I want to discuss some of the issues with the way "the church" has gone about doing this.
1) Sacrificing Quality for Quantity
The church often celebrates and hears great cheering when they hear about the volume of "salvations" that they get. If we go to a service and find that 20 people were "saved" at the service we are all emotional. Everyone gets into their own personal Jesus moment and there is a lot of cheering and clapping. The new recruits are treated like fledglings and ushered into the care of some people they have never met and handed some pamphlets and told that God loves them. After about 10-15 minutes of them discussing their personal lives they are then set free to fly on their own. These birds learn to fly in 10 minutes.
You wanna see how this looks from the outside?
Here, we have all these new baby birds! Hooray they look adorable and we are so excited. Let's handle them for about 10 minutes and then we are throwing them from the tree to see which ones fly. Training? No...we gave them a manual (written in complex and contrived language) and they can read it if they need training. We have seminars and groups that do training, but the next one doesn't start for about 3 months so they will probably have to wait. You were born at the wrong time little bird.
We as Christians are so focused on the act of saying you accept Christ but not helping these people develop with Him. Is it because we just don't care about those people or because in reality many of us don't live the "christian" lives that we like to talk about on Sunday mornings? Is it because we are so shy or because we are embarrassed that these "new birds" will see how flawed and misshapen we are if we truly share life together and walk with Christ?
The outside world is bitter from the Church being so one track minded. They are tired of the "you need to accept Jesus" campaign and they are tired of hearing about how great He is but not seeing it. I'm tired of it. The world is tired of it.
2) Using our own language and colloquialisms to explain things
We have very "christian" ways of explaining things. We use metaphors and we use christian idioms to express things. In the Christian subculture it's a very comforting and affirming thing to do. You tell someone that God hasn't answered your prayer yet and they say that "God is never early or late" and that's supposed to make you feel better, so you give up on it.
2) Using our own language and colloquialisms to explain things
We have very "christian" ways of explaining things. We use metaphors and we use christian idioms to express things. In the Christian subculture it's a very comforting and affirming thing to do. You tell someone that God hasn't answered your prayer yet and they say that "God is never early or late" and that's supposed to make you feel better, so you give up on it.
The problem with the outside world (non-christians) is that this is simply an unintelligent reply to a legitimate question. People nowadays are tired of the unintelligent expressions. They are tired of the band-aid expression meant to cover the problem but not heal the wound. If God isn't answering your prayer right away, your friend should be helping you as much as possible. They should probably ask what your prayer is for and help evaluate if it lines up with the will of God. Does your prayer affect someone's free will? God is a gentleman and will not steal away someone's ability to choose. Are you praying for something that takes time? Then why are you expecting it to happen right now? There are several logical answers that still maintain with biblical standards. For instance, how are you living your life? Are you cheating on your spouse but expecting God to hear your prayers? He may, but if your prayers are unanswered you may have an underlying issue to take care of. People need practical answers, not some made up "Christian-ism" that calls into question the intelligence of the christian community.
3) Fear of anything that challenges our faith
Christians, generally speaking, are afraid of whatever challenges their faith. We avoid science because it says that Evolution is real and that the universe started from the Big Bang. We get afraid of these things because the presumption is that then God must not exist and calls into question all of our beliefs.
3) Fear of anything that challenges our faith
Christians, generally speaking, are afraid of whatever challenges their faith. We avoid science because it says that Evolution is real and that the universe started from the Big Bang. We get afraid of these things because the presumption is that then God must not exist and calls into question all of our beliefs.
For the record, let's go into those two things. Evolution is the theory that things change over time. They do. That's proven. It's not worth arguing. Whether we came from monkeys or fish or not is completely different from Evolution. Evolution as a process may be a theory, but it's widely proven. Don't fight it. God wants us to change over time too. In regard to the Big Bang, realize a simple truth. If everything in the universe came from a single point, then something with equal or greater power than the universe MUST have existed in order for the universe to have ever happened. That's the law of math. If 1=everything and 0=nothing then 1=1 and 0=0, Everything that exists requires a force equal to or greater than itself to exist. If the universe is infinite in space (though not commonly held belief) then by the rules of e=MC^2 and relativity it is then infinite in time and energy also. Under these assumptions it is not only probable that God exists, but inevitable. That's also legitimate reasoning.
Remember this: If we as Christians are afraid to challenge our faith, then what faith do we really have? Do you really believe that Science will ever disprove God? Science is the study of his creation. Do you actually believe it can result in anything but finding God?
4) I'll do this for you, if you do this for me
Remember this: If we as Christians are afraid to challenge our faith, then what faith do we really have? Do you really believe that Science will ever disprove God? Science is the study of his creation. Do you actually believe it can result in anything but finding God?
4) I'll do this for you, if you do this for me
The church is very focused on the giveaways that require you to do something. You can eat at our free pancake breakfast if you sit through a sermon first. We are happy to feed the poor if we can brand ourselves and label everything with our logo and such. I don't see anywhere in the bible where Jesus wanted to make sure that everyone did something for him before He did for them. We always focus on the bible from one perspective. Take when Jesus fed the 5,000. Everyone focuses on the faith of the boy to give the two fish and the bread. They want to talk about how Jesus will provide, but they don't want to focus on the simple things.
Jesus did NOT require everyone to sacrifice. The sacrifice of one was for the benefit of many. Jesus didn't talk about moochers or even care that they were there. If you think there weren't moochers you are foolish. There were 5,000 people there. There were moochers and Jesus fed the moochers more than they needed. Why? It's not our job to convince a moocher or anyone else that Jesus is the way. We don't do the convincing. His spirit is enough for that. Our job is simply to show his love to people. That's where we miss it.
As a church we want to do so much to build numbers of attendees and we want to add to the ranks, but we have lost a grip on how to show the love of Christ. The world is sick of the marketing campaign where you get to get something if you do or give something. They are tired of the, "you get this great experience for only 10% of your income." I am 100% in support of tithe and offering. If you are a christian and you aren't tithing, shame on you. That said, the focus shouldn't be on the rules. It should be on the Love.
I honestly today am ashamed of the title Christian. Not because of Jesus. I'm proud to know Jesus. I'm ashamed to be associated with people that are seemingly unintelligent, greedy, finger-pointing, and relentless to serve their own needs. That's not the Jesus I know. As it is, I don't think Jesus would be a christian either.
Jesus did NOT require everyone to sacrifice. The sacrifice of one was for the benefit of many. Jesus didn't talk about moochers or even care that they were there. If you think there weren't moochers you are foolish. There were 5,000 people there. There were moochers and Jesus fed the moochers more than they needed. Why? It's not our job to convince a moocher or anyone else that Jesus is the way. We don't do the convincing. His spirit is enough for that. Our job is simply to show his love to people. That's where we miss it.
As a church we want to do so much to build numbers of attendees and we want to add to the ranks, but we have lost a grip on how to show the love of Christ. The world is sick of the marketing campaign where you get to get something if you do or give something. They are tired of the, "you get this great experience for only 10% of your income." I am 100% in support of tithe and offering. If you are a christian and you aren't tithing, shame on you. That said, the focus shouldn't be on the rules. It should be on the Love.
I honestly today am ashamed of the title Christian. Not because of Jesus. I'm proud to know Jesus. I'm ashamed to be associated with people that are seemingly unintelligent, greedy, finger-pointing, and relentless to serve their own needs. That's not the Jesus I know. As it is, I don't think Jesus would be a christian either.
Jon, this is a fantastic blog post! I completely agree with you 100%!!!! In fact, I'm going to pass this along! It is a shame that true believers have to contend, not only with the world, in order to love others, witness and disciple, but with our own brothers in Christ who defile the word and work of God and make it so humanized that it becomes Gnostic (as God warned against, time and time again!)Humanity is one of the greatest qualities that Jesus portrayed, however, He was still God and is to be revered. We all must remember that with God is His spirit, which gives us assurance, guidance and confidence in who HE is, therefor, in who WE are (Not little Gods, not a sub-culture of people, not deity ourselves)the hands and feet, and workmanship of the Gospel which brings repentance, salvation and everlasting life. 1,2,3 repeat after me, is no way to get "saved"....it's Christian jargon. True salvation is understanding, willingness, surrender and assurity. True religion is this: to feed and care for the orphans and widows. Today's Christianity and the Charismatic/emergent church has it all backwards!
ReplyDeleteThanks! I just hear a lot nowadays about what's going on in the Church. I hear about, "how do we get more people?" which to me translates as "how do we milk the cow?" The current and most recurring theme is to go back to what worked in the Christian movement of the 90's. A lot of the music is being brought back and such, but doesn't the bible say something about old wine for old wineskins and new wine in new wineskins?
DeleteIn regard to the Prayer section of this post:
DeleteIf your prayer is directly involving someone else's choice, a prayer to have them choose one option is not something God will do. He is a gentleman and won't take away someone's right to choose. That negates the purpose of Christ giving us the option to choose him. Instead pray for things that God can do without affecting their will. Pray that He make His path known to them and that He protects them. Pray that He shows them favor. Pray for healing and pray for the people around them to have discernment and good judgement.
"Whether we came from monkeys or fish or not is completely different from Evolution."
ReplyDeleteSorry, no, the theory of evolution is the explanation of natural selection causes organisms to adapt to their environment. It explicitly states that mankind, as a species of apes, evolved from ancestors all the way back to the beginning of life millions of years ago. It's also not capitalized.
"If everything in the universe came from a single point, then something with equal or greater power than the universe MUST have existed in order for the universe to have ever happened."
First, this doesn't make any sense. Second, you're privledging the hypothesis. Even assuming the big bang was caused by something, immediately assuming that God was that something is fallacious as all get out.
"by the rules of e=MC^2 and relativity it is then infinite in time and energy also. Under these assumptions it is not only probable that God exists, but inevitable. That's also legitimate reasoning."
This is unreasoning which also makes sense. e=mc^2 is a conversion formula, and that's not how you use it.
Also, science is not a proper noun.
1)The theory of evolution: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
DeleteUs specifically arising from a monkey or a fish utilizes the theory of evolution, however that was not included in the original works by Darwin. Additionally, Darwin only proposed natural selection is simply a method in which evolution can take place. In the Origin of Species he refers to several factors that change people over time, however Darwin (who is arguably the father of evolution) did not implicitly speak to human evolution as coming from a monkey or fish of any kind, although current held belief by scientific community is that we came from monkeys. That however is a very narrow branch of evolution called human evolution. In fact several of the so called stages of human evolution have a single fossil to represent a whole species of people, without the ability to find any others. It's highly subjective to classify a species from one fossil. (see Homo cepranensis or Homo gautengensis)
2)It's the law of energy. Since mass is equal to energy and energy and mass cannot be created or taken away from the universe, then something equal or greater must have existed before the universe in order to create it. If it wasn't created, then it must be infinite, meaning all eventualities are inevitable. Since E=MC^2 converts mass to energy and vice versa, it implies that all material and energy is infinite and so is time and space. If you have an origin, you must be created by something equal to or greater than yourself - even evolution supports this. If you do not, then you must be infinite in time. If you are infinite in time then you are, by the rules of relativity, infinite in space, energy, and mass also. In an infinite universe the eventuality is that along the line EVERYTHING will exist because it must at some point.
I'll dial it in even simpler for this anonymous person who has courage to refute legitimate reasoning with proper English and don't understand the basic concepts:
A: Evolution as a theory is the theory that species change over time based on several factors such as natural selection, genetic drift, and others. The theory of human evolution is highly subjective. Many of our fossils of "evolutionary" humans in transition from an ape to a man are from Asia, which is well known to have a shorter population than even the people in the middle east, who predate them. It's hardly conclusive and a different science than Evolution on the whole.
B: Either everything was created by a larger force or everything is infinite. There is no other option. When you move a pendulum it will never return to the original height on it's own volition. You cannot have a creation greater than it's origin. If we were created, something is greater than the universe. If we weren't then the universe is infinite and then so is mass, time, and space. This makes God an inevitability either in time or space.
Science can be a proper noun given certain contexts, however since the heart of this blog was not about literature or science I wasn't inclined to spell check and berate readers with prolonged descriptions. Clearly, Anonymous, you didn't get the point.
Sorry two edits: "evolution" and "doesn't"
DeleteFor everyone who finds it pertinent to correct my English skills despite that Science can be a noun.
"Us specifically arising from a monkey or a fish utilizes the theory of evolution, however that was not included in the original works by Darwin. Additionally, Darwin only proposed natural selection is simply a method in which evolution can take place. In the Origin of Species he refers to several factors that change people over time, however Darwin (who is arguably the father of evolution) did not implicitly speak to human evolution as coming from a monkey or fish of any kind, although current held belief by scientific community is that we came from monkeys."
DeleteZero relevance to anything. This is like arguing that because Mendel didn't include non-binary genetic traits in his tables, non-binary genetic traits aren't real. Science is a march of progress, not a chance to cite outdated works done with outdated methods as if it somehow supports your argument.
"hat however is a very narrow branch of evolution called human evolution. In fact several of the so called stages of human evolution have a single fossil to represent a whole species of people, without the ability to find any others. It's highly subjective to classify a species from one fossil. (see Homo cepranensis or Homo gautengensis)"
You have no understanding of modern biology. This is not even an argument. I mean, you even used the word "monkeys" when I already pointed out that humans are apes. Do you expect to be able to convince anyone with even rudimentary scientific literacy with this kind of tripe? Spend some time on wikipedia if you can't afford a biology 101 textbook.
"Since mass is equal to energy and energy and mass cannot be created or taken away from the universe, then something equal or greater must have existed before the universe in order to create it."
Buy a physics textbook while you're at it. Turns out energy can be created and destroyed after all. Quantum mechanics. You're so transparently regurgitating outdated, misinformed rhetoric you heard from someone else. Do your own research, maybe.
"If you have an origin, you must be created by something equal to or greater than yourself - even evolution supports this. If you do not, then you must be infinite in time. If you are infinite in time then you are, by the rules of relativity, infinite in space, energy, and mass also. In an infinite universe the eventuality is that along the line EVERYTHING will exist because it must at some point."
This actually, really nonsense. I have no idea how you managed to misunderstand so much stuff. I'm impressed.
Please read more and talk less.
ugh...okay. I'll once again tell you why you are wrong.
Delete1) Claiming that evolution and human evolution are two different sciences is correct. One is the study that species change over time based on several variant factors and the other posits (without sufficient evidence) the origin of man. Human evolution has several stages in the theory only supported by one partial fossil of that stage of evolution. Some of them very old and some within the last few years. My last post suggested two of the stages, one over 100 years old and one that is 2 years old that both have little evidence to support them. It would seem that in regard to biology, you probably need to be doing more reading.
2) Quantum mechanics doesn't say that energy is destroyed. To site your beloved Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energys
The laws of mechanics say you cannot create or destroy energy, mass, or matter. Every word you write here not only has nothing to do with this topic but is flawed and has no backing or source. I thought you liked science.
3) If you began, something had to create you. This is a basic truth. Nothing starts without being started by something else. The basic concept of infinity means that it never ends. I can't really explain infinity in a simpler way. If you don't understand theoretical physics, you just don't.
Beside the fact that you clearly don't know much about the application of science, are completely wrong about quantum mechanics, and have no idea how theoretical physics work, you were correct that I was wrong to capitalize the word "evolution" so that's something to your benefit.
I am not usually one to brag on myself, but in this case, I'm particularly well-read. I've scoured a lot of text books and read a lot of wikipedia, despite its inherent fallibility. If you had a source, any legitimate backing, or even a good point this would actually be something I'd discuss with you rather than simply noting your flaws.