Roger Ebert (yes, that Roger Ebert) wrote a blog called “Jesus was a Nazi. So’s your preacher” where he took Beck to task about controversial comments he made regarding Christian churches that preach social justice.  Naturally, this post’s title (it’s important to note that the quotes were included) above a photo of one of Beck’s goofy smiles had me intrigued.  I never watch his TV show or listen to his radio show but I have read two of his books, and his take on politics — while a bit Chicken-Littley at times — generally seems sensible to me.

The essence of this most recent controversy is that Beck told listeners to his radio show that if they go to a church that preaches social justice or economic justice, that they ought to leave that church immediately and find another.  On the surface this sort of statement does seem wildly rash, and if we choose to go no deeper than the surface, anyone could find plenty of nasty things to say about the man who uttered it.  And Roger Ebert did just that.

First, let me just clarify that Ebert’s quoted title is automatically misleading.  As far as I can tell from reading the post itself, neither those words nor anything like them have been uttered by Beck.  None of Ebert’s other posts have quotes, so this was obviously either a ploy to get readers to think that Beck actually said that, or to mock him as if that were totally the sort of thing that he would say if we could really hear his thoughts.  Either way, it reeks of misdirection.

Second, the way in which Ebert engages Beck’s statement shows me that he is not interested in being clear on the issue.  Rather than attempting to clarify the (admittedly) odd-sounding advice, Ebert takes it completely at face value and then neatly dresses Beck’s motives in his own assumptions.  Then he uses those assumptions to mock the man as a fringe zealot.  Glenn Beck is a freak.  Case closed.

But wait…

If you do a little bit of research (and it really only takes a little), it is possible to get a clearer idea of what Beck is really advocating.  Let me try to sum it up:

Beck is saying that if a church takes the position that its members should support the government in its efforts to help the needy, then that church is violating one of its most compelling commandments by allowing its people to shrug off their God-given duty to be the hands and feet of Jesus, and to go out and meet the needs themselves.  That’s it in a nutshell.  Rather than allowing the government to do the job of caring for people, we are called to do it, and anyone who gives us a way out of this arrangement is not leading us well.

Here are a two additional comments made on Ebert’s post that I found refreshingly clarifying:

The state can’t act in love as the state uses “coercion” via the sword or the AK47 to implement it’s policy. Jesus lived in a day of slavery but never spoke out against it. He lived in a day of oppressive misogyny and never spoke out against that. Greed, violence, poverty, disease, ignorance were rampant and there was no such thing as a middle class. In His day either you were an owner or a slave and Jesus never addressed this. Instead He called for His FOLLOWERS NOT THE STATE to live out His principles which then changed the world.

It amazes me that people don’t get it. Anyone that listens on a regular basis to Beck understands that his problem is with the government being a solution. The government is the problem. As a “clergyman” myself, I know that it is the church’s responsibility to take care of the poor and those less fortunate. If a church is advocating that the government do this through “social justice”, Beck is in fact correct.

In the end you have to look at all the evidence and decide what is true and what is conjecture.  Does Glenn Beck actually oppose the idea of church-goers helping the needy (as Roger Ebert believes), or is he really saying that a church who allows its divine calling to be annexed by the government is not a place where dedicated Christ followers should want to be?  To me, that answer is clear.

Does my take on this issue persuade you?  If you heard Beck’s comment, what was your initial reaction?  Do you see things differently now?

Related posts:

1. Social Media in Education

This book has it’s roots in a popular 2008 New York Times article called “Rules of the Family” where author Karen Crouse lists the eight rules for being a Warner kid.  Reader response was so positive that the Warner’s thought they’d elaborate on more of their family values, and First Things First was born.

I don’t typically buy biographies, but as a Cardinals fan (and specifically a fan of Warner and what he stands for), I thought I’d give it a try.  I was pleasantly surprised at my level of enjoyment.  The book is an open and honest look into the ups and downs of Warnerhood.  From setting-straight the internet version of how they met, to learning to live a life of celebrity and influence, to stories of how they deal with everyday marriage and family situations, the book is excellent.

One recurring theme that I found particularly fascinating was how Kurt and Brenda differ when it comes to signing autographs away from the field.  Even though both work hard to preserve their family time, Kurt tends to take the position that simply signing an autograph is quicker and easier than explaining that he’s with his family and that he needs to stay focused on them.  Brenda seems to prefer that he do the latter, but Kurt generally does the former.  Kurt also seems torn because he sees each fan interaction as a chance to influence that person for Christ.

This got me thinking about how difficult it would be to live a life where people are always interrupting your family dinner, your trip to the grocery store, your vacation, and even your small-talk with the auto mechanic.  That has to get old.  I also began thinking about how we as fans tend to act so selfishly with celebrities.  Somehow, in our excitement to meet someone famous, we fall into a sort-of temporary narcissism that permits us to put our need for an autograph over all else.

Though I’m not a person who gets particularly star struck, I know that I have probably been guilty of approaching a famous person at an inopportune time.  After reading this book, I’ll certainly think twice before interrupting someone’s dinner for my own benefit.  I appreciated the chance to see the struggle that the Warners endure with something so seemingly superficial as signing an autograph.  I can definitely see both sides of the issue.

What about you?  Have you ever tried approaching a celebrity for an autograph on his/her personal time?  What do you think you would do if you were in his/her shoes?

No related posts.

Some might say that politics and religion should always stay separated, but I find that to be a thoughtless position.  Since my religion is the central catalyst in forming my worldview, how can someone ask me to separate my understanding of the world from my vote?  Do I ask the secular atheist to forget about their worldview before casting a vote?  To me, the idea of religion and politics staying separate is silly.  On a number of hot-button issues, my religious faith (along with what I consider simple common sense) have helped to form many of my political convictions.  Though they are seen as contentious issues, many are pretty black-and-white in my mind.

Capital Punishment - I am 100% in favor of capital punishment.  Some might challenge me by saying that all life is sacred and that my support of society killing another human being, for any reason, must mean that I don’t truly value life.  On the contrary, because I value innocent human life so much, I support a system that requires the most heinous murderers to pay the ultimate price for their deeds — the forfeit of their own life.

Abortion - I support a woman’s right to choose, and when she chooses to sleep with someone and gets pregnant, I don’t think a quick-fix abortion is an acceptable remedy.  The idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body is fine by me, but once you get pregnant, you’re dealing with someone else’s body.  Just because it’s growing inside you, that doesn’t mean it is you.  100% of babies turn out to be someone different than the woman who carried it.  I want each child to have the opportunity to live, because you never know which unwanted baby might be the next Mother Theresa.

Admittedly, however, sometimes I struggle with the crossroads between religion and politics.  I freely admit that there are times when my stance on a political issue is difficult to justify through my faith.  When people challenge me on some of these issues, I have to admit uneasiness.  Here are three random political issues that give me pause:

War - War is hell, and the idea of supporting it makes me a bit uneasy.  I don’t think its easy for our troops, and I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable killing another person.  Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum — sitting down and having a friendly discussion with people who hate us — is laughable.  If I’m at home when someone breaks in with a weapon, no amount of Constant Comment tea will help me succeed in protecting my family.  This reasoning seems even more persuasive on an international level.  Am I uneasy about the taking of human life?  Yes.  Do I think that God supports war?  Honestly, I’m not sure either way.  What I do know is that war has been the catalyst through which many of the world’s greatest evils have been thwarted.  My tendency is to believe that, in rare cases, military intervention is the only answer we have as a nation.

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques - This is one that came up in a discussion last week.  From a political standpoint, I have no issues with water boarding terrorist masterminds like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — I think its valuable in helping to save lives.  I fully support sleep deprivation and other techniques that interfere with or disrupt a person’s rhythm and balance.  I’m against physical torture (like drilling a hole through someones skull).  Oddly enough, from a religious perspective, I’m a little more uneasy with this issue than I am with war.  Do I like coercive methods that make a person feel like he is drowning?  No.  But there is no doubting that this technique — done to a handful of men who are the personification evil — has saved thousands of innocent lives.  In this case, I lean slightly more toward an “end justifies the means” stance, but I’d be lying if I said that my faith didn’t give me pause.

Homosexuality - My belief about homosexuality is not where my struggle lies; I simply have a hard time knowing exactly how to handle the rise of the gay movement in our society.  I believe that our nation gives mentally healthy adults the right to do just about anything he or she wants, as long as it doesn’t injure or corrupt others.  What I have a hard time with is knowing what to do when I see what used to be considered an “alternative lifestyle” given the same value as traditional man/woman relationships.  Do I want our government to oppress gays?  No.  But I have a hard time with the thought that our government is being asked to take the stance that heterosexual marriages are no different than homosexual ones.  While I support the freedom of lifestyle, I cannot support the idea that they are the same.  My compassion for gay people doesn’t trump what I consider to be the best organism for a healthy society — a healthy traditional family.

What are your thoughts?  Do you have similar religio-political battles that you deal with?  If you are of a secular persuasion, do you have similar struggles when you try to combine your political and irreligious beliefs?

No related posts.

Before reading my response, please take a few moments to read Mr. Madden’s original comment. As always, I welcome additional thoughts from either side of this issue.

Mr. Madden,

Thanks for taking to time to read my post and for feeling free to comment so honestly. I always appreciate people who challenge me to defend my beliefs further because it truly makes me think more deeply and more completely through where I stand on the issues I blog about.

Let me start by saying that I try very hard not to disrespect those with whom I disagree. Though you found deep offense to some of the things I wrote, please know that I am saying nothing with the intent to offend, just in a spirit of openness about what I believe about Mormonism. I think you would agree that – mixed in with the things you found offensive – I also made some very kind comments about Mormons. If you will agree to take no offense where no offense is intended, I’ll agree not to be offended that you think my thoughts make me sound “kind of ignorant and not-really-very-well-educated” .

You challenged me to “come up with a definition of ‘Christian’ that leaves Latter-day Saints out, but manages to include all the other denominations that [I] would consider to be Christians.” For the sake of simplicity I’m going to forgo all the theological citations and links to various Reformed creeds and confessions, and give you a very tangible reason why our two religions cannot both claim the name of Christianity. Ironically, the answer is found at the very point of Mormonism’s conception.

In Joseph Smith’s first vision, he asked “the Personage” of Jesus Christ which Christian denomination he should join – which one was right. The following answer comes directly from Smith’s account as listed on www.lds.org:

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

In one hand, Mormons hold to Smith’s founding prophecy that theirs is the one true church and that all others are corrupt abominations; in the other hand they hold the olive branch of Christian brotherhood. If Christians consent to Mormonism’s plea for acceptance, then we must give equal consent to the belief that all our creeds and practices are disgusting in God’s sight. By accepting Mormonism, Christianity must reject the very faith that they practice. Basically, this whole issue boils down to the fact that Mormons are seeking the acceptance of the very people they have deemed to be unacceptable.

I think the real challenge before us is for Mormons to come up with a definition of Christian that leaves Latter-day Saints in, but also manages to include all the other denominations that Joseph Smith was told were an abomination in God’s sight. Is any Mormon ready to claim that Smith’s founding revelation was wrong? If not, then I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize Christians as the ones who are not accepting.

Related posts:

1. The Mormons

I dare say that just about every person who has been to church more than three times in his life is familiar with the story of the prodigal son found in Luke 15:11-32. To sum it up for you, a son goes to his father demanding his inheritance early, squanders it all on whores and partying, goes flat broke, realizes that he never had it better than when he was back home, returns to his father, and receives the celebration of a lifetime when he walks through the door. This is an incredible parable that Jesus tells to illustrate the fact that, no matter what happened in a person’s past, God is waiting with open arms to accept him and forgive him.

But the story doesn’t just end there.

The prodigal son had an older brother who stayed behind and continued to work faithfully for his father while the younger son was livin’ la vida loca with the large inheritance he so selfishly demanded. After the younger son returned, this is what Jesus says went down:

25 “Now his older son was in the field; as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he summoned one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 ‘Your brother is here,’ he told him, ‘and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “Then he became angry and didn’t want to go in. So his father came out and pleaded with him. 29 But he replied to his father, ‘Look, I have been slaving many years for you, and I have never disobeyed your orders, yet you never gave me a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.’

I gotta be honest, I feel for the guy; on some levels I really relate to him. This parable is used over and over again in churches as a reminder that we as Christians need to be about the business of reconciling others to Christ, and I am completely on board with that. Where my biggest hang-up arrives is in the fact that this ungrateful punk already knew the life his father could provide and left it anyway.

I can see how the church would rejoice when a non-believer comes to Christ — no matter his or her background — but it kills me to think of the church equally celebrating the return of a believer who knew God before making the deliberate decision to live for the world. In my mind, this sort of person is welcome to return to grace, but not by way of a ticker-tape parade. It seems to me that stories like these typically end up as tear-jerking video highlights or moving on-stage testimonials, while the stories of faithful Christians who struggle each day to deny themselves are ignored completely.

I know that my disdain for the prodigal son is probably a bit off-base theologically, but its difficult for me to celebrate the deliberate disobedience of someone who I believe should know better. I have seen this story happen over and over again since I was in college, and it only gets more difficult to deal with each time I witness it. I guess if I had to boil my thoughts down to its simplest form it would be this: I’m not bothered with the forgiveness in this passage, but I am bothered with the fanfare.

What do you think?

No related posts.

Last week, my family and I took Heidi and her parents (who were in SLC for Harrison’s adoption hearing) downtown to Temple Square for a tour. Here are a few photos of that trip:

Temple construction began within days of the Mormon pioneers settling in the Salt Lake Valley. It took 40 years for this intricate building to be completed. Its walls are nine feet thick and the outside is detailed with numerous astrological symbols (including earthstones, moonstones, sunstones, constellations, and the lunar phases).

One thing I find particularly fascinating is the architecture of the buildings are at Temple Square. The fact that these simple pioneers were able to design and build such detailed and ornate structures is amazing to me. This six-spire, Gothic-style building is the largest of all the temples worldwide (over 100).

The granite used to build the temple was quarried from Little Cottonwood Canyon 20 miles away. It took days for each block to be hauled from the canyon to the temple site. Though construction on the Salt Lake Temple was the first to get underway, it was the fourth one completed.

One particular change I have noticed in the tour since I first took it is the fact that most, if not all, the tour guides are young women. The temple guides have been called to do their two-year mission in Salt Lake City (much like other faithful Mormons are called overseas). Our guides were Sister Meyers from Albuquerque and Sister Arnquist from Dallas.

The Assembly Hall was the first building at Temple Square to be completed (1877). It was built using small scraps of granite from the temple construction. This meeting place was where Mormon pioneers met for church in the early years. The building is now used for regular community concerts.

Inside the North Visitors Center, tourists will find huge, detailed murals of popular Old and New Testament stories and a large, interactive model of ancient Jerusalem. The centerpiece of the building, however, is the 11-foot marble Christus statue which stands in the middle of a gigantic mural of the universe. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t creep me out a little.

Directly north of Temple Square is the new 21,000 seat Conference Center where large meetings are held (you’ve seen their painfully boring bi-annual television conferences, right?). This is also the building where the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performs. Mormon financial records are not made public, but the estimated cost for this building is over $240 million.

The Joseph Smith Memorial Building is east of Temple Square and was formerly the five-star Hotel Utah. This statue of Joseph Smith sits in the lobby. Mormonism’s founding father is a very interesting figure. Descriptions of this man range from prophet of God to storyteller to philanderer. Despite his murky reputation, he definitely was a man of great influence and charm.

This final photo was taken from the top floor of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. I think with a little work, this could easily be used as a postcard. If you are ever in Salt Lake City, I recommend that you spend a few hours to take the tour. I can guarantee you’ll discover some things you never knew about Mormonism.

Related posts:

1. The Mormons
2. Dear Friends,
3. Afternoon Tea at the Grand America

All of these are contributing factors in their own right, but to me the two biggest reasons we are losing the hearts and minds of the American public are:

2.) This deep-seeded fear of labels has changed our focus. Christians are increasingly more concerned with whether or not we’re culturally relevant than whether or not we’re Biblically relevant. You see, biblical relevance has a higher tendency to cause people to be labeled intolerant or hateful because the Bible is a counter-cultural text. Cultural relevance, however, concerns itself more with how we are viewed by society and prompts us to avoid being counter-cultural so that we can be in good standing with them.

Related posts:

1. That Sounds Too Starbucksy
2. Mormonism’s Search for Acceptance

Harrison,

Love,
Mommy and Daddy


Photos from the dedication and more thoughts from Heidi can be found here.

Related posts:

1. Doxology!
2. With a Grateful Heart
3. Focussed Prayer

A popular trend in modern American churches is to buck religious traditions in an effort to open new doors for people to hear the gospel. While I can certainly understand and agree with that end goal, I occasionally grow uneasy with the lengths that some churches go in the effort to distance themselves from religious practices of the past. The effort to remove “churchy” language from church is one that keeps me going back and forth.

One of the greatest historical examples of challenging religious tradition and churchy language is when Reformer John Wycliffe pushed to have the traditional Latin translation of the Bible translated into the “common tongue” of English. Wycliffe’s reason for the language change was because “it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.“^[1] Before that time, the Roman Catholic Church demanded that all religious instruction and observances be carried out in Latin, which was considered the language worthy of the majesty of God. Unfortunately, only the wealthy and well-educated of the 14th century were able to read or understand Latin; the common people were left in the dark.

Nowadays, some churches work very hard to keep religious language on the same level with the modern culture, many by trying to remove any language that sounds churchy. Though I am all for making the gospel accessible to all people, I sometimes wonder if these churches are washing away some of the most important characteristics that distinguish Christianity from popular culture.

One of our pastors, Paul Wilson, made a comment a few weeks ago that made me rethink the wisdom of removing religious language from our daily conversations. We think that asking people to operate within the realms of our culture is somehow a barrier to them being able to connect with Christ. Paul pointed out that, if you look at the Starbucks Coffee chain, their language and environment unapologetically requires that you assimilate into their unique culture.

They call their drink sizes tall, grande, and venti. You can come in and order a medium [insert drink here] and they’ll kindly respond by saying, “OK, that’s a grande [insert drink here]?” They do not apologize that they have their own language at Starbucks — in fact that’s a characteristic that helps them stand out from other coffee shops. Their thousands of customers create a rather solid confirmation that using language unfamiliar to the average person does not turn most people away. In fact, most customers eventually begin to learn the Starbucks lingo and make it a part of their vocabulary.

What if, instead of filtering every word of our church language through the lens of pop lingo, we retained some mystery to our vastly unique culture and asked others to take part in learning it for themselves? Would that make Christianity more or less appealing?

I’m not sure I know the answer to that. What do you think?

^[1] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999)

Related posts:

1. Pop Goes the Church
2. I Hate That Word
3. What’s Wrong with Education in America (Part 2)