Moving my blogging to...

For anyone still following here I am permanently moving my blog (and plan to regularly post) to davidgheflin.wordpress.com.  I hope you will follow there.

Chiang Mai, Trip

I am going to Chiang Mai, Thailand for two weeks and I will be blogging but from a DIFFERENT blog...just FYI. That blog can be found at www.DavidGlobalKingdom.tumblr.com. I am seriously considering using that blog for all purposes.

A Christian Response to the Death of Osama Bin Laden

My computer was in my lap as I awaited the important announcement from President Obama on Sunday night. Before the president even spoke, news broke that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a military operation. Given the startling magnitude of the news, I wanted to follow peoples' reaction in the world of Facebook and Twitter. What transpired was like nothing I had ever witnessed in social media. It began with people simply posting the breaking news. Then statements of celebration followed. However, not too much longer came the posts chiding those who were celebrating for failing to love their enemy. Then full fledged debate and the throwing of scriptural hand grenades were underway!

How Christians should respond to such momentous news that involves the death of another human being is a complex matter. I hope here to articulate a Christian response, but am not claiming to have the Christian response. The fact is that there a lot of tensions in Scripture, and the death of Osama Bin Laden seems to fall right into the middle of such a tension. On the one hand, the Bible clearly contains dozens of passages that call on God for the downfall of the violent and those who oppress others. On the other hand, other passages declare that God himself does not delight in the downfall of the wicked and Jesus called on his followers to love their enemies, exemplified most powerfully in Jesus forgiving his executioners from the cross. For example, compare Ps. 58:10 and Ezek. 33:11. These were just two of the passages being used for the scriptural hand grenades I mentioned above!

Those who were adamantly against the celebrations that broke out on television and the celebratory comments made by their fellow Christians on Facebook look to Jesus as the ultimate example of how to respond to our enemies. So, even if dozens of Psalms and other Old Testament passages seem to give the okay to celebrate the demise of the wicked, such passages are trumped by Jesus and the cross. While I agree that we interpret Scripture with the cross at the center, I am not fond of any interpretative method that simply dismisses the value of large portions of Scripture outright. Besides, even the martyred saints of Revelation--living in a post-cross reality--are portrayed as calling for the vengeance of God upon their enemies, “"How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (Rev. 6:10).

Once I was in a jury pool and was asked by the D.A. if I cared about the defendant who was accused of murder. As a Christian, even if he had been found guilty, I would still care about him as a human being made in the image of God and would hope for his eventual redemption. This I suspect is how Jesus would have us love our enemies like Osama Bin Laden. We don't hope for their destruction, but for repentance and knowledge of the truth. My answer to the D.A. got me dismissed almost immediately, because she assumed that my concern for the defendant was primary. She never considered my concern and love for the victim and his family as well and therefore my value for justice.

In the case of Osama Bin Laden, we cannot lose sight that while his destruction is tragic because of how sin had so badly warped him, his killing also brings justice and closure to the suffering of thousands. A Christian response will both mourn the tragic consequences of sin that made such a killing necessary, but also rejoice at the arrival of long awaited justice for thousands around the world.

P.S. Some have objected to the use of the word 'justice' in connection with the killing of Bin Laden. Their problem is with viewing America as the purveyor of justice when we (speaking as an American) have our own evils to answer for. But I am not claiming America has the moral high ground nor that America is the ultimate bearer of justice. I would have the same feelings about the matter, if Pakistan had killed Bin Laden. The country who actually brought justice to Bin Laden is immaterial to the point of this post. Justice belongs to God and one thing the Old Testament Scriptures make clear is that God can bring justice through many means, including through nations that may be even more evil than the one he is punishing. The book of Habakkuk especially explores this issue. In any case, there is no hesitation on my part at speaking of the demise of Osama Bin Laden as the justice of God, and therefore he gets the glory. His simple death may not convince all that justice has been served, but we leave matters of justice in the afterlife to God as well.

Lost and World-view

I have watched every episode of Lost since the beginning. That makes me a fan. I never seen any episode more than once, so I guess I am not obsessed. Lost is a clever show that shrouds itself in mystery so that fans have to keep coming back for answers. Lost executive producers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof deftly offer just enough of a peek behind the curtains to keep viewers craving more, but never achieving satisfaction.

Those that managed to not get entangled with Lost early on never really understand what all the fuss is about. After all, the idea of plane crash victims stuck on an island that inexplicably moves through time and space, combined with characters living out two timelines (one on the island, one in the regular world--depending on what really happened when the atom bomb went off. See that explains everything!) seems preposterous!

To the credit of the show's creators, the show is written in such a way that a regular watcher of the show begins to buy in. The implausible seems plausible, at least in a world where such an island can exist. But I suspect the show's real success is its willingness to explore real-life mysteries. It blurs the lines between life and death, space and time, destiny and free-will, and faith and science. Lost refuses to come down conclusively on either side of any of these metaphysical questions. So, unless you are a person who wants a simple black-and-white answer to every complexity of life, then you are not driven away by the show's philosophical wrangling. The most devoted believer and the most ardent atheist could enjoy watching Lost together.

Personally, I enjoy a little nuance in life. I am always turned-off by answers to complicated issues that seem too simple, hence my disdain for ideological political gibberish on either side of the aisle. But in a recent interview given by the aforementioned producers of the show, I realized the biggest questions remain unanswered, because they do not believe they answerable, including whether or not there really is a God. Here's a telling piece of that interview (Carroll is the interviewer).

Carroll: It’s like purposefulness versus randomness.

Lindelof:. That’s right. It’s order versus chaos, which is what it always was. But first it had to start as science versus faith, because Jack is a doctor and Locke is a guy who got up from his wheelchair and walked. Now the question has been boiled down to its essential root—is there a God or is there nothingness?

Carroll: Presumably, if it is order versus chaos or purpose versus randomness, there is no right answer. It’s not as if in the finale you’re going to say, “Yup, it was order.”

Cuse: I don’t think there’s a right answer.

It is a frightening thought to consider that we can't really answer the question of purpose vs. randomness or even God vs. nothingness. This is why Leslie Newbigin suggests that post-modernism actually leads to nihilism. Well, Lost is the quintessential postmodern experience.

The vestige of modernism that continues to hold sway over post-modernists is the definition of knowledge. Moderns defined knowledge by what could be empirically proven. In this environment, science became king. Faith was okay, if you needed that sort of thing, but don't mistake it for knowledge! Post-modernism rejects the arrogant confidence of scientific empiricism, but still allows their conception of knowledge to be defined by it, which is why when pushed to its extreme, true knowledge becomes unattainable. In other words, post-modernists agree with moderns that knowledge requires empirical proof, but disagree that even science itself has reached that level on life's biggest questions.

The result is that a post-modern world-view will the hold metaphysical questions of life, such as those portrayed in Lost, as unanswerable. Post-modernists will not ascribe to science omnipotence as moderns did, but simply believes attempts at answers to be futile.

A Christian world-view does not counter by insisting that God is empirically provable, but rather suggests all knowledge involves a commitment, which is to walk by faith. It grounds knowledge/wisdom in the being of God himself. Certainly, Christianity needs to show itself to be intellectually viable (which it is), but it does not bear the burden of the "modern" definition of knowledge. Post-modernists are correct that the biggest questions in life cannot be answered with empirical knowledge. It does not follow, however, that there are no answers!

Jealousy and the Love of God

It is trendy to espouse confidence in the "love of God." Many of my friends on Facebook opt for this emphasis in the box where one can list their religious views instead of "Christian" or their specific denomination. On the one hand, this seems to me a good emphasis. After all, doesn't the Bible say "God is love"? On the other hand, I am not fully convinced that everyone jumping on the "God is love" bandwagon understands what that expression means.

I'll back up a little bit before I go any further. I grew up in a situation where we could hardly ever say "God is love" without having to apologize for it. So, we might say, "God is love, but he is also holy." Or we might feel compelled to emphasize his wrath, judgment, or righteousness anytime we mentioned his love. Since we could never just outright say "God is love," the very statement itself was hard to believe. I still struggle with what should be the overwhelming idea of God's unconditional love for me.

So, I have seen the negative consequences of always needing to qualify the love of God. It leads to a sort of paranoia about God's love and what is really a mistrust regarding the nature of God. So, I don't want to qualify God's love at all. He loves you and me unconditionally, with an intensity that we could never imagine.

Having said that, it does not follow that every person who so eagerly endorses and claims the love of God for their "religious views" understands what God's love means. Quite frankly, I happen to know for a fact that several of these folks (not just my Facebook friends, but those I have encountered through the years who eagerly tell me the "love of God" defines their belief about God) are using their "theology" (to use the term rather loosely) as a blank check to live unholy and uncommitted lives. If God is love, then he would never condemn anyone, never hold anyone responsible for their actions, and never demand anything from anyone. I could say these people have never read their Bible, but I happen to know that is not true (in most cases). The self-deception goes much deeper than simple ignorance of the Scriptures. Instead, they have simply chosen a concept from the Bible (God is love) and used it for their slogan to live however they choose, with no regard of reciprocating the love of God they so readily endorse.

I do not need to qualify God's love, but nor can I define it on my own terms. God's love is a jealous love. Jealousy is usually a negative word, because we react with jealousy in want of something that does not rightfully belong to us. However, could I be said to truly love my wife, if she was unfaithful to me and I was not jealous for her love? I belong to my to wife and she belongs to me. Our love is a jealous love in the best sense of the word.

Now, I am not talking about paranoid spouses who become jealous of their mate every time they have a conversation with someone of the opposite sex. That kind of jealousy is born out of the need to control and dominate. I am speaking of the kind of jealousy and love that truly values the other.

Ex. 34:14 says, "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD (Yahweh), who name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Well, there's a name for God we don't use very often! What if I put in my religious views, "God is jealous"? It is just as true as "God is love." It isn't that God is part love and part jealous, but rather that God's love for us is a jealous love. We belong to God and our devotion rightfully belongs to him and to him alone.

Do we really think that God's love for us is so weak that we can live however we want, serve whomever we want, and not arouse the jealousy of God? If this was the case, then God's love for us wouldn't be any stronger than my love for pasta! God is intensely in love with us. When his people are unfaithful to him and serve other gods he likens it to prostitution and adultery (see the book of Hosea and Jeremiah 5:7 just to mention a couple of examples).

The irony is many who claim that God's love is so great that they can live however they like have actually exchanged the immeasurable love of God for something so watered down it can hardly be described as love. I remember reading or hearing that Oprah Winfrey's big 'aha' religious moment happened at a Baptist church where the preacher read that God was a jealous god. She was turned off by that notion, believing that jealousy was too petty of an emotion for God. So began her departure from the Christian faith. Those who reject the jealously of God, do so because it is a love that demands our faithfulness.

There is a reason why Jesus says, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Love that is mere words is simply cheap talk (I've always liked the song More Than Words). If you claim God loves you, then you are absolutely right. If you think such love demands nothing of you, then you do not know the love of God. And if you claim you love God, there is a simple test to prove the validity of your claim. Do you keep his commandments? I'm not talking about an unattainable perfection, but a devotion of the heart that anyone could witness and exclaim, "Now there's a man (or woman) who loves God."

The Scandal of Particularity:Can you be a Christian and not believe Jesus is the only way to God?

A recent report from Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion says that 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. This doesn't surprise me. Christianity is sort of the default religion of America. If you are not Buddhist or Muslim, then you must be Christian. Of course, there is a growing number of those claiming no religion or atheism, but it seems the numbers claiming Christianity basically have held steady over the years.

As a side note, this does not mean church attendance has remained steady. Surveys continue to indicate that people (especially the millennial generation) are less willing to associate themselves with "institutions" or "organized religion." It seems for many claiming to be Christians, they have no regard for the body of Christ--the Church. I suppose, however, that's a topic for another blog.

The other interesting--almost bewildering--stat to come out of that report was that 75% of Americans think that many religions lead to eternal life. Now, I'm not very good at math, but you don't have to be to realize that if 75% of folks think many religions lead to eternal life and 80% claim to be Christians then there is a lot of overlap in those two numbers. It appears a sizable majority of those claiming to be Christians believe there are many paths to everlasting bliss.

Now I didn't see how the questions were framed. It may be that some are simply indicating that their "denomination" isn't the only way to heaven. Though I really don't think the Pew folks (they are quite reputable) would be so sloppy in how they worded their questions. So, what does this poll data tell us? Quite frankly, that a lot of those claiming to be Christians don't even know what being a Christian means.

Christianity by definition is to believe and follow Jesus as Lord of all. It necessarily means and is, in fact, a commitment to the tenet that Jesus is the only way to God (and the heaven that comes with it). This doesn't mean that God couldn't save people who were totally ignorant of the gospel. God can save whom he pleases and how that applies to those who have never heard the gospel is a different discussion. To openly profess to be a Christian and then suggest that Christianity is one of many paths to God is a contradiction in terms. It is kind of like saying you love to sail, but hate the water. It doesn't make any sense.

This kind of gap in logical coherence is usually attributed to our post-modern culture and the idolization of tolerance as its chief virtue. Undoubtedly, this is a huge factor. But the scandal of particularity goes further back than then latest cultural phenomenon. God revealed himself particularly to the Jews and then particularly through Jesus. Much of Roman culture characterized early Christians as atheists, because they rejected the Greek/Roman gods in favor of the confession that "Jesus is Lord."

It seems that many in our culture want to have it both ways. They want Jesus as a convenient Savior, but post-modern toleration (pluralism) as Lord. The Christian confession is and always will be that Jesus is Lord. For those that claim to be Christians, but reject the exclusive nature of Christianity's claim, it seems they have a choice to make. Either they will serve the cultural gods of pluralism, relativism, and toleration, or they will serve Jesus as Lord. "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).

Does it Matter What You Think About God?

Recently, I had a brief exchange on a Yahoo! discussion board about whether or not it really matters what you think about God. It is another manifestation of the old debate regarding the relevance of theology. Those that would argue for a connection between theology and the real world are losing traction in a post-modern age. How can it can really matter what a person thinks about God, if such thoughts are restricted to the thinker's private mind. In our post-modern world, you are supposed to keep such thoughts to yourself, lest they come across as intrusive or offensive to what someone else may privately think.

I opened this discussion, on my group page, by quoting the famed theologian A.W. Tozer. He opens his magnum opus, The Knowledge of the Holy by saying, "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Such a statement assaults the post-modern mind, which values a supposed set of shared common values, which cannot possibly be related to something as scandalous as what a person actually thinks about God!

I remember watching a celebration of such "common values" when the networks aired Michael Jackson's memorial service. The celebrity supporters gathered and serenaded the audience with an emotional rendition of "We Are the World." Behind them various religious symbols from all faiths were projected onto screens as they sang. The message was clear. We are the world and it doesn't matter what religion you practice. As human beings we are all united by the fact we share this world.

The problem of such a Utopian ideal is, of course, that it is patently untrue. We are not the world in any unified sense. We usually can't even get along in our own neighborhoods. We are a world living under the threat of constant terrorism, fractured by multiple wars, indifferent to the suffering of so many in our world, unmoved to lift our hands together against poverty and starvation, and holding little regard for justice unless we ourselves are treated unjustly.

Could it be that what we think about God might impact us a little more than many post-modern pundits would have us to believe? In reading through the Old Testament, one cannot help but to be struck by how different (holy) the people of God (Israel) were to live. What they thought about God made all the difference in the world. They were to care about justice, because they served a just God, even one who loved the alien among them. They were to have a compassion on the poor, the orphan, and the widow, because their God was a God abounding in love and compassion.

As the story of Israel goes, they often forgot their theology. They turned and worshiped other gods, including Molech. In doing so, they abandoned compassion and began to sacrifice their children by fire. How could they do such a reprehensible deed? Because they exchanged the holy and loving Yahweh for the unholy and unloving god Molech.

You can't force anyone to think about God the way you do, though it might be good to be verbally and kindly persuasive, if possible. My point is that what you think about God has everything to do with the kind of person you are and the life you live. Nothing about us could be more relevant. We become like what we worship.

The gods of today are not so despicable as Molech (in most cases), so we don't have people sacrificing their children in the fire. I recognize the common human dignity we share with all people on the planet and I do not doubt that people of all religions or no religion can do amazingly good deeds and admirable acts of compassion. There is a sense that a basic set of common values are evident to all regardless of their theology. As a theologian, I would argue that such values are obvious only because we are created in the image of God.

However, in the end, we are still becoming like whom we worship. So, isn't it amazing that in living in such an enlightened culture that so extols the virtues of common values that we have sacrificed untold millions of unborn children to the gods of choice, individualism, and convenience? Is this the world meant by Jackson's "We Are the World"? Are we capable of such capricious elimination of life and at the same time rousing demonstrations of compassion, like we have seen in the aftermath of the Haiti quake?

This is simply the reality of being human beings with our all too common values. As long as we worship humankind as the highest ideal we will never transcend that reality. Maybe Tozer was right: "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us."