December 15, 2007 by Matt.

I just finished reading an interview with Phillip Pullman, the author that wrote the series of books that begins with “The Golden Compass”. In it he says, “The power to send armies to war, to rule every aspect of our lives, to tell us what to wear, what to think, what to read–when religion gets hold of that, watch out! Because trouble will ensue.” The interviewer goes on to say that “Pullman sees himself as championing the universal human values of love and tolerance and curiosity.” As I read this I think about prayer and the Bible being removed from schools. Removing the Bible from schools sounds an awful lot like telling people what to read which Pullman says would be a danger of giving a religious person political power, yet this was done not by religious people, but by those with an any religious agenda. Furthermore, the removal of prayer from schools certainly doesn’t sound very tolerant, something Pullman considers himself a champion for. Now, Pullman does not specifically address these issues in the interview I read. I suppose it is possible that he might agree with me about the removal of prayer and the bible from schools.

Furthermore, I think that anyone in government getting what Pullman describes as, “The power to send armies to war, to rule every aspect of our lives, to tell us what to wear, what to think, what to read,” is dangerous. Certainly the president of the US has the power to send armies to war. However, I don’t think that any of the other powers that Pullman mentions here are given to anybody in our government. I think that our worlds history is full of examples of the danger of giving this kind of power to the government. In these cases, it was the abuse of power that caused the problems, not religion. Even if the leader as religious it was the abuse of power that caused the problem. Certainly the leaders religious beliefs may have had some influence on the ways in which he or she abused the power, but it was the abuse of power that caused the problem.

So, I find myself thinking, is Pullman really against religion, or Christianity; or is he actually against zealots with any agenda. If Pullman is truly a champion of “the universal human values of love and tolerance and curiosity,” then a zealot of any type, with any agenda would go against what he champions.

It is a shame that Pullman appears to have taken on organized religion in his stories. At this time I have not seen the movie, nor read the books. As such I can not make an intelligent opinion about either. So, all the opinions I expressed here are based on the interview I read. I do plan to see the movie, and may even read the books. I hope that the views of his story have been misrepresented in the stuff I have read so far, but I will reserve any opinions until I have seen the movie.

Posted in Thoughts on Things | Print | No Comments »

December 5, 2007 by Matt.

OK, so I realize that this is probably not a new thing, but I have recently discovered a movement that I will call the Christ-follower movement. I must admit that this  has me a little concerned. From some of what I have read this seems to be spawned, at least in part, by the negative image that Christianity has received as of late. Well, if that is the case, then the intentions may be pure, but I have a few concerns.

1. Isn’t this kind of a moot point. I mean to me Christian means a follower of Christ. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines Christian as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” However, James 2:19 tells us that, “the devils also believe, and tremble,” so I don’t think that Merriam-Webster has a good grip on what Christian means.

2. If this is a movement started to avoid the negative image that Christianity has gotten, then are we not moving in the wrong direction. I mean are we not confirming the negative perceptions when we say that we no longer want to be call Christian. If we really mean the same thing and are only trying to give it a fresh face with the new name, then out intentions may be good. We, as Christians, may understand that there is little if any difference beyond the semantics. However, is this not going to cause confusion among those that do not already know Jesus? What will happen when some of these people become saved. If someone who is brought into the flock with the idea of being a Christ follower later find out that it is the same as being a Christian, might they not feel that they have received the old bait and switch?

Maybe this is a bit extreme an example, but I do have to ask is a new name really the way to go? If people are being turned away by the image of Christianity that they have seen, then perhaps we should show them what Christianity is all about. To this end I give you two passages of scripture. In Matthew chapter 22 Jesus was asked which was the greatest of the commandments. To this He said, in verses 37-40, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”  A little later in the book of Matthew we see where Jesus tells a story of himself as he has come to his full glory. To one side of him there are sheep and on the other goats. Jesus turns to the sheep and welcomes them into the kingdom saying, “For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger and ye took me in: naked and ye clothed me: I was sick and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came to me.” Confused the sheep asked when they had done these things for him. The king responded saying, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye haven done it unto me.”

Should not Christianity be defined by these two verses. If a cleaner image is what we desire then perhaps it is time that we did as Jesus instructed: 1. Love God 2: Love our neighbors and 3: Meet the needs of “the least of these”.

3. I also worry that we may be watering down the doctrine to make it more palatable. In John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Many non-Christians have called themselves “Christ-followers”, but did not acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, or the Messiah. These “Christ-followers” also did not subscribe to Christian beliefs, such as baptism, salvation through Christ and so on. Many of these people thought of Jesus as nothing more then a wonderful teacher, or a profit. They call themselves Christ-followers because they believe that the things Christ taught were good rules to live by. Basically many of these Christ-followers believed that good people go to heaven and bad people don’t regardless of your relationship with Christ.

As a Christian I believe that Jesus was sent to earth by the one and only God, to minister and ultimately to be the ultimate sacrifice so that,”none should die, but have eternal life.” I believe that after Christ was killed on the cross he rose from the grave and now waits for the right time when he will return to recieve all those that have accepted his salvation.

So, do I think that this Christ-follower movement is bad, NO. Do I think that it is necessary, NO. Do I think that this is the right direction to go in to reach more people, no. To me it is kind of like a business that has begun to loose business because their building is old, dirty and poorly cared for. So, in order to gain back market share they build a new building and take on a new name. However, they continue to run the business in the same manner that they did before. So, the gain some new customers with the shiny new building. Soon, howoever, the new building begins to looks as bad as the old building and the customers go away again. This business could have donw much better by fixing the practices that ran people off to begin with. This would have got them the customers they wanted while saving them the cost of the new building. So, what is the cost of this shiny new name?

What do I think needs to be done? I think that the church needs to remember that Christianity is about loving people. It is not about judging others, it is not about setting restrictions on who can come in. It is not about hiding behind the protective walls of our church buildings. It is about loving people, about taking the message to the street, about meeting the needs of the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers, the sick, and the improsoned. Does Christianity need help” Yes, but the answer is not a new name.

Posted in Thoughts on Things | Print | No Comments »