A few weeks ago, I wrote about John Chapter 6, about how thousands of people had begun to follow Jesus, not because of who He was or what He had to offer them, but because all they saw was some guy who could heal their diseases and give them food.
Many of those people didn’t hang around for long.
Jesus told the crowd that instead of seeking another meal, which would just leave them hungry again later, they should choose the “bread of life” (v. 35). He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, which would lead to eternal life (vv. 53-58). Naturally, these cryptic commands only confused His followers, and almost all of them left.
I know how I would’ve felt to see everyone desert me. I would’ve felt like a complete failure, worthless and rejected. I would’ve wondered, “What did I do wrong? How can I get them back? Maybe give them some more food, heal some more people, do some awesome magic tricks?” Because that’s our human nature. We want to be loved, we want to be accepted, we want to be respected and adored. And had I been Jesus, I would’ve done anything at that moment to keep those people from walking out on me. Anything.
Thank God I’m not Jesus.
Verse 64 says that Jesus knew from the beginning who would stay and who would go, and it’s pretty obvious that these people were never in it for the long haul. They didn’t care about who Jesus was. They didn’t really care whether or not He was the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God, the One who would in a short time willingly give up His life for their sins. No. All they cared about was their own immediate needs and wants, and when the food ran out, when the going got tougher, when the cost of following Jesus became greater, they were out of there.
So my question to you is simple: Will you stay, or will you go? If you’re already a Christian, you’ve already made the decision to give your life to Jesus Christ, and you’ve asked forgiveness for your sins and asked Him to be your Lord and Savior, will you continue to stick with Him, even when it’s tough and even when you don’t know where He’s leading you?
And if you’re not a Christian, if you’re wondering if this Jesus guy is who He says He is, will you keep seeking answers? Or will you walk away because it just looks too hard?
As I read back over this passage, I wondered whatever happened to the people that left. Did any of them ever return, or did they walk away from Jesus forever? I’ll never know. But I know that at least for me, I can choose to stay.
I don’t want the Father, I want a vending machine
I don’t want the Father, I want a vending machine
I know what I want if you know what I mean
I don’t want the Father, I want a vending machine
– Derek Webb, “The Spirit Vs. The Kickdrum”
A lot happens between Chapters 5 and 6 of the Gospel of John. By the time we get to John 6:1, Jesus has attracted a huge following. At least 5000, and that was likely just counting adult males. Including women and children, that number could’ve been 10 or 15,000.
Jesus took the time to feed them all, and He didn’t just give them each a small ration of fish and bread. They had so much food, they couldn’t eat all of it, leaving twelve basketfuls of leftovers.
But that wasn’t enough for them.
John 6:15 says they wanted to force Him to be their king, so He had no choice but to get away. Eventually, they caught up with him, though, hungry and demanding more food. Here they were in the presence of the Son of God, and all they could think about was themselves.
Sound familiar?
So who are you following? And who’s following you? How many Twitter followers do you have? How many friends on Facebook? How many people are subscribing to your blog? And why are they following you? Why are you following them? And while we’re at it, why do you go to the church you go to?
These relationships you surround yourself with, these various communities and social networks, are they there just to serve your own needs, build up your own ego, make you somehow feel all warm and fuzzy?
Because that’s not what Jesus is about.
Yes, Jesus met His followers’ immediate needs by hosting an impromptu fish-fry. But that’s not why He was there. He was there to sacrifice Himself, die so that we could have something a lot better.
The crowd didn’t want that, though. They only cared about what they could get from Him, not about what He had to offer.
Too often, I’m guilty of the same thing. I go to church only to get something, not to be an integral part of the body of Christ. I get excited when I have new Twitter followers or new blog readers. I’m happy when it’s all about me, me, me. As if I’m anyone important.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be active online or that it’s wrong to promote your blog or whatever. But I have to remind myself of what’s really important. It’s not about some numbers on a web page or how many brownie points I get for having perfect church attendance. It’s about developing a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe and showing His love to a world that desperately needs it.
Religion – except for the “Hail Mary” pass – has no place in sports.
In Tebow’s case, he should play football and forget about us sinners for 31/2 hours every Saturday.
Somehow, we’ll survive without him displaying a “John 3:16″ Bible verse under his eyes. We separate church and state. Why not church and sports?
Actually, I think we need more athletes like Tebow and Texas quarterback Colt McCoy and OU quarterback Sam Bradford: men and women who not only live out their faith off the field and out of the spotlight but who display it in the public eye as well.
Listen, I’m not a big Florida fan, and the Tebow hype is beyond ridiculous. But greatly I admire him for standing up for what he believes, even if it’s not always the popular thing to do.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. …
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What a revolutionary statement for John to make to his Jewish and Greek readers: that Jesus wasn’t just a guy sent by God but that He was God Himself. Unlike Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of John doesn’t talk about the virgin birth or about Jesus’ lineage. Instead, he goes all the way back to before Creation to show that Jesus existed even then.
I’ve read this Gospel numerous times, but I still don’t think I can fully appreciate this idea. Before humans ever set foot on earth and certainly long before the Fall, Jesus already existed. Because God knew we would need Him.
If you asked me whether I knew this already, I would’ve of course said yes. But have I really stopped to think about the implications of it? Have I really considered how amazing this Jesus person really is, that He was there before the planets, before the stars, before Genesis 1:1, knowing all along that His sole purpose was to be born in order to die, and yet He came willingly, full of love and full of grace for us. For me. For you. For the soldiers who drove the nails into His hands and feet and hung Him on a cross.
So often I paint a picture of Jesus in my head, define Him in human terms, pay more attention to what He said than to who He is and why He ever lived in the first place. I nod my head in agreement as I read along, filing away His words in my head, rarely stopping to think about who it is that spoke them. Pretty arrogant, huh?
I need to rethink this Jesus guy. It’s one thing to say He was born in a manger to a young virgin mother. But those three words that introduce the Gospel of John literally change everything.
Apparently, education is a popular topic this week. Yesterday, I mentioned the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act being debated in the U.S. House, which would give the Department of Education the authority to “develop” and “disseminate” high school curricula.
Today, the Texas State Board of Education begins debating social studies curriculum standards that would affect history, government, and economics classes in public schools for the next 10 years. And naturally, the debate isn’t without controversy.
One of the biggest questions is how much emphasis should be placed on the role of Christianity in history books. Critics argue that the Board is showing a clear Christian bias, including appointing conservative Christian experts to review current standards.
Some of the board-appointed reviewers are picking and choosing certain people and events from history to make an argument that America is a Christian nation, said John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, a Christian school in Grantham, Pa.
“Students are not learning history. They are learning the facts about the past that suit some larger agenda, a cultural and political agenda,” said Fea, who has been following the Texas curriculum process.
“My best advice would be to respect the historians, respect the voice of historians,” said Fea, “and try to keep politics out of the teaching of history.”
A few observations here:
First, it’s impossible to teach history or government without discussing politics and religion. Go on, try it. It can’t be done. It’s a proven fact that 99% of history involves politics and/or religion to some extent. The other 1% mainly involves men in funny hats, but even that often is related to politics and religion.
Second, all historians have an agenda. Don’t be fooled by their stunning good looks, these folks are serious. And as someone with a History degree, I know of what I speak. The reality is that history, while comprised of objective facts and statistics, is largely subjective. What history “is” depends on how the historian interprets those facts and statistics. So any time an “expert” tells you a history book is completely unbiased, they’re lying. The bias might not be great, but it’s there. The critics in Austin simply want to trade a bias that they don’t like for one that they do.
Third, the United States is a Christian nation, so to downplay the role of Christianity in our history is pretty reckless. Now, when I say the U.S. is a “Christian nation”, what I mean is that Christianity has played a critical role throughout our existence. Christopher Columbus, the Puritans, the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, Manifest Destiny, the Enlightenment, Prohibition, the Civil Rights Movement, abortion, gay rights. Every single one of these topics was influenced in one way or another by Christianity.
Does that mean we should ignore the role of Judaism, Islam, or other religions in U.S. and world history? Absolutely not. But just because you discuss a particular religion in an historical context doesn’t mean you’re promoting it.
Finally, I’m struck by the irony of this debate. This is the same Board of Education who only 6 months ago voted to eliminate the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement when teaching evolution in science classes, pretty much guaranteeing that evolution will go unquestioned in public schools. The critics who argue that the Board is being biased with social studies now didn’t seem to mind them being biased with science back then. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
As I said back in January regarding the evolution question, I think students need to be able to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, and they should be free to question and debate as part of the process. That’s true with science, and it’s just as true with history.
When the church began to doubt its own integrity after the Darwinian attack on Genesis 1 and 2, we began to answer science, not by appealing to something greater, the realm of beauty and art and spirituality, but by attempting to translate spiritual realities through scientific equations, thus justifying ourselves to culture, as if culture had some kind of authority to redeem us in the first place. …
In fact, much of biblical truth must go out the window when you approach it through the scientific method. God does not live within the philosophical science He made, any more than He is bound by the natural realities of gravity. There is moral law, to be sure, but moral law is not our path to heaven; our duty involves knowing and being known by Christ. …
In a culture that worships science, relational propositions will always be left out of arguments attempting to surface truth. We believe, quite simply, that unless you can chart something, it doesn’t exist. And you can’t chart relationships. Furthermore, in our attempts to make relational propositions look like chartable realities, all beauty and mystery is lost. And so when times get hard, when reality knocks us on our butts, mathematical propositions are unable to comfort our failing hearts. How many people have walked away from faith because their systematic theology proved unable to answer the deep longings and questions of the soul? What we need here, truly, is faith in a Being, not a list of ideas.
Continuing with this week’s theme of teaching atheism to kids, how ’bout some new tunes from They Might Be Giants? The ’80s-era nerd band has released a new CD and DVD aimed at children called Here Comes Science, which includes a song called “Science Is Real” that equates angels with unicorns (video on the CD’s Amazon page here):
I like those stories
About angels, unicorns, and elves
Now, I like those stories
As much as anybody else
But when I’m seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science
Science is real
And to think I wasted my youth on songs like “Itsy-Bitsy Spider” and “Jesus Loves the Little Children”. Instead, I could’ve been learning about simple and abstract knowledge through the power of scientific fact!
“Although it wasn’t designed to create controversy, it’s still a big relief to me that the opening track, ‘Science Is Real,’ didn’t raise any red flags with the label,” the 49-year-old Flansburgh told Wired.com in an e-mail interview. “The song freely acknowledges the Big Bang and evolution, and casually conflates angels with unicorns and elves, which might bug some anti-science, pro-angel folk.”
I guess I fall into the category of “pro-angel folk” although I’m certainly not anti-science. But yes, I would say the song bugs me. I’m all for science, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for teaching kids about the elements, solar system, and other topics covered on the CD. But as a Christian, I don’t agree with parents teaching kids that angels (and by extension, God) don’t exist or that humans evolved from apes.
Besides, isn’t that what the public schools are for?
I’m not sure quite what to make of this story in the Dallas Morning News about a Collin County camp for children of atheists, agnostics, and “free thinkers”:
In many ways, the one-day event looked more like science camp than a gathering of children who had grown up without a god.
The campers, ages 5 to 15, played with llamas and kangaroos, examined fossils and staged their own UFO sightings.
Their counselors refrained from bringing up religion directly, though they encouraged the kids to embrace scientific skepticism.
Many of the parents had more modest goals, hoping their children would have some fun – and maybe make a few friends from among North Texas’ small but growing community of nonbelievers.
I don’t know what’s more tragic, that a camp like this exists or the part about the “growing community of nonbelievers”.
It’s one thing, I guess, when an adult says they’re an atheist. But seeing them pass down their rejection of God to their children is especially heartbreaking. Then again, I suppose they would say the same about me and how I raise my kids. The consequences, though, are much different in their case.
Recently, Christian writer Jason Boyett posted an interview on his blog with an atheist writer who goes by the pseudonym Dromedary Hump. (Part 1 of the interview here, and Part 2 here.)
As I was reading through the interview, a couple of things stuck out at me. See if you notice them in this excerpt (Boyett’s question in bold):
I guess the direction I was headed with that question regarded what I see as a potential critique of your business model: that you are making an easy buck by taking advantage of someone’s fears. Yes, this is definitely the life insurance approach, offering peace of mind in hopes that you won’t ever have to execute the agreement. However, the death rate for humans is 100 percent. You calculate the potential for the rapture occurring at a 00.0000001 percent chance. From your perspective, isn’t this sort of like (to pick an off-the-wall, non-religious example) asking an insane person to pay you $110 so you’ll protect him from the flying purple cheese monster? He gets peace of mind because he truly believes the cheese monster exists and is after him, but of course you know otherwise. You just get money for nothing. In my opinion, that conflicts with the Rule of Reciprocity. Your thoughts?
Jason, good challenge. First, I didn’t invent the rapture. It was implied by scripture and then reworked by 19th century Christians. One has the option of accepting those stories in the Book of Daniel and Revelation, and subsequent embellished interpretations of them, as either real things that are bound to happen or the ravings of lunatic cultists. I opt for the latter.
If you are equating believers in the rapture to “insane people” then yes… I would be taking advantage of the mentally incompetent, it would be wrong. But I don’t think you want to make that statement.
[Note from Jason: Well, no, I certainly didn't want to imply that rapture-believers are insane. Just trying to come up with a metaphor unconnected to religion. I'll admit the flying purple cheese monster comparison is a bad one. Anyway...]
Thus your example of the insane person buying protection from a purple monster is not a good one. I view believers of the rapture pretty much like any believers who take things on faith. They aren’t insane; they are usually capable of running their lives, making decisions on their own, dealing with daily trials and tribulations, making judgments, etc. I treat them as adults capable of making their own determinations in life. To that extent I am treating those people exactly how I would like to be treated. That I believe they have been mislead, are naïve about what scripture is and why it was written… that they are pawns of a mind virus that has pervaded men’s minds for thousands of years is 100% true.
But I will not afford them “victim status.” They have choices. They made them. I am servicing their need, a need that has been artificially created by nonsensical ancient writings, that has been fostered by the church for 1700 years. The genesis of any “scam” one may perceive of my service isn’t with my service. It’s with the scam of religious teachings. Religion itself makes my “scam” (if one wishes to define it as such) pale in comparison.
What immediately jumped out at me was Mr. Hump’s mention of the books of Daniel and Revelation from the Bible. In fact, he mentions earlier in the interview that he has a degree in psychology with a minor in religion and that he has always been a student of religion. My guess is, he probably knows a lot more about the Bible than most Christians.
The second thing I noticed in this interview was the way Mr. Hump responded. Very methodical, very intellectual. You often see this type of debate from atheists because that’s the way they justify not believing in God. To them, everything is based on logic, intellect, academia, and science. Thus, any philosophical debate over matters of faith only serves to prove their point (at least from their perspective). That’s not to say that Christians aren’t intellectual or that the Christian faith is not logical or complementary to science, only that Christians will rarely be able to argue their way to leading a person to Christ.
The interview reminded me of Luke, Chapter 4, in which Jesus is tempted by Satan while fasting in the desert. In the passage Satan tempts Jesus three times: first to turn stones into bread so that Jesus can eat, second to bow to him so that Jesus will be able to rule over the earth, and third to jump from the top of the Temple so that people will recognize Jesus as the Son of God. Satan knows exactly which buttons to push and exactly what words to say. He even quotes Scripture in verses 10 and 11. In essence, he’s using many of the same tactics that atheists use when debating Christians, knowing that if he can draw Jesus into some kind of philosophical argument, he’ll “win”. Jesus, of course, doesn’t fall for it, instead responding by quoting Scripture back to Satan and then leaving it at that.
I think it’s good for us as Christians to keep both of these points in mind. First, we need to really know the Bible. I admit that I’m really bad about this. But we need to know what we believe and more importantly why we believe it. Second, it’s not about arguing our faith; instead, our lives have to reflect it, which comes through letting the Holy Spirit guide us as opposed to our own desires. When that is the case, debate becomes unnecessary.
This blog post wasn’t supposed to be here. Instead, it was supposed to be a different post I wrote a couple of days ago. It was a good one, too, or at least I thought so at the time. But I didn’t publish it. After thinking about it overnight, I decided it was best to delete it. And I’m glad I did.
The topic of the post isn’t important. It wasn’t anything controversial or anything I haven’t written about before. But it was the tone of it that bothered me when I reread it later. It was caustic, mean-spirited, and divisive, and I would’ve regretted publishing it.
My son, pay attention to my wisdom;
listen carefully to my wise counsel.
Then you will show discernment,
and your lips will express what you’ve learned.
I’d like to say that I always show discernment in what I say or write, but the truth is, I don’t. In fact, I’m lousy at it. I’d like to say that every word I speak or write reflects God’s wisdom and glorifies His Kingdom, but it doesn’t. In fact, very little of it does.
I think I’ve gotten a little better at choosing my words over the years — only after leaving a trail of destruction in my wake — but I’ve still got a long way to go. Thankfully, this is one time I chose correctly.
There’s been a lot of talk on the Interwebs lately about the “controversial” new album from Christian musician Derek Webb, Stockholm Syndrome. The controversy seems to be primarily over one particular song on the album, “What Matters More”, due to the song’s use of the word “shit”.
I don’t really do music reviews, but after listening to the album for several days, I did want to weigh in with a few thoughts on it.
First, lyrics aside, let me make a comment about the music. I would describe the style as experimental, synth-heavy electronica with moments of dissonance and incongruity. (See, this is why I don’t do music reviews.) Some have compared it to Wilco and Radiohead, which is probably a fair comparison. Sometimes the music works (”Black Eye”, “What You Give Up To Get It”) and sometimes it severely gets in the way (”The State”, “American Flag Umbrella”).
But the music is a key component to understanding the deeper message of the album. Dissonance in music is meant to create tension, to make the listener intentionally uncomfortable, and it frequently does so here. This isn’t a feel-good album that you would likely queue up on your iPod while cruising around town on a lazy Saturday afternoon. Instead, it’s an often heavy, sometimes depressing manifesto with serious themes and a specific purpose.
The tension created by the music serves as a natural backdrop for those themes. Stockholm syndrome is a condition in which a hostage develops an emotional attachment to his captor. In such a situation, you would expect to find conflict and resistance, but instead you find loyalty. In the same way, Webb argues, we as Christians have “married our conscience to the State”.
Typical for Webb (a Libertarian), most of the songs on Stockholm Syndrome have political undertones (or overtones) and/or address controversial social issues in the Church such as homosexuality. And “What Matters More”, while getting most of the attention, isn’t the only song to push the envelope lyrically. “Freddie, Please”, a song about a deceased homosexual watching his own funeral, uses the word “queer”, and a few other songs mention sex and drinking. Suffice it to say, while some of that has to be taken its proper context, this isn’t an album I would listen to in the car with my two young daughters.
But of course this album isn’t really targeted at kids, it’s aimed at adult Christian believers. Just as the music invokes tension and discord, the lyrics are deliberately designed to be raw, uncomfortable, and controversial. They’re meant to provoke a response — even if it’s a negative one — and to an extent, that strategy appears to be working. Webb’s record label, INO Records, will only release an edited version of the album (minus the “s” word), and their stance has naturally generated a lot of buzz and curiosity, driving sales of the original version on Webb’s website.
As for “What Matters More”, the song is pretty much a musical adaptation of the quote from Tony Campolo: “50,000 people around the world died of hunger today. That’s bad, but what’s worse is that most of us don’t give a damn. But what’s even worse is that for many of us, it is more bothersome that I just said the word ‘damn’ than that I said 50,000 children of God died of hunger.” If you agree with Campolo’s argument, you’ll probably agree with Webb’s song. But personally, I’ve always thought such an argument was extremely arrogant, as if to say Christians don’t have the ability to condemn sinful behavior as long as there are starving people in the world.
In “What Matters More”, Webb slams Christians who disagree with homosexuality for the same reason:
Say you always treat people like you’d like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
‘Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak
‘Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn’t silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin’ all the dyin’ of the remedy
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you? Huh?
If I can tell what’s in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it’s about
Yeah it looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin’ the wind while the pendulum swings
‘Cause we can talk and debate until we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition that He’s comin’ to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don’t give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin’ today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Tell me, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
This isn’t the first time Webb has caused controversy with his music (see here and here), and he knows exactly what he’s doing. There was no way the label was ever going to release the album as-is, which is exactly his point. (For the record, I think the controversy over a couple of cuss words is way overblown.) That said, if his goal is to offend and alienate a portion of his audience so that he can appear to take the moral high ground, then that’s not constructive, it’s conceited.
After listening to the album multiple times, I can certainly appreciate the artistic vision of it. Not all art is happy and pretty, and neither is Stockholm Syndrome. It’s a difficult album to digest, and if nothing else, it’s at least prompted a number of discussions about issues that need to be discussed within the Church. Nevertheless, while I understand the message Webb is sending with his latest effort, I can’t say that I fully agree with it.
Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.
Craving a Peppermint Mocha latte for some reason, but not worth the 400 calories and 15g of fat for 16oz. Thank you, Starbucks iPhone app. [tindogcoffee]
Until the '70s, UK's National Health Service mandated only 1 style of eyeglasses http://bit.ly/1d4Qm9. Welcome the future of PelosiCare. [tindogcoffee]
There’s been a lot of talk on the Interwebs lately about the “controversial” new album from Christian musician Derek Webb, 