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."

Tim Tebow vs. Planned Parenthood

Superbowl advertising's biggest controversy is usually who has the funniest commercial. Surprisingly, this year's Superbowl advertising will not be all fun and games, but instead is a venue for one of culture's greatest divides: pro-life vs. pro-choice. The participants in this heavy-weight bout are the Heisman and national championship icon Tim Tebow with his mother and pro-choice advocate Planned Parenthood.

Tim is the son of missionary parents that served in the Philippines. When Tim's mother, Pam, was pregnant with Tim she had complications, and so a doctor recommended Pam have an abortion for her own safety. Obviously, she disregarded this advice and gave birth to Tim, who has since become of of college football's most celebrated athletes and a very outspoken voice in the Christian community.

So, now enter the Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family who invited Pam and Tim to do the ad, which will emphasize the theme "Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family." CBS, host of the Superbowl, is airing the ad despite policies against showing controversial advocacy ads. Their take seems to be that this is just a positive story about a high profile family and is not intended to condemn abortion or its advocates.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood finds such a position disingenuous on the part of CBS and Focus on the Family. But unable to muster enough public pressure to get CBS to pull the ad, they responded by creating their own ad on You Tube. So, the battle is underway.

I imagine that more controversy would have been caused by pulling the ad than letting it air, since they had already agreed to do so. Tebow is unbelievably popular and if he's got a story to tell, then he will get to tell that story. I, for one, am glad he gets to tell it, along with his mom. Tim Tebow was not just a disposable fetus in his mother's womb, and as living breathing proof of that fact, pro-choice groups feel threatened by him and his mother speaking out for life.

I've seen the Planned Parenthood ad and is respectfully and tastefully done. Yet, this controversy demonstrates this debate is far from over. There has been evidence that a lot of Americans are ready to move past this debate both in the political and religious arena. I am not sure myself that the battle for life has always been fought wisely and effectively. However, there are so many lies that are circulated by the pro-choice community (many of which I am sure they sincerely believe) that I believe there must always be a counter-voice, a voice that will speak up for the most helpless of all humans--the unborn.

Many that have pro-life leanings but are ready to move past the debate do not understand fully what is at stake. I may not be a Catholic, but I always appreciate a good writer. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote a great book called Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. It isn't all about abortion, but it contains the best pro-life argument I have ever read. In it he says, "First, there are no 'small murders.' The respect of every human life is an essential condition if a societal life worthy of the name is to be possible. Secondly, when a man's consciousness loses respect for life as something sacred, he inevitably ends by losing his own identity" (60).

What is at stake in a culture that treats unborn life as disposable tissue is the very destruction of the meaning of human life, not just for the unborn, but for the born. Life itself has lost its very sacredness and society becomes a veritable hell on earth where every decision is made in the name of individual convenience and thus ushers in the death of compassion and civility. I am glad for the Tim Tebows of our nation that very well may help us hold back that awful reality foreseen by Ratzinger.

Holy Bothering

Based on my past experience, I am not the greatest candidate to read the entire Bible through in a calendar year. The truth is that I have often questioned the value behind such an approach, which probably contributes to my failure rate (100%) in attempting this endeavor. I feel like if I read three chapters a day over the course of the year that I will not be very good at reading other books that also help me grow spiritually and assist me in ministry. On the other hand, I could certainly gain from developing the habit of daily Bible reading.

However with all that said, it bothers me that I have never read the Bible cover to cover (which is way more important than those other books I like to read). So, I decided on a new strategy; I would read nothing else but the Bible for four months. If I read nine chapters a day, then I will finish the Bible in that time period instead of a year. I started on January 5th and so far so good. I finished the Pentateuch yesterday. It has really been an eye-opening experience to read so much of the Bible at such a rapid pace. You may lose the ability to dwell on details, but you gain something in regards to the connected themes of the Bible.

I read Genesis through Leviticus before taking a break from the Pentateuch to read Mark. It was amazing to experience just how different reading the teachings and actions of Jesus was compared to reading the Pentateuch. Though much more interesting, I could not read Mark as fast. The words of Jesus "give us pause" to quote a good friend.

There is a lot of fascinating material in the Pentateuch, but I confess that there are a lot of things that bother me. Let's be honest; they probably bother you too. I don't feel like men and women are treated equally or even valued equally under the Mosaic Law, but I will leave that topic for another day. I will only add that yes it is true that the Law of Moses was much more considerate of women than other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, but that doesn't necessarily explain away all the inequalities between men and women under the Law of Moses.

Yet, what is truly bothersome is the frequent command to either stone or burn or otherwise cut off from his or her people those foolish enough to transgress God's law. To be sure, God differentiates between those that simply make a mistake (unintentional sin) and those that willingly transgress. Still, there is death for those who blaspheme, takes the name of God in vain, worship idols, practice sorcery, divination, witchcraft, rebels against their parents, desecrates the Sabbath, commits adultery, etc. All of this threat of death reminds me of growing up with the threat of hell constantly proclaimed and seared into our consciousness.

Late we see the flaws in such an approach. We find ourselves far more motivated by grace and the love of God than threat of punishment, and indeed this seems to be a consistent emphasis in the New Testament. It is present in the Old Testament as well (just as the threat of hell is present in the New), but what gives with the extreme threat of punishment in the Old Testament for offenses that many of us (if not all) have committed?!

Well, the truth is that our modern sensitivities, evidenced by the fact that many consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, has little chance of truly comprehending life and death in the Ancient Near Eastern world. Also, we elevate individual rights and dignity to such an extreme that is hard for us to understand how stoning an individual (or in some cases his entire family) for the benefit of the entire community (or nation) was more sensible than showing individual compassion.

Yet, what we really don't get is far more important than the differences in modern and Ancient Near Eastern sensitivities. We simply don't understand the holiness of God. I suggest the Pentateuch is really about two related themes. The first is the narrative of God's developing relationship with his people--the call of Abraham, the Patriarchs, the journey to Egypt, his dramatic rescue through Moses, the Wandering, and the preparation for entering the Land. The second theme is God's gracious willingness to dwell amongst his people, evidenced by the manifestation of his glory at the Tabernacle.

All of the sacrifices, the laws, the death penalties, etc. exist so that God's people will not be consumed by the holiness of God. Yes, God values every individual but not so much that he will allow sin in the camp to threaten the entire community. God's holiness cannot abide sin and rebellion. So, the people are to be holy as he is holy. If your actions threaten this tenuous relationship between God and his people, then you are going to be eliminated (a constant refrain is "the sin must be purged from among you").

We take holiness for granted, because we rightly believe that we are made holy by the blood of Jesus. We know that no amount of law keeping could truly make us holy. But with the passage of time, and our general neglect of the Old Testament, we forget just how holy God is. Then we forget just how holy we are supposed to be. Yes, the blood of Jesus is a better motivator for holiness than the threat of being stoned, but there is also an even greater price to pay for making a mockery of that blood and the holiness it brings. It means we are "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" (Heb. 6:6). In doing this, we separate ourselves from God forever.

Peter tells his audience, quoting Leviticus, to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Being holy as God is holy begins with recognizing just how holy God is. I think we had better read the Old Testament with the humility to learn instead of rendering modern day assessments that have no regard for the holiness of God!

Thoughts on Unity

I began my new ministry in Portales with a sermon on unity from John 17, which contains the great prayer of unity offered by Jesus before his crucifixion. Just like many concerned Christians, I have often thought about unity, but have rarely come up with any novel approaches to address the division that is throughout Christendom.

Usually when this topic is addressed to a particular divided group, John 17 is highlighted and an emotional appeal is articulated for Christians to honor the prayer of Jesus and just be united. Complimenting this appeal is usually some proclamation that our differences are for the most part petty and that what we have in common is far more precious than what we don't. This kind of approach usually gets the gathered emotionally committed to unity. There is a spirit of repentance and togetherness. The songs and prayers are accompanied by tears and embrace. Someone will usually say this is a glimpse of heaven.

But then those of the gathered assembly go their separate ways and we have to ask the question: was any real unity accomplished? Christian Church and Churches of Christ had a round of such gatherings in 2006 --marking the hundred year anniversary of their split. They repudiated such a split and affirmed all they had in common, but is that unity?

I have a couple of problems with making unity the end goal of our efforts: one practical and one theological. The practical concern involves trying to decide what unity looks like. Unity becomes an ambiguous ideal, one that no one is ever sure when it is truly accomplished. Speakers that often opine about unity rarely will tell their audience "we will know that we are united when..." Would we all have to worship together on Sundays for this ideal to become reality? Or is unity merely acknowledging we have the same Savior and that we won't throw spiritual stones at each other anymore (this would certainly be an improvement)? The only worthy vision of unity, in my view, is the one in which we can all assemble as one people to praise the Lamb on the throne (cf. Rev. 5). I don't know that we can get there this side of eternity.

My theological concern is that as I read scripture, unity is not something we can accomplish. This has been played out in our own Restoration history. Declaration and Address was signed just over 200 years ago by Thomas Campbell and others with the vision that all denominational lines would simply dissolve into the greater union of believers. Sounds great, but the patternist approach--the idea that we would all be unified by simply following a supposedly obvious New Testament pattern--was ultimately doomed to add more factions than it would ever contribute to the cause of unity.

Rather unity is given and accomplished by God through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Go back and read John 17. Is there any place in that prayer that calls on the disciples to create unity? Go read Eph. 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Our role in unity is to maintain what has already been created and given. We do not create unity, though we certainly can and do create division.

So, does this mean we can do nothing regarding the division we see throughout Christendom or even amongst our fellowship and congregations? Absolutely not. We can begin to make strides in enjoying greater unity when we realize that such unity is given by Jesus and not created by us. We can better focus then on being the disciples and the church we are supposed to be and when this begins to happen unity amongst ourselves and others will increase. We don't rally around unity; we rally around the cross. But when you find a whole lot of disciples at the cross, you will find them united!

Obviously, where we have contributed to division and factions we need to repent, be humble, and ask for forgiveness. This will allow the gift of God's unity to wash away the walls of division and hostility that we have erected. We can't solve the division we see all around us and around this world, but perhaps we can start with this humility and seek to enjoy the unity already given to us in Christ Jesus!