COUNTERING SCEPTICISM.

I attended my first Q Commons meeting on Friday 4th of March. I wasn't quite sure what to expect as I wasn't clear myself what Q Commons was actually about. All I knew was this, it had something to with Christianity in the public sphere. I have a better understanding now, but rather than me explain it, or if you want to learn more, follow this link here.

In a nutshell. Q Commons is a sort of Ted Talk for Christian leaders and influencers in all spheres of life. Arts, Media, Education etc. In the past they have engaged speakers such as; Malcolm Gladwell, Erwin McManus and actor/director Mark Ruffalo.

Before I attended, I tried to boil it down to something that was easy to explain, at least to myself anyway. So I came up with this thought.

The Fundamentalist, Evangelical Church, has squandered our place at the discussion table by waving its Big Black KJV Bible proclaiming, "The Bible Says" and worse, trumpeting "If the Bible says it, and I agree with it, then that settles it." They sought to instruct, control and shout down the conversation, rather than engage and enter it.

Now, we need to work very hard to get invited back to the discussion.

One of the topics of the night was "The Irrelevance of Faith". Presented by David Kinnaman. David showed us some alarming statistics. One of which was that 42% of Americans believe that people of faith are part of the problem. 46% Believe that faith needs to be removed from public life.

Increasingly, youth are becoming more and more cynical about faith. 1 in 4 youth believe that one day they will be famous, and their chief objective is for fame and popularity.

So, having squandered our place in the discussion, being viewed as irrelevant and unwanted, how do we counter-act this growing wall of scepticism?

Well I believe that such scepticism can only be countered with authenticity.
But what is missing from the Church in regards to our authenticity? I think there are three areas we need to address on the pathway to regaining relevance for the Christian view.

Firstly. Our WORDS. Biblical based statements are affirming. But unless backed with the appropriate actions they ring hollow.
"Because the Bible says" Is not seen as, nor is it welcomed as a valid argument. It is instead seen as a bunch of archaic rules and restrictions that are unwelcome in a free thinking selfie addicted society.

I am not advocating a watering down of the Word of God. I do not advocate that we step away from our closely held beliefs. I simply think we need to be able to carry the message better. To engage the conversation, applying Biblical truth, but in such a way that is open for discussion and promotes thoughtful consideration. This is simply good apologetics.

When Jesus encountered the woman at the well, John 4:19-24, she was already beaten down by religion and dogma. Jesus spoke to her in her human situation and gave her real spiritual hope.

Secondly. Our ACTIONS. Our actions cannot be seen as, or interpreted as, a means to an end, i.e. to get a convert.

The main end of our Christian works, can only be for the betterment of the individuals human situation, without thought for our own personal reward or recognition.

Our actions must bring glory to Christ. This however is not a valid end if we do this only for our own self worth or gain. We bring glory to Christ when our actions give primary value to another human being.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:4.
"preferring others before yourself" Romans 12:10, 1Timothy 5:21.

Thirdly. We must remain TRANSPARENT. All that we say and do must be in such a way, that our motive, method and money remain unquestioned.

 Accusations will come, but our integrity must remain, unsullied, even under the most rigorous examination.

We have seen enough lately of Christian leaders being accused and even convicted of fraud. While many of these accusations in the past have simply been vexatious, some cases have been proven.

Pastors and leaders need to shepherd and lead, that's it. They should never use their churches to underwrite their own personal success story.

I don't know if these steps are the total solution, this may not do it all. Cynicism and scepticism will remain. But if we can chip away at the ground the cynics and critics stand on, denying them a position from which to accuse.

Then bit by bit, we regain our ground.

We can stand up again.

Mariage, Definitions and Disputes.

In a follow up to my previous posting, Same Sex, Same Jesus? I was also thinking about our current definitions of marriage. This again is hotly disputed territory. So it may help if we try to understand what we're talking about, what we're thinking and why we think it.

I have done a small amount of research on this subject in the interest of clarifying some of my own definitions. However, most of what I write here are my own understandings of the subject at hand. i.e. How do we define marriage?

Let's start with the simplest and most common term of all. Holy Matrimony.

Straight away we have a problem, because I seriously doubt that many people, and possibly this is especially true of Christians from a traditional denominational background, have a correct definition of what it means to be "Holy".

Most readers will automatically have some idea of purity or piety, maybe even celibacy. Even an idea of a man with god like status. Perhaps some notion of someone so close to God that they are nigh on unapproachable. (Such a view is actually borderline idolatry) This is most likely the product of traditional church thinking/teaching. It perhaps stems from images of Moses, his face shining, coming down from the mountain with the ten commandments. Blend in with this the idea that we are all essentially sin-stained and unacceptable to God.

Most of this however is false, or at best a bad interpretation of the truth. It is why we have a problem with verses like 1Peter 1:16 and Lev 11:44-45, "be holy even as I am holy". Given the above (mis)understanding. This is of course impossible. Because of our fallen nature we can never, in this life, be pure and sinless as God is. So what does holiness mean?

Holiness is best described as "separation to God's purpose". In it's simplest terms, the Holiness of God refers to his dedication to seeing his word come to pass. Of all the things that God could be doing today, his primary focus, is you. He is unswerving in that, wholly committed, unshakeable. He has devoted his existence to the benefit of mankind, reconciling man unto himself. This devotion, this holiness was fully expressed on the cross. The work of that cross, the salvation of humanity, restoring us into relationship with himself is his primary focus, this is his holiness, the task he has separated himself to. So when God asks of us to be holy, he asks that we unswervingly dedicate ourselves to his purpose.

The Biblical concept of marriage is properly found in the language of the "covenant". I am going to address this topic in a post to follow later. So I won't spend too much time on it here. Suffice to say that a covenant was an "equal" agreement. Both parties to the covenant agreed to lay something of their-self aside in order to benefit the other. That is why in the marriage vow, it is often said, "forsaking all others". It is the wholehearted commitment to the other, the laying aside of self, that makes the union "holy".

There is however another problem with marital terminology. It is the idea of sanctification from sin. This is largely due (I believe) to the teachings and practices of the medieval church. Where sexual intercourse was seen as sinful, the result of our base and lustful human nature. The only way to sanctify the act was in the marriage bed, a concession thrown to the uneducated masses, held in the thrall of the all powerful priestly elite. This was again the result of the misinterpreting and misapplication of scripture, in particular the writings of the Apostle Paul and his statements about marriage. Yes, biblically speaking, sexual intercourse outside of marriage (fornication) is a sin. It represents the benefits of the covenant, without the commitment to it. It is self serving. But marriage itself doesn't save us from sin. The medieval interpretation was quite simply, an abuse of power.

So how should we view marriage?

Essentially marriage is intended as an image, or reflection; of the unity and harmony of the Trinity. Also, of the relationship between Christ and his Church (the bride of Christ). This is all a bit tricky now as Paul describes these things as mysteries. I fear a lot of people are uncertain of how to describe the relationship of the Trinity. Let alone reconcile the idea of us all becoming one heavenly corporate body described as "a Bride". Most simply, it is the language of unity, harmony, agreement, oneness with Christ, "he in us and us in him". Eternal, unbroken fellowship.

Now there is a third problem. The dilution of the meaning of marriage.

Over the years divorce has become more common place, de-facto relationships are the norm, in certain countries you can get a temporary marriage license. Try it for five years and if you don't like it you, have a "get out of  jail free" card. No divorce, no lawyers, you're free to try it with someone else. Much of society now views marriage as an archaic unnecessary formality. Even in the church, some statistics would suggest that divorce rates are very similar to those in secular society. From my own personal experience. I have seen two divorces in my own family. Many of my friends, probably about 45%, that married more than 20-25 years ago are now separated or divorced. I have one friend now in their fourth marriage. Many of my friends have divorced parents. Sadly, the idea of "two becoming one" is increasingly lost. Marriage is more and more the simple co-habiting of two individuals.

So if this is all true, then why all the hue and cry over same sex marriages? Why is there such vigorous lobbying for something that is viewed as archaic, outdated and temporary? Mostly it's about legal rights to medical consent, pensions and inheritance etc. They want the same legal protections over wills and such like as other couples. Even a co-habiting de-facto relationship has legal standing after just three months. It has more legal recognition than a same sex union of ten years. Unfortunately, there is the more militant, highly vocal and litigious side of this debate that wish to pursue the issue purely on the grounds of discrimination. This element does more harm than good to their cause.

I read this article by Amanda Vanstone today on this very subject. Mostly it is about party room politics and conscience votes. But she does make some salient points and observations on the decline of marriage values. I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But she does defend the right for religious institutions to refuse a wedding ceremony on the grounds of their beliefs.

Society has been bombarded with assault after assault on the institution of marriage. It's meaning and symbolism has been eroded. You can have an Elvis impersonator marry you at a drive through booth in Las Vegas. We see courtship and marriage as prime time T.V. "reality" entertainment. The Bachelor(ette), The Farmer wants a Wife. Bridezillas and others that are much worse. What was once sacred and special is itself now base, ordinary, the subject of public derision. More effort is put into planning, or rather staging, elaborate ceremonies, than is put into developing the relationship.

Perhaps, for so many people, the reason a same-sex marriage looks no different? Is because we have lost sight of what it is, that makes marriage so special.

The Critical Mass

The Rise of the 21st Century Pharisee.

In the last year or so, I have become aware of a disturbing and increasing trend within the Christian Church.

It is a trend towards the open and relentless criticism of Christian leaders and figureheads.

This trend is being aided and abetted by unfettered, unregulated access to online sources and resources. It is a vehicle that is being driven with neither restraint, nor regard for others on the road.

There is even a website, an online news organisation, (and I'm sorry I don't have the link for you). It is made up of professional Christian journalists. They use their site as a platform for investigative journalism, directed towards the church. In other words, they make it their business to investigate and expose what they see as corrupt or inept church leadership. Christians. Sad really. And these are just the professionals.

There are others, they have their own websites. The majority are not professional journalists. Or they appear in forums and comment pages. They all have but one purpose. To criticise the work and ministry of other believers.

Some of the targets I've seen in recent months are people such as; Joel and Victoria Osteen, Mark Driscoll, Creflo Dollar. I can also include musicians in that list; Switchfoot, Brooke Frasier, Future of Forestry. There are a great many others.

People, (Christians) protest outside their venues. Some complain that they are not Christian enough, while others complain they are too Christian. Their message and lyrics are either too confronting, or too vague.

One commenter, posting on the Future of Forestry YouTube channel. Took it upon himself to declare that they were "fallen". The cause of his great umbrage? A drum sequence, taken from a performance of "The Little Drummer Boy". He saw it as excess and vanity.
When all it was really, was just a group of musicians having some fun. "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord" The Psalmist exhorts us. (Psalm 66:1, 81:1, 95:1-2, 98:4&6, 100:1) And that's just what they were doing.

Now, having said all of this. I will add this.

All of these leaders, ministers and artists that I have mentioned. All of them, and many more besides. I have opinions about all of them. But they are my opinions. They are based solely on how much I know about each of them. I know much about some, less about others. My knowledge is incomplete. Therefore I do not offer or broadcast my opinions. I keep them to myself.  Because I might be wrong about something, I may have misheard, misread or misunderstood. So to say anything, would be a mistake.

Here's an example of why from my own recent experience.

Last year, Hillsong Church (My church). Announced Mark Driscoll as a keynote speaker for the 2015 Conference.

Now Mark has faced a great deal of criticism for his leadership, attitudes toward women in ministry, among other things. In recent months he was removed from leadership by the church board. People I know started posting links to sites and sources that were simply out to get him, they seemed to be in agreement. I could so easily have joined them.

I could have written to, or confronted the pastors of my church. Demanding that such a man be removed from the guest list, it would be damaging for our church, that he not be permitted to speak and so on. I could have gotten on my high little horse and started making all sorts of noises. But I didn't.

Here's what I did do. I waited. I decided to Trust the Church Leadership, and see how they would handle the emerging situation. I had an inkling of how it might be possible to handle the situation in a sensible sensitive way. I am happy to say, I was vindicated in my belief. Because here's what happened. Mark Driscoll still appears as a guest with his wife Grace. They are now listed with the sub caption,  Interview.

You see this is the sensible way to deal with it. This is a clear example of Christians being "ministers of reconciliation" 2 Cor 5:18.

Are church leaders above reproach? Certainly not. Should they be held accountable? Absolutely. But that is the role of church boards and governing bodies. It is not the role of outsiders and armchair critics, trumpeting their false piety.

We should never be found on the side lines hurling stones of accusation. No, not us. We are all too broken for that. Instead of "J'accuse",  we should humbly cry "Mea culpa".

While I am attending this years  Hillsong Conference,  most likely as a volunteer. I may get to hear parts of the interview. I may re-form my opinion of Mark Driscoll.

But you won't read it here.

Because it will remain my opinion.

ADDENDUM.
Since this post was first published, there have been some changes to the facts as written above.
Namely, that Mark Driscoll will no longer be a guest at Hillsong Conference 2015. The details behind this decision can be found elsewhere. I have no wish to repost them here.

Some things have not changed. My attitude towards church leadership, and my belief that we should not engage in wholesale criticism of such leadership.

Such criticism is nothing more than, gossip, tale bearing and back biting. The Bible is quite clear on these subjects. I don't believe I need to quote chapter and verse on this. It is not the right of every believer with a blog and an axe to grind, to post whatever they like, about whomever they dislike.

Lay down the axes, they cannot be used to build the church.