. Slavery has been practiced around the world for centuries and for lots of different motives, the least of which is the wicked belief in the inferiority of some races, but that doesn’t bar us from making moral judgments against it and trying to convince several Arab nations to outlaw it. And it shouldn’t prevent administrators from calling drunken trysts and those who engage in them what they are: shameful, degrading, and dangerous–just like slavery, alcohol abuse, and having sex when you can’t see straight.

As if that’s not enough, the Chronicle published another article a few weeks later entitled “The Emotional Cost of Hooking-Up.” Lo and behold a scientific study confirms that women don’t like hook ups very much but do it in order to find a lasting relationship. And predictably it’s having a devastating effect on the soul . . . ahem pardon me . . . the psyche.

Helen Gurley Brown meant to shock when in 1962 she wrote her classic advice book, the best-selling Sex and the Single Girl, advocating sexual fun (and financial independence) for unmarried women. Nearly half a century later, the revolution she helped usher in seems complete: Young women now engage in premarital sex at almost the same rate as young men.

Yes, the revolution that wanted to make women equal has only managed to make women as perverse as men. That’s progress. But even among the feminists there is dissent:

In a recent cover story in The Weekly Standard, Charlotte Allen described what she calls the New Paleolithic Age—a world in which “Cro-Magnons once again drag women by the hair into their caves—and the women love every minute of it.

Again not exactly. While men report being non-plussed about casual sex, women are reporting heartbreak, depression, and sorrow. The emotional costs are the price paid for the female sexual revolution.

Women don’t want sex for long without an emotional connection, a sense of caring, if not real commitment, from their partners. As one student wrote in a paper for my class, “We are told not to be sexual prudes, but to enjoy casual sex, we have to be emotional prudes.”

And not only are feminists saying this but so is the secular priesthood. Evolutionary biologists are weighing in:

None of this would surprise John Townsend, an evolutionary anthropologist whose extensive research has led him to believe that many women go through an experimental stage when they try casual sex, but that they almost always end up rejecting it. For women, intercourse produces feelings of “vulnerability” and of being used when they cannot get the desired emotional investment from their partners. In Townsend’s studies, that occurs even among the most sexually liberated women. Despite their freethinking attitudes, their emotions make it impossible for them to enjoy casual sex.

Those pesky emotions always causing problems. Might be one of the reasons co-eds need alcohol to numb them. Even the priesthood agrees that hooking up is bad for women (or at least evolutionarily disadvantageous).

Edward S. Herold and Dawn-Marie Mewhinney found that women who hook up get less enjoyment and feel more guilt than men do. Denise Hallfors and colleagues found that female teenagers are much more likely than male teenagers to become depressed after sexual encounters with multiple partners. Catherine Grello, a clinical psychologist, and colleagues found that college men who sleep around the most are the least likely to report symptoms of depression, while female college students who engage in casual sex are the most likely to report depression.

So the evolutionary biologists have concluded that men delight in hooking up and women suffer from it. This should lead to reconciliation. Let’s throw off patriarchalism. Men should sacrifice their evolutionary imperatives for the good of women. Who’s with me? I want to see the National Organization of Women calling for men to stop hooking up and abusing women and women to stop letting them. Equality now.

In essence, we can view all of this data two ways. The first is that this emotional disadvantage is something that women should just expect, work through, and largely ignore in favor of more soul-numbing adventures in hopes of finding Mr. Right through a series of trysts with Mr. Right now. We can lament the abuse of alcohol and the prevalence of unreported sexual assault while the modern university burns. And we can settle for equal rights to lechery. Or we can suck up our collective gut and stop educating and start moralizing. Hooking up is stupid, dangerous, and doesn’t reflect or lead to virtue. People who do this do not have good character. They are foolish. It tramples feelings, deadens passion, and creates a life not worth telling your kids about. And if the university administrators don’t have the guts to say it, the Church better be shouting it from the rooftops.

I think a lot of churches do community like the first kind of community–the kind you get when you have a community center, club, or your local Starbucks. I am not saying this is what they intend necessarily but its what passes for community. I’ll use another analogy. Walking into some mega-churches I sometimes get the impression I’m treated like a guest at a bed and breakfast not a family of believers.

After carping for a few paragraphs about accommodation, inclusion, and entertainment (three elements of the Culture-Driven church), I asked this question and gave this cliche answer. :  “So what’s the alternative to B & Bs style community? Family.”

The way I see it, there are a couple of important questions to ask in order to navigate our Christian lives through the extremes of either cultural accommodation or cultural irrelevance.   First, what do we mean by community? Is community just a starting point or are are we really called to something deeper, something more like “Family?”  If it is the latter, what is the difference between family and mere community? My last post dealt with the first question. I am honestly trying to develop an answer to the second question. It just seems intuitive that we want a church family not just a community. But I really can’t answer that question until I know the difference between a family and a community.

Here are a few elements that Don and I have come up with:

First, familial relationships are not really voluntary. Communities are. We don’t choose our families, we are born into them and the bloodline makes us family. And likewise, with the exception of adoptions, our family doesn’t choose us. If I don’t like the crowd at Starbucks, I just find another coffee shop. Recently, I went to a chain restaurant that serves Kansas City BBQ. Because it was a chain, I expected the same great BBQ at each one. I was wrong. Evidently the franchise can differ greatly. I won’t be going back to that BBQ place. However, I can’t say the same thing if my wife doesn’t make a great meal every time. In fact, it doesn’t even occur to me to try (fortunately my wife is a fabulous cook who comes from a family of New Orleans fabulous cooks).  The reason is that there are things that bind us together which are greater than wonderful cooking or more to the point, even a combined purpose. There is something metaphysical that binds me to my family that doesn’t bind me to my weekly card game. Because of that, accommodation and inclusiveness just don’t really apply. If my son decides to do stupid things when he is older involving drugs or a cult, I don’t get the option of completely writing him out of my life. And neither does he have the option of writing me out of his life. He will always be my son. But that also means I don’t have to accommodate his sins either. I may even have to tell him that if he is going to engage in behavior dangerous to him or his family that he must leave the house. But he never really leaves the family. If he wants to come home, we’ll be there. If he needs a hand up, we will do what we can to help. The goal of correction is repentance and restoration. Being family means we are connected whether this happens or not.

It seems to me that church is the same way. Church discipline isn’t being exclusive or unaccommodating. Its a reflection of a tie much stronger than common goals or a mission statement. Telling a brother or sister that they can’t take communion or worship with us because of their behavior isn’t like throwing someone out of your restaurant for not having shoes. It is a calculated, formal, and gut wrenching decision, that is not designed as much for coercion (“Straighten up and you can eat with us”) but rather to protect the rest of the family (all the impressionable younger kids especially). This a subtle but important point. There is not a problem with people who are living non-Christian lifestyles coming to church. People who do not share the worldview of the family are treated as guests for whom we pray and seek to convince of Christ. The problem, the danger is when a believer who professes a biblical worldview engages in activity that is contrary to the Christian worldview.  Let me give an example. I worry about my son. I worry a lot about what he picks up from other kids when he’s playing at the YMCA or when he’s playing in the park. The other day he used a phrase I had never heard from him before and I had to tell him that we don’t use such phrases in our family. This is a concern when he goes to preschool next year. Fair enough. What I really worry about is if one of his other family members is doing something inappropriate. Like me. My kid does everything I do. If I were to do something stupid and sinful and there were no consequences for me, then that would be far more dangerous because it seems to give him permission to behave badly.

Let me end with one other observation that Don and I have discussed. Healthy church communities depend on healthy church families. My relationship with my wider community is only going to be good when my relationship to my family is strong, focused, and clear. That is my family is not only bound by strong ties but that we recognize those ties and operate from the base of our family commitments. I invite people into my home but I can’t invite them into my family. There will always be a separation between my neighbor and my family. And that is a good thing. My relationship with my community is better for that separation. I am a better at community when I always have a core relationship to return to where I know there are three other people who have no choice but to love me. I never confuse the two. My family isn’t designed so that I can affect my community by letting them in on what my family is doing. Rather our family is the base of operations for launching our outreach to our community. Perhaps that is the difference in the Culture driven church and the Church Family. Worship isn’t outreach its the equivalent of a family meal. Sure you sometimes have people over for family meals but there is never a question who is the guest and who is responsible for setting the table.

These ideas are percolating at the moment. I am just beginning to think through them. I invite your own comments and corrections.

For instance, I live in a community of 932 nice people (it says so on the sign) here in Wayne, OH. I have dined with about 5 of them. I have spoken to about 20. I have seen from a distance another 100. There’s a community at Starbucks as well. It is the community hangout. People chat over coffee and exchange everything from phone numbers to directions. Then they go home. The same can be said about the “community center” where we take Palates classes and play softball perhaps with other members of the community.

On the other hand the community that I have with my small group of 8-10 people is awesome. One of them is on my speed dial as an accountability partner in case I get the urge to do something stupid. Two of them called me on the carpet for something a few months ago. One dear soul taught me the basics of using my grill. They have prayed for me, hugged me, and learned how I like my coffee. They babysit my kids (or their teenage daughters do), rejoiced with me when I got my new job, and will let me know when my bible study is not up to snuff.   Come of think of it, I wouldn’t call this community but more like family. Cliche I know but . . .

Here’s a bold claim: I think a lot of churches do community like the first kind of community–the kind you get when you have a community center, club, or your local Starbucks. I am not saying this is what they intend necessarily but its what passes for community. I’ll use another analogy. Walking into some mega-churches I sometimes get the impression I’m treated like a guest at a bed and breakfast not a family of believers. A B & B can be a community of sorts. People eat breakfast together. They chat. Everyone is almost always friendly. Everyone is welcome no matter your race, creed, or beliefs. In an effort to explore this analogy, I asked some facebook friends to tell me in what ways do modern churches remind you of B & Bs. Here’s some of the results:

“They’re comfy and cozy and fun to visit, but it’s just not the same as home.”

“(1) you go whenever you want and stay as long as you please. (2) the people there are (usually) really super nice, but it always just steps onto the wrong side of creepy. (3) they’re constantly telling you how much they love having you there (4) always trying to make you feel at home – never quite works.”

“you go once and never go back again, they take your money for something you should be doing at home, you show up and it’s not at what you thought it would be.”

Not all of those responses are from Christians. But there are a couple of elements that ring true. I can think of three things B & Bs and some modern churches have in common.

First, they are both super accommodating. B & Bs spend a lot of time thinking about amenities. Do you like your pillow soft or hard? Are you allergic to goose down? No problem. Do you like your accommodations antique or modern? No problem. There’s an applique for that. I have been amazed at how much time is spent concerned about the perceptions of others that churches engage in. As with all things except the Holy, moderation is a virtue. I’m not saying the modern church should not consider its public face at all, but endlessly worrying about public perceptions of you, amounts to insecurity not grace.

Second, both are inclusive. If you go to a B & Bs with someone, no one is going to ask if are married. Not anymore. No one is going to comment on any of your personal habits. Liberalism reigns at B & Bs. By that I mean the venerable liberal principle that “as long as you don’t harm anyone else” your life is your own. After all, we don’t want to alienate anyone. Its bad for business. If the culture driven church measures success in reaching the world in terms of how many noses or nickles pass through the door, then it is acting more like a B & Bs than a family.

Third, both B & Bs and the Culture Driven Church, feel the need to make sure the guests have a good time. They are entertaining. Some of the best B&Bs boast all kinds of fun entertainment. So do cruises. Every year there are Christian cruises that promise both rockin concerts and hint at casual “bumping into” intimacy with the likes of Third Day or Matt Redmon. I mentioned to an acquaintance recently that I had visited the local Culture Driven Church in our area to give a talk on Christianity and Sexuality. It seems there was much internal concern about the gay people that were coming to church and what stance the church should take with sensitivity. My friend’s response was “How was the show?” It was innocent but I had to admit, a bit true.

So what’s the alternative to B & Bs style community? Family. But that’s for my next post. In the meantime, maybe you can help me. You see I don’t think all modern churches are culture driven. I don’t think a band is a bad thing. I drink my coffee, wear my shorts, and stack my folding chairs one at a time, just like everyone else. My own church is definitely a modern church. So I’m still figuring out what the middle ground is between cultural accommodation and cultural irrelevance. Perhaps we can discuss it in this forum. I promise to be accommodating and maybe a bit entertaining.