You may have heard the term 'political correctness' and are not quite sure what it means. I am not going to define it here, but I will give an example of it and try to explain why Christians should resist it.
I was watching television a few days ago when some so-called journalist came on the air bemoaning the fact that people in America do not like Buddhism and Islam. In fact, it was pointed out that most Americans dislike Buddhism even more than Islam. The "journalist" immediately began talking about what we ought to do about this. She jumped to the conclusion, without hesitation, that if someone does not like another's religion then they must hate that person. And if we hate someone that is a bad thing. We ought to love one another.
If there is one vestige left of Christianity in our culture it is the idea that one should love one's neighbor. But, as usual, the world has perverted the concept of loving one's neighbor to approving that neighbor's behavior, or in this case, religion.
Now it is true that if someone hates another's religion then that hatred may be directed towards a person who practices that religion. And that, of course, is wrong. We must very careful that we do not fall into hatred no matter how much we may despise the religion that person follows.
But there is another side to this coin, too. We are called not only to love our neighbors (whatever their religion is), but also to hate evil. We should hate evil actions and evil religions. Now some will object at this point and say that it is un-Christian to say that someone's religion is evil. After all, there are certainly many good people in that religion. To put down their religion is to put them down.
No, that is not true at all. Just because their religion is wrong does not make them bad people (they may or may not be), it may only make them deceived. Paul told the church at Corinth that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God." (1 Cor 10:20) Paul does not condemn the practitioners of that religion, only the religion itself. He warns against participation in it by Christians.
We need to pray for those who are in demonic bondage to false religions. Those people need God's mercy and grace so that they can be delivered from this bondage and recognize their need for Jesus Christ. We are not to support them in their deception. If we truly loved them, we would do whatever is in our power to see them set free by the gospel.
The big problem with political correctness is that it tries to tell us what to think and feel about things. We are supposed to love Islam and Buddhism and every other religion. That is multicultural nonsense. We should be discerning about these things.
Do these religions bring people closer to God or farther away from Him? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." Do we actually believe that, or do we believe that one should not witness to those who are in a 'faith community' that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord?
If we are not careful, our political correctness could be consigning those 'good people' in those false religions to an eternity in Hell because we do not wish to offend their religious sensibilities.
I am willing to offend those who are politically correct to save a fallen world.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Hawking's Blunder
Recently, Stephen Hawking, the world's most famous living physicist, announced that God was not needed to create the universe. This caused an immediate reaction from both the religious and scientific community. Many were disappointed in him and many rightly criticized his statement. Science simply cannot explain how physical laws came into existence.
But I am not writing to add my two cents to this discussion. Rather, I want to focus on why I think that this is surprising coming from Hawking.
Now it is well known that many scientists are atheists and find no place for God in their science. What is less well known is that it very much depends on their field of expertise. Biologists are the most likely to be atheists, but physicists are the least likely. Astrophysicists in particular are the most likely to believe in God and many are becoming Christians.
Let's examine why this is so: Biologists examine earth's living things and try to understand how they function both separately and in ecological systems. They have a overarching hypothesis, called Evolution, which for them ties all things together. In defense of this hypothesis (it is technically a hypothesis and not a scientific theory) biologists have opposed Creation Science and Intelligent Design which see the need of a Creator. So there is an animosity that has developed between many biologists and Christians who are scientists. (Ever since Mary Baker Eddy it is awkward to use the term Christian Science in a way that would actually make sense.)
In Astrophysics, there is no such animosity. More importantly, they have the Big Bang Theory (once again a hypothesis) that most physicists use to account for the existence of our universe. The 'Big Bang' states that the universe has a beginning. This means that both time and matter had a beginning. It also means that matter is not eternal which is what atheists have always insisted on.
If something happened that brought matter and time into existence, it logically follows that whatever was the cause of the Big Bang must have certain properties. It must not be subject to time and space limitations (ie., it must be eternal and omnipresent). It also must be supremely knowledgeable and intelligent (ie., omniscient and omnicompetent). And it must be more powerful than what it created (omnipotent). Does this sound like anyone you know?
It's a description of the God of the Bible.
No wonder that so many astrophysicists believe in God. To me this is what makes Hawking's statement so amazing. He seems to be ignoring what other physicists see very clearly. Not just that it is likely that Someone is behind the wonderful order of this vast universe, but that physics practically falls apart without Him.
I am not surprised that an evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins is an atheist since God may seem to him to be a threat to the reigning hypothesis of his field. Hawking, however, seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of the main hypothesis in his own field.
I understand while Christians have reacted negatively to Hawking's statement. But I must remind us all that Hawking is not speaking in his area of expertise and that we should, perhaps, ignore all famous people who offer their opinions on things that actually know little about.
Personally, I turn off anybody, no matter how famous, who "speaks out" on a matter that they may firmly believe in, yet cannot be considered an expert on in any way. (All of us, of course, may express our beliefs and opinions, and God requires us to preach the gospel to everyone, but that is far from acting like an expert in a field in which we are untrained.) I am amused when actors will testify in Congress about some issue that they know little about, though they pretend they do. And their political views I generally find both ridiculous and out of touch with what normal people think.
In the same way, we should be wary when someone who is expert in some area speaks about things in another area. Why should the average person be interested in Hawkin's view of anything but physics?
He committed two blunders. First, he rejects the very idea of a Creator, and that is sad enough in itself. Second, he thinks that he is qualified to make public declarations beyond his area of expertise. This is almost as disappointing.
So, let's pray for him and others who think that the knowledge that they have replaces their need to believe in the living God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Postscript:
By the way, I do not want to discourage any Christian from sharing the gospel because he or she is not an 'expert' on the faith. No, your experience of being born-again and personally knowing and walking with God makes you more of an expert than mere academic learning could ever make you.
But I am not writing to add my two cents to this discussion. Rather, I want to focus on why I think that this is surprising coming from Hawking.
Now it is well known that many scientists are atheists and find no place for God in their science. What is less well known is that it very much depends on their field of expertise. Biologists are the most likely to be atheists, but physicists are the least likely. Astrophysicists in particular are the most likely to believe in God and many are becoming Christians.
Let's examine why this is so: Biologists examine earth's living things and try to understand how they function both separately and in ecological systems. They have a overarching hypothesis, called Evolution, which for them ties all things together. In defense of this hypothesis (it is technically a hypothesis and not a scientific theory) biologists have opposed Creation Science and Intelligent Design which see the need of a Creator. So there is an animosity that has developed between many biologists and Christians who are scientists. (Ever since Mary Baker Eddy it is awkward to use the term Christian Science in a way that would actually make sense.)
In Astrophysics, there is no such animosity. More importantly, they have the Big Bang Theory (once again a hypothesis) that most physicists use to account for the existence of our universe. The 'Big Bang' states that the universe has a beginning. This means that both time and matter had a beginning. It also means that matter is not eternal which is what atheists have always insisted on.
If something happened that brought matter and time into existence, it logically follows that whatever was the cause of the Big Bang must have certain properties. It must not be subject to time and space limitations (ie., it must be eternal and omnipresent). It also must be supremely knowledgeable and intelligent (ie., omniscient and omnicompetent). And it must be more powerful than what it created (omnipotent). Does this sound like anyone you know?
It's a description of the God of the Bible.
No wonder that so many astrophysicists believe in God. To me this is what makes Hawking's statement so amazing. He seems to be ignoring what other physicists see very clearly. Not just that it is likely that Someone is behind the wonderful order of this vast universe, but that physics practically falls apart without Him.
I am not surprised that an evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins is an atheist since God may seem to him to be a threat to the reigning hypothesis of his field. Hawking, however, seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of the main hypothesis in his own field.
I understand while Christians have reacted negatively to Hawking's statement. But I must remind us all that Hawking is not speaking in his area of expertise and that we should, perhaps, ignore all famous people who offer their opinions on things that actually know little about.
Personally, I turn off anybody, no matter how famous, who "speaks out" on a matter that they may firmly believe in, yet cannot be considered an expert on in any way. (All of us, of course, may express our beliefs and opinions, and God requires us to preach the gospel to everyone, but that is far from acting like an expert in a field in which we are untrained.) I am amused when actors will testify in Congress about some issue that they know little about, though they pretend they do. And their political views I generally find both ridiculous and out of touch with what normal people think.
In the same way, we should be wary when someone who is expert in some area speaks about things in another area. Why should the average person be interested in Hawkin's view of anything but physics?
He committed two blunders. First, he rejects the very idea of a Creator, and that is sad enough in itself. Second, he thinks that he is qualified to make public declarations beyond his area of expertise. This is almost as disappointing.
So, let's pray for him and others who think that the knowledge that they have replaces their need to believe in the living God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Postscript:
By the way, I do not want to discourage any Christian from sharing the gospel because he or she is not an 'expert' on the faith. No, your experience of being born-again and personally knowing and walking with God makes you more of an expert than mere academic learning could ever make you.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Other Side
Have you ever had something that you believed, or perhaps even taught, that has been misrepresented by another? If so, join the crowd. The apostle Paul experienced this when he taught justification by faith. Some of his opponents reported that Paul was teaching that the grace of God was given so freely that the more one sinned, the more grace would come. "We are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say, 'Let us do evil that good may come'" (Romans 3:8). This was a gross distortion and misreading of the great teachings on grace by Paul. Nevertheless, he had to fight this corruption of what was truly taught throughout his ministry.
In my early years as a Christian I was presented with some teachings by those who are called Calvinist. They believe that God selects some for salvation and others for eternal condemnation. Those who propagated those views tried to discredit the opposing view, usually called Arminianism, which teaches that God desires to save all, but that the choice is left up to us. (I am oversimplifying this to make a point. I am not trying to enter into a discussion about either view.)
I decided to investigate these claims concerning Calvinism and studied the Scriptures to find whether these things were so. I was also discussing these issues with some Calvinists who were prominent in our college fellowship. They represented their own view very well, but it seemed to me that they were rather biased against the Arminian view. So I read what the Arminians had to say and I found that my suspicions were correct. The Calvinists, probably unintentionally, were not properly or fairly representing the other view. I was finally convinced that Calvinism was not the Word of God.
At a later time, I heard some speak negatively about a theology called Dispensationalism. At the time, I had no clue what that was, but it was presented in a rather poor light. By this time I was enough of a skeptic that I immediately began to read up on what Dispensationalism was. (It is, generally speaking, a particular view of interpreting the Bible especially in regards to the End Times.) You can guess what happened. I became a Dispensationalist.
One problem that I found with an introduction to it by one its opponents is that the particular Dispensational minister that was quoted was quite on the extreme of the movement. He did not represent everyday, mainstream dispensational thought. To me, this is a rather cheap and all too common trick to discredit something that you disagree with. We should deal with any subject, not by looking at some extreme version of it, but by examining what the mainstream proponents of it teach.
Besides misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) another view because you disagree with it, there is something becoming very common that is even worse. And that is publicly condemning a teaching that you have not really researched or understood. I hear this all the time. I can usually tell when someone has not done their homework when the criticism leveled against a teaching is grossly inaccurate or even the opposite of what is actually taught.
I will give an example of this from a current controversial teaching. (Once again, I am not bringing this up so that we can argue the pros and cons of this teaching, but only for illustrative purposes.) There is a teaching that is often called the prosperity gospel. From this teaching, it is considered the will of God that His people prosper in every area of life including finances. I read an opponent of this teaching say that the prosperity gospel encourages people to go deeply into debt to finance an expensive lifestyle. This critic has little or no understanding of what the prosperity gospel is. If he had done some basic research, he would have known that this teaching is generally against any kind of indebtedness, often to an extreme. Probably the most prominent prosperity teacher, Kenneth Copeland, falls just short of calling the borrowing of money a sin. He continually affirms that neither he nor his ministry has borrowed any money for anything in more than 40 years. And he is not alone in this. Fred Price, another prosperity teacher, preaches against Christians loading up on debt to finance a fabulous Christmas and then paying it off all year.
So why does this critic say these things. Because he has not bothered to actually examine these teachings and just jumps to all shorts of bad conclusions since he is convinced, without much evidence, that this teaching produces certain kinds of results. This is the same thing that Paul's opponents were doing with his teachings. They did not sit down and listen to Paul and get the whole picture he was trying to paint. They heard a certain part of it, or someone's version of it, and assumed that Paul was trying to give us a license to sin.
How should we react when we hear or read something that strikes us as wrong? How about a little fairness, objectivity, and calm, rational thought. We should do our homework before we condemn any teaching. Also, we should do our best to not misrepresent what anyone is saying.
One other thing. When I was studying Calvinism, I learned quite a lot from them. I find that you often can learn from those whom you have deep disagreements with. God may have actually revealed some things to them that you need to hear. But if we just shut our ears to our 'opponents' then we may be missing some very important things.
For my part, I have learned much from Calvinists, non-Dispensationalists and even prosperity teachers. And this is coming from a very opinionated person. Few people will battle for his point of view harder than I will. But I hope it is never said that I have misrepresented anyone or treated any view with a jaundiced eye.
In my early years as a Christian I was presented with some teachings by those who are called Calvinist. They believe that God selects some for salvation and others for eternal condemnation. Those who propagated those views tried to discredit the opposing view, usually called Arminianism, which teaches that God desires to save all, but that the choice is left up to us. (I am oversimplifying this to make a point. I am not trying to enter into a discussion about either view.)
I decided to investigate these claims concerning Calvinism and studied the Scriptures to find whether these things were so. I was also discussing these issues with some Calvinists who were prominent in our college fellowship. They represented their own view very well, but it seemed to me that they were rather biased against the Arminian view. So I read what the Arminians had to say and I found that my suspicions were correct. The Calvinists, probably unintentionally, were not properly or fairly representing the other view. I was finally convinced that Calvinism was not the Word of God.
At a later time, I heard some speak negatively about a theology called Dispensationalism. At the time, I had no clue what that was, but it was presented in a rather poor light. By this time I was enough of a skeptic that I immediately began to read up on what Dispensationalism was. (It is, generally speaking, a particular view of interpreting the Bible especially in regards to the End Times.) You can guess what happened. I became a Dispensationalist.
One problem that I found with an introduction to it by one its opponents is that the particular Dispensational minister that was quoted was quite on the extreme of the movement. He did not represent everyday, mainstream dispensational thought. To me, this is a rather cheap and all too common trick to discredit something that you disagree with. We should deal with any subject, not by looking at some extreme version of it, but by examining what the mainstream proponents of it teach.
Besides misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) another view because you disagree with it, there is something becoming very common that is even worse. And that is publicly condemning a teaching that you have not really researched or understood. I hear this all the time. I can usually tell when someone has not done their homework when the criticism leveled against a teaching is grossly inaccurate or even the opposite of what is actually taught.
I will give an example of this from a current controversial teaching. (Once again, I am not bringing this up so that we can argue the pros and cons of this teaching, but only for illustrative purposes.) There is a teaching that is often called the prosperity gospel. From this teaching, it is considered the will of God that His people prosper in every area of life including finances. I read an opponent of this teaching say that the prosperity gospel encourages people to go deeply into debt to finance an expensive lifestyle. This critic has little or no understanding of what the prosperity gospel is. If he had done some basic research, he would have known that this teaching is generally against any kind of indebtedness, often to an extreme. Probably the most prominent prosperity teacher, Kenneth Copeland, falls just short of calling the borrowing of money a sin. He continually affirms that neither he nor his ministry has borrowed any money for anything in more than 40 years. And he is not alone in this. Fred Price, another prosperity teacher, preaches against Christians loading up on debt to finance a fabulous Christmas and then paying it off all year.
So why does this critic say these things. Because he has not bothered to actually examine these teachings and just jumps to all shorts of bad conclusions since he is convinced, without much evidence, that this teaching produces certain kinds of results. This is the same thing that Paul's opponents were doing with his teachings. They did not sit down and listen to Paul and get the whole picture he was trying to paint. They heard a certain part of it, or someone's version of it, and assumed that Paul was trying to give us a license to sin.
How should we react when we hear or read something that strikes us as wrong? How about a little fairness, objectivity, and calm, rational thought. We should do our homework before we condemn any teaching. Also, we should do our best to not misrepresent what anyone is saying.
One other thing. When I was studying Calvinism, I learned quite a lot from them. I find that you often can learn from those whom you have deep disagreements with. God may have actually revealed some things to them that you need to hear. But if we just shut our ears to our 'opponents' then we may be missing some very important things.
For my part, I have learned much from Calvinists, non-Dispensationalists and even prosperity teachers. And this is coming from a very opinionated person. Few people will battle for his point of view harder than I will. But I hope it is never said that I have misrepresented anyone or treated any view with a jaundiced eye.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Who is your master?
I operated a retail business for over twenty years and I had the privilege of meeting many nice people who came into my store. Most of them, I hope, were satisfied customers and many became my friends. On occasion, though, there were those who were not satisfied for some reason and they would complain to me. Often they had legitimate complaints and I would try to address those as best as I could. A few times, however, someone would complain about what an employee did and suggest that I fire them. What that person did not know is often the employee was doing as I had instructed them. They were following my orders. Of course, the customer may not have known that. They "blamed" the employee for something when they were only doing what they were told.
Paul told the church at Rome, "Who are you to judge the servant of another?". Indeed. What right would a customer have to try to pass judgment on those who are only carrying out their assigned duties and following the policies that have laid down for them?
How is it that we so freely pass judgment on servants of the Lord? I am speaking specifically of criticism and judgment of ministers of the Gospel whose ministries we dislike. Paul specifically mentions the danger of judging ministers. "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God."
1 Corinthians 4:5
The apostle tells us that will be a time when the Lord will judge ministers of the gospel, but not until he returns. It is not right for us to judge them. They do not work for us. They work for Him.
I particularly like the part of Paul's statement regarding the motives of ministers. God will bring that to light as well. Yet many continue to judge the motives of ministers who do or say things that they do not like. This, I think, is even worse than judging their teaching. It is one thing to disagree with someone or not to like a certain type of ministry at all. It is another to judge what is in their hearts. We have no right to do that. Once we do that then it is our hearts that are wrong. We have set ourselves as judges over God's ministers.
Okay, I know what the response of some will be. It will be that these are not true ministers of God, but false teachers who are leading God's people astray. In some cases, this is true. We should not accept false teachers.
But are all those whom we may be judging actually false teachers? False teachers are those who deny certain basic doctrines of the faith. They deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the atoning death of Christ and His physical resurrection and His literal return to earth. Beyond that there is not too much which can rightfully considered to be heresy.
Recently, I read an article in a Christian publication written by a Christian scholar who is concerned that the gospel is being compromised. (I often share his concern.) But as I read at what he said was 'false gospel', I must disagree with him. The main thing that he talked about was the message that "God has a wonderful plan for your life". He said that this is not the gospel at all. The gospel is the Word made flesh, crucified for our sins and raised again from the dead. Well, that certainly is the core of the gospel. Is the one who proclaims that 'God has a wonderful plan...' denying that? Doesn't God have a wonderful plan for each of us? Isn't the result of Jesus' dying to free us from our sins and bring us into the fullness of the Kingdom of God? We can certainly say that 'God has a wonderful plan' is not the complete gospel, but it is part of the gospel.
Different ministers are called to preach different parts of the Word. Just because a minister preaches one part of the Word that does not mean they deny the other. One preacher was asked why he always preached a certain kind of message. He answered that that was what he knew well. It was what God had given him to preach.
There is a lot in the Word to preach and teach. If we all just focus on the main core of the gospel, then much of the Word will remain untaught and unknown. Some will focus on deeper truths of the Word that others, even highly educated people, will not grasp. Sometimes those who think that they have great understanding of the Word because of their education will be the ones who accuse others of being false teachers. And often they will be wrong. God does not reveal everything to the educated. "At that time Jesus said, 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.'" (Matthew 11:25)
So what do we do if we believe that a minister of the gospel has fallen into some error? Is the answer to criticize them either publicly or privately or to judge them in our hearts? Should we not pray for them and ask God to bring them back to the right path? Are we to sit in judgment on them, or to acknowledge them as brother or sister and help to restore them to the truth?
We ought to try to restore them. I must warn you, however. If you pray for those in 'error', then God might show you that it is you who are wrong and not those you are praying for.
Paul told the church at Rome, "Who are you to judge the servant of another?". Indeed. What right would a customer have to try to pass judgment on those who are only carrying out their assigned duties and following the policies that have laid down for them?
How is it that we so freely pass judgment on servants of the Lord? I am speaking specifically of criticism and judgment of ministers of the Gospel whose ministries we dislike. Paul specifically mentions the danger of judging ministers. "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God."
1 Corinthians 4:5
The apostle tells us that will be a time when the Lord will judge ministers of the gospel, but not until he returns. It is not right for us to judge them. They do not work for us. They work for Him.
I particularly like the part of Paul's statement regarding the motives of ministers. God will bring that to light as well. Yet many continue to judge the motives of ministers who do or say things that they do not like. This, I think, is even worse than judging their teaching. It is one thing to disagree with someone or not to like a certain type of ministry at all. It is another to judge what is in their hearts. We have no right to do that. Once we do that then it is our hearts that are wrong. We have set ourselves as judges over God's ministers.
Okay, I know what the response of some will be. It will be that these are not true ministers of God, but false teachers who are leading God's people astray. In some cases, this is true. We should not accept false teachers.
But are all those whom we may be judging actually false teachers? False teachers are those who deny certain basic doctrines of the faith. They deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the atoning death of Christ and His physical resurrection and His literal return to earth. Beyond that there is not too much which can rightfully considered to be heresy.
Recently, I read an article in a Christian publication written by a Christian scholar who is concerned that the gospel is being compromised. (I often share his concern.) But as I read at what he said was 'false gospel', I must disagree with him. The main thing that he talked about was the message that "God has a wonderful plan for your life". He said that this is not the gospel at all. The gospel is the Word made flesh, crucified for our sins and raised again from the dead. Well, that certainly is the core of the gospel. Is the one who proclaims that 'God has a wonderful plan...' denying that? Doesn't God have a wonderful plan for each of us? Isn't the result of Jesus' dying to free us from our sins and bring us into the fullness of the Kingdom of God? We can certainly say that 'God has a wonderful plan' is not the complete gospel, but it is part of the gospel.
Different ministers are called to preach different parts of the Word. Just because a minister preaches one part of the Word that does not mean they deny the other. One preacher was asked why he always preached a certain kind of message. He answered that that was what he knew well. It was what God had given him to preach.
There is a lot in the Word to preach and teach. If we all just focus on the main core of the gospel, then much of the Word will remain untaught and unknown. Some will focus on deeper truths of the Word that others, even highly educated people, will not grasp. Sometimes those who think that they have great understanding of the Word because of their education will be the ones who accuse others of being false teachers. And often they will be wrong. God does not reveal everything to the educated. "At that time Jesus said, 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.'" (Matthew 11:25)
So what do we do if we believe that a minister of the gospel has fallen into some error? Is the answer to criticize them either publicly or privately or to judge them in our hearts? Should we not pray for them and ask God to bring them back to the right path? Are we to sit in judgment on them, or to acknowledge them as brother or sister and help to restore them to the truth?
We ought to try to restore them. I must warn you, however. If you pray for those in 'error', then God might show you that it is you who are wrong and not those you are praying for.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Creation Care
I have been in Christian circles long enough to see spiritual fads come and go. Someone comes up with a so-called revelation from God or supposedly new insight from the Bible and they push it as if it were the most important thing in the world. Eventually, the whole thing is shown not to be a work of God but a human idea of not much value at all. After a little while everyone forgets it - if we are lucky.
Unfortunately, sometimes these wrong-headed ideas, which have caused some of the church to focus on the wrong thing, become a tradition that hinders the mission of the church which is to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.
Now when I say that these are bad ideas, I am not suggesting that they are evil or spring from some bad motive. They often have good aspects to them and usually come from well-meaning people. Those who promote them use the Bible (incorrectly) to back them up. And often some good is done, but in the final analysis it usually distracts the church from its biblical goals of reconciling the world to God and bringing Him glory.
The focus of this blog is on the idea of Creation Care, specifically the notion that we humans are stewards of God's earth and that polluting or 'hurting' it will offend God. But as we carefully study the Bible we will find the language of stewardship does not apply to our relationship to the earth.
Now the Bible does use the language of stewardship in relation to various things in the Christian's life. We are to be good stewards of our finances (Luke 16), the Word of God (1 Corinthians 4), and of our ministry in the church (Titus 1:7).
But there is other language used for the believer's relationship to other things. One concept that is used is that of 'dominion'. For example, the Christian is to exercise dominion over demons. "In my name, they shall cast out demons". (Mark 16:17) "Resist the Devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
We find more direct language like this when the Bible describes our relationship to the earth. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26, repeated in v. 28) "You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet." (Psalm 8:6) This is not the language of stewardship, but of dominion.
Why, then, is the stewardship model used by some to describe our relationship to the earth. Well, one of the passages used is Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein". This clearly establishes God's ownership of the earth. So the reasoning is that if God owns it and we live on it, then we, not being owners, must be stewards. So if God is owner of it, how can we have dominion over it? Does not ownership imply dominion? If God gave us a kind of dominion, is that dominion not really a kind of stewardship?
Not necessarily. A person can have dominion over something without owning it. A person owning a home and living in it has dominion over it. But if that person leases that home to another, then a kind of dominion, not stewardship, is passed to the person leasing it. That is the kind of dominion that we can exercise over the earth. Not a dominion of ownership, but a dominion based on a lease.
You could say that God gave Adam and Eve a lease on the earth. Some day that lease will run out and the owner will return to take dominion back. Until that time, we have dominion. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth has he given to the children of men." (Psalm 115:16)
At this point, one might complain that if we use the language of dominion then that means that we can simply do as we please and ruin the environment and destroy God's creation. If we use the language of stewardship, then we will take better care of it because we are responsible to God for it.
I reject this reasoning on two grounds.
First, if the Bible uses the language of dominion and not stewardship then we ought to as well since, otherwise, we would be promoting a false concept.
Second, I reject the conclusion that exercising dominion means we will ruin it. If I lease a home does that mean that I would ruin it because I was not a steward? Not at all. I would care for the place because I live in it and I want it nice for myself and my family. I do not want to live in filth.
I want to live in a nice, clean environment. That goes for wherever I am. If I go to work, I want it to be clean as well. But there is a catch. Since the Fall of Man the environment tends to disorder and chaos. I have to work hard to create a good environment and to make a living. But to make a living some pollution is necessary. I certainly believe that God understands that some pollution is necessary when we are producing goods that make our lives better. But we can take reasonable steps to keep from polluting unnecessarily.
I am afraid, though, that this whole 'stewardship/creation care' model is just an attempt to hijack Christianity and use it to promote the radical environmental agenda. I am always suspicious when Christians begin talking like the world. We do not get our agenda from the world but from the Word.
Another point that I think is relevant is the impression given by the advocates of 'creation care' is that we sin if we do not focus on the environment and care for it. I am not implying that we should be careless about the environment; I just think that we need to focus on what God has directly told us to do in His Word and not get into these side issues.
There is no scripture that indicates that God will judge us regarding our care of creation. We will be judged by how we treat our fellow human beings (Matt 25) and by how we fulfill our ministry (1Cor4:4), but never by how we treated the environment. These things are not biblical matters. Rather they come under our dominion and our judgment as to what kind of environment we wish to live in. If we mess it up, then we have to live in our mess. If our rules are too strict then we endanger our means of making a living.
We need to focus on winning people to the Lord, caring for their needs, and discipling them in the faith. Now if caring for their needs to help clean up their environment, then we can address those issues. But it is too easy to get distracted from those things that the Lord has called us to do and to focus on other less important issues.
Unfortunately, sometimes these wrong-headed ideas, which have caused some of the church to focus on the wrong thing, become a tradition that hinders the mission of the church which is to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.
Now when I say that these are bad ideas, I am not suggesting that they are evil or spring from some bad motive. They often have good aspects to them and usually come from well-meaning people. Those who promote them use the Bible (incorrectly) to back them up. And often some good is done, but in the final analysis it usually distracts the church from its biblical goals of reconciling the world to God and bringing Him glory.
The focus of this blog is on the idea of Creation Care, specifically the notion that we humans are stewards of God's earth and that polluting or 'hurting' it will offend God. But as we carefully study the Bible we will find the language of stewardship does not apply to our relationship to the earth.
Now the Bible does use the language of stewardship in relation to various things in the Christian's life. We are to be good stewards of our finances (Luke 16), the Word of God (1 Corinthians 4), and of our ministry in the church (Titus 1:7).
But there is other language used for the believer's relationship to other things. One concept that is used is that of 'dominion'. For example, the Christian is to exercise dominion over demons. "In my name, they shall cast out demons". (Mark 16:17) "Resist the Devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
We find more direct language like this when the Bible describes our relationship to the earth. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26, repeated in v. 28) "You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet." (Psalm 8:6) This is not the language of stewardship, but of dominion.
Why, then, is the stewardship model used by some to describe our relationship to the earth. Well, one of the passages used is Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein". This clearly establishes God's ownership of the earth. So the reasoning is that if God owns it and we live on it, then we, not being owners, must be stewards. So if God is owner of it, how can we have dominion over it? Does not ownership imply dominion? If God gave us a kind of dominion, is that dominion not really a kind of stewardship?
Not necessarily. A person can have dominion over something without owning it. A person owning a home and living in it has dominion over it. But if that person leases that home to another, then a kind of dominion, not stewardship, is passed to the person leasing it. That is the kind of dominion that we can exercise over the earth. Not a dominion of ownership, but a dominion based on a lease.
You could say that God gave Adam and Eve a lease on the earth. Some day that lease will run out and the owner will return to take dominion back. Until that time, we have dominion. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth has he given to the children of men." (Psalm 115:16)
At this point, one might complain that if we use the language of dominion then that means that we can simply do as we please and ruin the environment and destroy God's creation. If we use the language of stewardship, then we will take better care of it because we are responsible to God for it.
I reject this reasoning on two grounds.
First, if the Bible uses the language of dominion and not stewardship then we ought to as well since, otherwise, we would be promoting a false concept.
Second, I reject the conclusion that exercising dominion means we will ruin it. If I lease a home does that mean that I would ruin it because I was not a steward? Not at all. I would care for the place because I live in it and I want it nice for myself and my family. I do not want to live in filth.
I want to live in a nice, clean environment. That goes for wherever I am. If I go to work, I want it to be clean as well. But there is a catch. Since the Fall of Man the environment tends to disorder and chaos. I have to work hard to create a good environment and to make a living. But to make a living some pollution is necessary. I certainly believe that God understands that some pollution is necessary when we are producing goods that make our lives better. But we can take reasonable steps to keep from polluting unnecessarily.
I am afraid, though, that this whole 'stewardship/creation care' model is just an attempt to hijack Christianity and use it to promote the radical environmental agenda. I am always suspicious when Christians begin talking like the world. We do not get our agenda from the world but from the Word.
Another point that I think is relevant is the impression given by the advocates of 'creation care' is that we sin if we do not focus on the environment and care for it. I am not implying that we should be careless about the environment; I just think that we need to focus on what God has directly told us to do in His Word and not get into these side issues.
There is no scripture that indicates that God will judge us regarding our care of creation. We will be judged by how we treat our fellow human beings (Matt 25) and by how we fulfill our ministry (1Cor4:4), but never by how we treated the environment. These things are not biblical matters. Rather they come under our dominion and our judgment as to what kind of environment we wish to live in. If we mess it up, then we have to live in our mess. If our rules are too strict then we endanger our means of making a living.
We need to focus on winning people to the Lord, caring for their needs, and discipling them in the faith. Now if caring for their needs to help clean up their environment, then we can address those issues. But it is too easy to get distracted from those things that the Lord has called us to do and to focus on other less important issues.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wisdom - Conventional or Divine, part 2
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. Some of them are just human foolishness and wonderful-sounding ideas and things that just seem like they would be good solutions in the real world.
But when we test them in the real world we find out if they are truly practical or if they are not all that they are cracked up to be. In this blog we will discuss the use of ethanol (fuel make from corn) to use in running car engines. Now I must confess that I fell for this one and supported it for some time until it was clearly shown to be a terrible idea.
The basic idea is this: it is better to use renewable resources like corn we can grow rather than the limited resources like oil which must eventually run out. Sounds good, so far. Then we should make an abundant crop like corn to burn in car engines while at the same time making new car engines burn different kinds of fuel - gasoline and ethanol, for example. In the end, all engines will run on ethanol and similar fuels, and we will never run out of fuel. Energy problem solved.
Or not. First of all, to make ethanol from corn, it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of oil or more to make it. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, far less to make gasoline. Perhaps if we had a lot more nuclear energy we would overcome this, though the same environmentalists who have been touting this, object to nuclear power.
Anyway, even if we took all the corn in the US and made it into fuel, we could only produce enough fuel for 16% of our vehicles. (Remember that we not only use corn for food but for many other things as well, like various kinds of plastics.) We also must keep in mind that the corn we produce feeds much of the world. The poor, especially, rely on it. If too much goes to fuel, then the price will rise and the poor of the world will starve. This happened a couple of years ago when corn prices rose dramatically and poor countries did not get theirs.
Then there is the issue of efficiency. I and others have noticed that when we put 10% ethanol in our gas tanks (notice the sign at most service stations) then our mileage is reduced by more than 10%. So ethanol causes us to use more oil (gasoline) even if we used nuclear power to produce it. It is very wasteful.
So, what sounded like a great idea is really a disaster, and, unfortunately, it has become government policy. Even with the revelation of recent years that this ethanol is a complete debacle, the government is subsidizing it and supporting it.
The auto industry, responding to market forces, is going in the direction of hybrid vehicles, combining big batteries with traditional engines backing them up. We are not seeing too many of the flex-fuel vehicles.
So, knowing this, what has the government done? Stop supporting or subsidizing ethanol? No. It continues its policies because farmers like it. And when a small and powerful constituency benefits from subsidies, then politicians give them what they are now used to getting.
This is why we need to examine conventional wisdom, especially from so-called experts, and why we need for government to keep out of it.
But when we test them in the real world we find out if they are truly practical or if they are not all that they are cracked up to be. In this blog we will discuss the use of ethanol (fuel make from corn) to use in running car engines. Now I must confess that I fell for this one and supported it for some time until it was clearly shown to be a terrible idea.
The basic idea is this: it is better to use renewable resources like corn we can grow rather than the limited resources like oil which must eventually run out. Sounds good, so far. Then we should make an abundant crop like corn to burn in car engines while at the same time making new car engines burn different kinds of fuel - gasoline and ethanol, for example. In the end, all engines will run on ethanol and similar fuels, and we will never run out of fuel. Energy problem solved.
Or not. First of all, to make ethanol from corn, it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of oil or more to make it. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, far less to make gasoline. Perhaps if we had a lot more nuclear energy we would overcome this, though the same environmentalists who have been touting this, object to nuclear power.
Anyway, even if we took all the corn in the US and made it into fuel, we could only produce enough fuel for 16% of our vehicles. (Remember that we not only use corn for food but for many other things as well, like various kinds of plastics.) We also must keep in mind that the corn we produce feeds much of the world. The poor, especially, rely on it. If too much goes to fuel, then the price will rise and the poor of the world will starve. This happened a couple of years ago when corn prices rose dramatically and poor countries did not get theirs.
Then there is the issue of efficiency. I and others have noticed that when we put 10% ethanol in our gas tanks (notice the sign at most service stations) then our mileage is reduced by more than 10%. So ethanol causes us to use more oil (gasoline) even if we used nuclear power to produce it. It is very wasteful.
So, what sounded like a great idea is really a disaster, and, unfortunately, it has become government policy. Even with the revelation of recent years that this ethanol is a complete debacle, the government is subsidizing it and supporting it.
The auto industry, responding to market forces, is going in the direction of hybrid vehicles, combining big batteries with traditional engines backing them up. We are not seeing too many of the flex-fuel vehicles.
So, knowing this, what has the government done? Stop supporting or subsidizing ethanol? No. It continues its policies because farmers like it. And when a small and powerful constituency benefits from subsidies, then politicians give them what they are now used to getting.
This is why we need to examine conventional wisdom, especially from so-called experts, and why we need for government to keep out of it.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Wisdom - Conventional or Divine, part 1
"Conventional wisdom is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold." (Wikipedia definition)
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. In the next few posts, I will examine some of these to find if these ideas are the wisdom of God or just human foolishness. I think that we will find is that the opinion of so-called experts and other well-meaning people may not be wise at all. Now I understand that not all will agree with my conclusions, but I hope that they will realize that conventional wisdom is often mere opinion and that there is more than one side to every issue. Let's keep an open mind as we examine some of these things.
The first idea that I want to examine is the notion that it is better for the environment and our wallets if homeowners replace their incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. We are told that they use 75% less electricity and last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. So, even though fluorescent bulbs cost a lot more, it will save the homeowner money and help the environment by using less energy. Sounds like a win-win situation. And we are assured that there is no down side to this.
But there is a down side. I know about fluorescent bulbs because I used them in my business. I had a bakery and a deli operation. The Health Department required me to put shields over my fluorescent bulbs. The reason: fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and if they are broken they release that mercury in the air. Everyone knows that that is a serious hazard, especially in a place where food is kept.
On the same website where the federal government recommends the use of these bulbs, there is a link containing information about what to do if a fluorescent bulb breaks. Let me summarize: First, clear the room for 15 minutes, especially removing delicate things like children and pets. Turn off central heat or a/c. If the mess is on a hard surface, DO NOT vacuum up. Use sticky tape to clean and then damp rags. Put all cleaning stuff and broken light bulb pieces in a sealed plastic bag and put outside in the trash. If it is carpeting that needs cleaning, then do vacuum but immediately replace the vacuum bag by putting it in a sealed plastic bag. If any stuff gets onto clothing, DO NOT put the clothing in a washing machine because the mercury will get into the washer and contaminate what is washed in it later. And I hope that you remember to wear a mask and gloves to do all this. Shall I go on?
Here's more. While these bulbs are efficient, they actually flicker 60 times per second. Most people cannot see this consciously, but it is not good for your eyes and some people get headaches from it. What is worse is that most autistic people do see the flickering and it is really bad for them.
Will it save money and the environment (outside the home)? That is actually uncertain. There is a lot of evidence that fluorescents do not last any longer that regular bulbs. People do not seem to be experiencing longer usage. They seem to burn out like any other bulb. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that most people do not see a drop in their electric bills. So it is uncertain that the benefits which are touted by the 'experts' really pan out.
No doubt you have guessed my conclusion. Fluorescent bulbs are not a good idea for a home environment. I have no plans to use them even if they would save me money. I consider them an unacceptable risk. I will pay a few more dollars a month to get lighting that is much more safe and easier on the eyes.
I have no objection if someone decides to use these bulbs. But I think that we need to be fully informed and weigh the risks and benefits in a rational way instead of pushing it as if it is necessary to 'save the earth'.
It is important that we carefully examine conventional wisdom to find whether it is wisdom from God or just someone's bad idea. It is too easy to be taken in by so-called experts who are pushing something out of some ideology like what we get in our current environmental movement.
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. In the next few posts, I will examine some of these to find if these ideas are the wisdom of God or just human foolishness. I think that we will find is that the opinion of so-called experts and other well-meaning people may not be wise at all. Now I understand that not all will agree with my conclusions, but I hope that they will realize that conventional wisdom is often mere opinion and that there is more than one side to every issue. Let's keep an open mind as we examine some of these things.
The first idea that I want to examine is the notion that it is better for the environment and our wallets if homeowners replace their incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. We are told that they use 75% less electricity and last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. So, even though fluorescent bulbs cost a lot more, it will save the homeowner money and help the environment by using less energy. Sounds like a win-win situation. And we are assured that there is no down side to this.
But there is a down side. I know about fluorescent bulbs because I used them in my business. I had a bakery and a deli operation. The Health Department required me to put shields over my fluorescent bulbs. The reason: fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and if they are broken they release that mercury in the air. Everyone knows that that is a serious hazard, especially in a place where food is kept.
On the same website where the federal government recommends the use of these bulbs, there is a link containing information about what to do if a fluorescent bulb breaks. Let me summarize: First, clear the room for 15 minutes, especially removing delicate things like children and pets. Turn off central heat or a/c. If the mess is on a hard surface, DO NOT vacuum up. Use sticky tape to clean and then damp rags. Put all cleaning stuff and broken light bulb pieces in a sealed plastic bag and put outside in the trash. If it is carpeting that needs cleaning, then do vacuum but immediately replace the vacuum bag by putting it in a sealed plastic bag. If any stuff gets onto clothing, DO NOT put the clothing in a washing machine because the mercury will get into the washer and contaminate what is washed in it later. And I hope that you remember to wear a mask and gloves to do all this. Shall I go on?
Here's more. While these bulbs are efficient, they actually flicker 60 times per second. Most people cannot see this consciously, but it is not good for your eyes and some people get headaches from it. What is worse is that most autistic people do see the flickering and it is really bad for them.
Will it save money and the environment (outside the home)? That is actually uncertain. There is a lot of evidence that fluorescents do not last any longer that regular bulbs. People do not seem to be experiencing longer usage. They seem to burn out like any other bulb. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that most people do not see a drop in their electric bills. So it is uncertain that the benefits which are touted by the 'experts' really pan out.
No doubt you have guessed my conclusion. Fluorescent bulbs are not a good idea for a home environment. I have no plans to use them even if they would save me money. I consider them an unacceptable risk. I will pay a few more dollars a month to get lighting that is much more safe and easier on the eyes.
I have no objection if someone decides to use these bulbs. But I think that we need to be fully informed and weigh the risks and benefits in a rational way instead of pushing it as if it is necessary to 'save the earth'.
It is important that we carefully examine conventional wisdom to find whether it is wisdom from God or just someone's bad idea. It is too easy to be taken in by so-called experts who are pushing something out of some ideology like what we get in our current environmental movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)