Change? Ya Got Change, Mister?

I am fairly apolitical, but even rather apathetic souls like me notice politics every now and again, whether we want to or not. In case you forgot, there is a presidential election this fall, and I live in Denver, home to the 2008 Democratic Convention. So I pretty much can't escape politics, no matter how hard I try. (And I try hard.) So since I can't escape it, I will write a rare blog on the subject.

My curiosity was piqued when I heard on the radio that a few days ago, both Obama and McCain gave campaign speeches, in which they used the word "change" a combined 57 times. As I recall from past elections, this is not atypical. Every candidate wants "change". My amorphous curiosity began to formulate into a thought as a result of a discussion I had in class this morning on the difference between change and transformation. Change can be good or bad, directed or undirected. Change is inevitable. In some sense, it just is. Transformation, however, involves change for a purpose. It is based on values; it is always directed. Transformation doesn't just happen.

This put the current election "change propaganda" into a bit clearer light for me. Both major candidates want change. What do they want to change? Does Obama want to paint the White House pink? Does McCain want to raise taxes on llama sales? I'm sure you politics junkies out there know much more than I do, but I submit that the only major change either candidate wants is to have the word "President" before his name and not Bush's. Do they really want change, or will they keep 99% of the status quo, because the status quo brought them into power and keeps them there?

Neither candidate will question the validity of an economy that requires a "working poor" class to survive. Neither candidate will abolish the IRS and mandate that congress stop spending $13,000 for a toilet seat. Neither candidate would say, "Welfare isn't working--so we're going to phase it out and get out of the way of charities and religious trying to help the less fortunate." Neither candidate will say, "America needs to repent of its sin and return to the God of the Bible." Whether you agree with the above statements or not (and I will not allow arguing over the specifics; they are merely examples with which I myself may or may not agree), these are examples of real change.

But why would these men really challenge the system that brought them this far?

Colorado Senate Bill 200

On Friday, Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) signed into law Senate Bill 200, which is a revision of a previous anti-discrimination law. Opponents of the bill, led by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, argued that it would allow for any transgender man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa at all public places (including schools), and that proprietors have no legal recourse. Furthermore, any proprietor who tries to prevent this behavior would find himself or herself sitting in jail for a year. I have to admit, legalizing such a specific law on who can use which bathrooms with such a stringent penalty seemed like an awfully silly thing to do. So I found the text of the law (hyperlinked above) and read it for myself.

What I found was interesting. The existing law made acts of discrimination with respect to housing practices, public places (not including churches), publication of written or other materials, and so on, illegal. A majority of what was changed was the addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes’ characteristics, which already included race, religion, ethnicity and the like. SB 200 basically says, “You can’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.” I would wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, it is wrong to discriminate against anyone, and as a follower of Christ, why would I do that anyway?

The section about which Focus on the Family took issue was Section 6: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, which reads in part (I have emboldened relevant text):

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of
public accommodation

From this reading, it does seem like Focus has a valid argument. If someone is transgendered, then he/she legally could use the bathroom he/she finds most applicable, right? Wrong. Take a look at part of Section 7: Penalty and Civil Liability (again, relevant text is emboldened):

Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to
any citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every
disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in
said section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved

Apparently Dr. Dobson didn’t read this particular clause. With respect to the bathroom issue, I would think that the age-old gender division of bathrooms would be a perfect example of an exemption of this type. All citizens of the country understand that their bathroom choice in a public place is based on their physical “plumbing” as it were. That is how society functions, regardless of one’s creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. The intent of this law, therefore, was not to allow for crazy bathroom switching but to protect a group of people from discrimination.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. I could be mistaken with my interpretation. Maybe she-males are secretly plotting how they are going to infiltrate men’s restrooms around the state. I would encourage you, therefore, to read SB 200 yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

"Then Who Can Be Saved?"

I have begun the arduous task of preparing for my doctrinal oral examination next Spring. Basically, at Denver Seminary, in order to successfully complete the M.Div. program, one must write a somewhat lengthy paper summing up his or her theological beliefs and then defend those beliefs orally (and without notes) in front of a pair of professors. Fun, right? It is, however, an excellent chance to go back and think hard about the entire spectrum of theology and really nail down (at least for now) what I believe.

I am working through the topic of general revelation at present (that is, what God has revealed to us through nature, history, etc.), and the topic of salvation came up. Namely, can a person be accepted as a true believer if he or she has never heard of Jesus? Some would say, No, a person cannot be saved without a knowledge of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, through a human instrument (Rom 10:9-14). One must confess that Jesus is Lord, and how can a person know that if it is not told to him or her? Others say, Yes, a person can be saved without such knowledge. They believe that, just like the saints of the Old Testament, if a person has faith in God to the extent that his or her knowledge will allow, then he or she can be saved in Christ, even without knowing the object of their salvation (Hebrews 11, the famous "by faith" chapter).

Now the debate is much more complex than what I have represented here, but my view is this: I would maintain that it is possible for a person, never having heard the name of Christ, to be saved. The linchpin of the argument for me is the Old Testament saints. They had faith and were justified by it. They knew that Messiah was to come, but they did not know who it would be. Likewise, a person in a currently "unreached" area of the world, if they had faith in God based on what had been revealed to him or her from nature, would have a similar faith as OT saints (admittedly, with a much lesser degree of knowledge). What about Paul's comments in Romans 10? It seems to me that Paul was primarily exhorting his readers to spreading the gospel and not making an exclusive theological claim. That being said, before you burn me as a heretic, hear me out. I did not say that such a route to salvation would be easy. I expect that it would be nearly impossible for a person to respond with saving faith to general revelation. However, in Matt 19, Jesus speaks about the rich getting into heaven being similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle. "Then who can be saved?" the disciples ask. He responds, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Likewise, it may be impossible by our reckoning for a person who has not heard of Christ to be saved. However, let's face it: As an American, I am rich, and I have faith in Christ. With God all things are possible.

One final caveat: I do believe that a person who has heard the name of Christ is now responsible to come under His lordship. Therefore, the preceding paragraphs are a moot point for many, if not a majority of, people today.

So now I pose the same question to you: Must a person hear the name of Christ proclaimed in order to be saved? I have given my argument briefly. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. You never know, with a good enough argument, you might even change my mind...

Philosophy of Evangelism and Discipleship

Today's entry is a slightly modified essay I wrote for a class this past semester. I thought it was one of the better pieces I had written in a while, so I'm posting it. I hope you enjoy it, and any feedback is appreciated, as always.

Evangelism and discipleship are two ideas that have been used and abused by many in the church. Just recently, in fact, Iived a link to a YouTube video from a friend of mine. A prominent youth speaker was telling a stadium full of students about a youth group that had attended one of his previous retreats. The youth group had put up poster boards in the youth room with the names of every student, teacher and administrator in their high school. Within three months, they had given the gospel presentation to everyone in their school (he did not say how many, if any, of these people accepted Christ). The speaker then asked the audience who had had a one-on-one conversation about Jesus with someone in the past two days. Only four had. This, he stated, was the problem with Christianity. Many Christians’ view of evangelism and discipleship, in my opinion, is the same as this man’s, and I believe it is harmful. What is so harmful about this belief? It presents “cold” evangelism as the only viable option. This approach also relies on guilt as a motivator. Furthermore, it completely neglects the idea of relationship and prefers to treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. It is against this type of view that I must stand.

In order to understand evangelism and discipleship correctly, we must look at the ideas behind these concepts. In the New Testament, the idea of salvation has past, present and future implications. Those who profess faith in Christ have been saved (Luke 7:50), are being saved (1 Co 1:18) and will be saved (Matt 10:22). This tri-fold usage of salvation terminology shows that it is a journey. Being evangelized is one of the first steps of that journey, followed by a period when one accepts Christ, followed by discipleship. Evangelism and discipleship, then, are not so much two separate entities but different stages of the same journey.

It is imperative to understand that we are all on a journey somewhere. We who have Jesus are not the sole arbiters of truth and goodness, although we know the One who is True and Good. We also know that the One in question created all men, women and children in His own image. He loves them because He created them in His image. As Christians, we must remember, then, that we, too, should love—really love—our fellow humans because God loves them and they are worthy of love. This doesn’t mean that they are not sinners going down the path to destruction, but it does mean that as we evangelize them we do so with respect. In the case of the students sharing the gospel with everyone in school, I wonder with how much respect this was done. I suspect that it was a well-intentioned project—let’s fix as many of them as we can. What if each of the students had committed instead to deepen one relationship? What good might have come out of that, even if the sheer number of people “touched” is much lower?

This is a hard concept for many of us in the West to grasp, where our idea of success involves quantitative elements. A church with 10,000 attendees must be successful, right? What about my church, that has around 20 regular attendees? Well, bless them, they’re sure trying. I would submit that both quantitative and qualitative elements must be taken into consideration with evangelism and discipleship. There are surely those with the gift of evangelism who can bring the masses to Christ. Most of us do not fall into this category. Some of us even seem always to get the seeds that have fallen to the side of the road (cf. Jesus’ parable in Matt 13)—a lot of sowing, not much reaping. At my church, we pray for both numerical and spiritual growth. I think this balance is a key when discussing evangelism and discipleship.

So, then, what is our ultimate role as Christians, if it is not to tell everyone we meet about Jesus? In a moment, I will argue that this question is not the appropriate one to ask. First, though, we must remember what Jesus said when asked about a person’s ultimate role. In Matt 22, a lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. In his famous response, Jesus states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (vv.37-39). Jesus said we are to love God and love people. Every action we take, every conversation or thought we have, should tie back into loving God and loving people. This is the heart of discipleship: Tying our life into these two commandments. When Jesus later gives the Great Commission in Matt 28, he instructs us to go “and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (vv.19-20). As we go, we must remember to “go” in such a way that we love God and love people. This is the heart of evangelism: Spreading the gospel in love.

Now, let us return to the above question. Does making disciples of all the nations equate to telling everyone we meet about Christ? Or does it rather mean working the gospel within the relationships we have? Perhaps circumstance plays a part in determining this, but I would say that the more loving route would typically be the latter. The question Should I tell everyone I meet about Jesus? should be replaced in our hearts and minds with the question How can I love God and people as I spread the gospel? This is the key question for us to ask as we consider evangelism and discipleship.

Having theorized sufficiently, I will now turn to how I practically apply my philosophy in ministry. First and foremost, as with any aspect of ministry, I believe prayer must be central. James 5:16 states, “The effective prayer of a righteous person can accomplish much.” Although I need much work in my own prayer life, I am firmly committed to the idea that prayer must serve as the foundation for all ministry, including evangelism and discipleship. Second, I highly emphasize growing relationships. There are people in my own circle of friends with whom I actively try to cultivate deeper relationships. As a non-Christian example, I have a friend named (Mr. X). I have shared the gospel presentation with him, we have debated the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture and we have generally talked a great deal about religion and philosophy. He knows my worldview, and I know his. He is not currently a follower of Christ. I have learned that I cannot convert him—that is a decision between God and him—and I have accepted that. What I can do is be his friend and listen to him respectfully. He knows I am a trusted confidant, and I know that I am showing him Christ’s love. In the discipleship arena, I can mention (Mrs. Y). (Mrs. Y) comes to me with questions about the Bible and faith. Again, listening is the key. She says that she learns a lot from me, but the truth is, she is working out her own thoughts and ideas through verbalization. In addition to prayer and cultivating relationships, evangelism and discipleship in my ministry involves waiting on the Spirit to work. Again, in the case of (Mr. X), I have been waiting years for him to become more open to the gospel message. God’s timing, though, is not my own (2 Pt 3:9; Ps 90:4). We do not live in a sitcom, where everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes’ time. In the same manner, with (Mrs. Y), as it is with me, growth takes time. Evangelism and discipleship timelines may need to be expressed in years or decades—a thought that we who live in a fast-paced society ought not to forget.

I have in this essay juxtaposed two very different methods of evangelism and discipleship. On the one hand, there is the common method of guilt-induced programs that treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. On the other hand, there is the less common method of forming real relationships with people, loving and respecting them because they are intrinsically valuable to God. I cannot say that this method is always—or ever—easy, fun and clean (there are no neat and tidy checklists to go down), but I must say that it is the method to which I adhere. I hope you will, too.

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Disturbing Trends in Global Climate...Reporting

Monday, June 24, 1974. Time magazine publishes an article on drastic climate changes that are beginning to take place around the globe. It just might be the beginnings of a “climatic upheaval”. Yes, it is the worst fate imaginable come to life: Global cooling.

That’s right. Just 34 years ago, climatologists were worried sick that another ice age would wreak havoc on the earth and its population. The mean global temperature had dropped an estimated 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1940s. Snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere was advancing aggressively with no signs of stopping. Migratory patterns of the armadillo were changing. All of the signs pointed toward a disastrous drop in global temperature that would decimate the world’s population.

If you read the article, you will no doubt notice that if Time wanted to cut its number of staff writers down, they could substitute global-warming terminology for every reference to global cooling/ice ages and have an article that could be published today, Earth Day 2008, and no one would be the wiser.

Does anyone else take issue with this? Three decades ago, the media were convinced that we would all die in snowy graves. Now they are convinced that we will turn our world into a raging funeral pyre. What will they be convinced of in another thirty years? Global steadiness? I wonder what that article will look like…

Thursday, April 22, 2038. In Russia, crops are growing. In Ethiopia, herds of
cows are strong. At the UN, climatologists gather for the annual UN
Environmental Impact Conference. They are worried that there have not been
the characteristic climate swings the past ten to twenty years. “Normally,
we would expect various rising and cooling trends over the course of a decade or
two. We have not been seeing this—the global climate is at a standstill,”
said Swedish climatologist Soren Kiergestol. “This could wreak havoc on
our environment—it needs climatic diversity to thrive. Humankind must
intervene in order to save our planet…”

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse: Activist Actor Makes Poignant Observation

I have just a few minutes between ripping up the tile in my kitchen and going to church--time enough for a quick post.

Today's subject is Tim Robbins. Now normally, one of my main life axioms is, "Don't put too much stock on anything actors or musicians say about subjects other than acting and music." So goes with Mr. Robbins, who is a bit extreme for my tastes. However, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, and our nut Tim actually makes a pretty good point about television, quoted here at length with commentary from article writer Kevin Sites:

As the keynote speaker at the recent National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference in Las Vegas, the actor and activist decried today's news and entertainment content as driven by a "pornographic obsession with celebrity culture."

"We love distraction," he said, reading from a speech the organizers reportedly tried to talk him out of giving. "I don't know about you, but show me a starlet without panties getting out of a car, and suddenly the world seems like a better place. Show me 'Knight Rider' drunk on the floor eating a hamburger, and I won't ask why my kid has no health insurance. Let's stop burdening people with facts."

A few people walked out, but Robbins finished to a standing ovation. And regardless of opinions, he did succeed in raising a powerful question, made more poignant by the acres of gadgets on the exhibit floor: Why, in an era of mind blowing media technological advances, does good content sometimes seem to lag so far behind?

Why, indeed? 

Wow, A Whole Month.

So I just realized it's been exactly a month since I last posted. I give my readers my most sincere apologies. I bought a house last month, in the process enduring the worst closing ever. Maybe I will talk about that later. That sucked the life right out of my wife and me. And now, of course, we are working on fixing all of the things that need it. I will try to get back to regular posting as soon as I can, but until then, I ask for your patience.

Thanks,
Jon