April 26, 2011

This isn’t meant to be a controversial posting. I’m not trying to get people whipped up into a frenzy.

It’s just that I want to be a Pastor. I’d like to someday lead a Church. And as I train towards that goal, I can’t help be examine the way we (at least my denomination) does Church.

So I guess I’ll start by saying, if the shoe doesn’t fit… don’t wear it. If this doesn’t apply to your Church, well then it doesn’t apply.

But sometimes I wonder if we’re going about Church in a way that just doesn’t make sense.

The typical modern Church with a ‘contemporary service’ goes something like this.

Sunday School ~ 30 minutes to 1 hour.
Worship Service ~ 45 minutes to 1 hour.
Sermon ~ 1 hour to 1 hour 15 minutes.

This will vary. Some Churches will be very loose. Sometimes the Worship Service takes over and becomes the only service. Sometimes the Sermon will run much shorter, or even longer. Some Churches on the other hand are very rigid. If it has been decided that Worship begins at 10:30AM, the Sermon begins at 11, and the service is to be done at noon, it will be done at noon on the dot without fail.

And it’s the Sermon that worries me.

I like preaching. I was born to preach. I like to think I’m not terrible at preaching. (I might even be good!) But I’m also an intelligent man, and I know what the studies say.

The typical learning adult has an attention span of about 15 minutes. After that, if you continue lecturing (and I don’t mean the bad connotation, but the denotative meaning), you will probably lose them and they won’t get anything out of it.

So why do we preach for an hour?

In fact, what studies show us is if you want someone to learn something you should make them do.

I think the Church has picked up on this some. You see a lot of powerpoint presentations going on now. But I don’t think that really is doing enough to have any real additional retention.

There’s an old statement about retaining 10% of what we hear, 20% of what we etc. and it’s actually based on misconceptions and is for the most part is wrong.

But I do know this. Everyone learns differently. Some people learn very well from a lecture. Many do not. So I find myself wondering, why do we treat Church like a school? It’s as though the Pastor is the Professor, and the parishioners are students.

It’s something that’s been bothering me for years. But I confess I’ve never found the alternative that is viable and cost effective.

Around 2005 I saw videos of multitouch screen large scale computers being demonstrated. It was new, and seemingly impossible. The potential was limitless in my mind. I could imagine having several of these in a Church so that a member could scroll through scripture, or perhaps a game could be built that demonstrates creation. They could walk through biblical lands without leaving the states. With the era of the Ipad and Android tables I see this as far more possible, but still just outside the feasible in the area of cost.

Yet I still have a hard time seeing where Church should go.

What do you think reader? Is it ok that Church’s act much like a school? A good thing? Or should it somehow be different? Am I off base? I’m left wondering and pondering this. What is the goal of Church? What is the point? And is schooltime an effective means to achieve that?

March 30, 2011

Editor’s note. This post is in part an experiment. It was written from my phone and therefore may include (more) typos and grammar errors (than usual).

I have been thinking recently about perspective. It is one of those fantastic human things that skews and changes everything. It defines who we are, what we believe, even the choices we make.

Perspective is that which allows two humans with the same fact come to two different conclusions about what those facts mean.

Take the photo of the drink for instance.  Ski is a drink that many people in the U.S have never heard of. It is made with real lemon and orange juice, and in would describe it as perhaps a cross between Fresca and Mountain Dew with no nasty aftertaste.

Ski is my absolute favorite drink in the world. But when I have new people try this sweet ambrosia I always receive one of two reactions.

1) I love it. (This is the correct reaction, naturally)

2) It tastes like Mr. Clean!

And I kid you, the second reaction is always said word for word with no prompting from me. Mr. Clean is always the one mentioned.

This always leaves me wanting to ask a question, naturally. Namely, how do they know what Mr. Clean tastes like?

I’m always told things like scent, guess work, and imagination. To date no one has admitted to giving Mr. Clean a taste test.

Presented with as many facts as can be, a decision is made based in the end on preference.

This leads me over to questions I get asked alot.  Do I believe in a young earth or old earth? What about evolution?  (more on the the answer to those questions later)

Typically if the answer I give isn’t satisfactory I’m asked the usual follow up questions. How oh how can I not come to the “obvious” conclusion based on the facts?

As humans we put precedence on some facts while ignoring others. As humans we draw conclusions.  Sometimes these conclusions are really undeniable. But more often than not there is no way we can absolutely be 100% certain. We could be wrong.

So the answer to the question of how I can come to a different conclusion is really quite simple.

If we disagree it’s because I have a Mr. Clean perspective.

March 14, 2011

This is a short article I think, one born from a conversation I was having earlier.

You see, they were talking of some people out there who claim the Christian name but don’t live up to it. These people apparently say the current tragedy in Japan is some sort of divine punishment from God. And this friend were talking about how bad this makes Christians look to others.

And I agree in principle. But in loudly complaining about these people in many ways my friend only served to draw more attention to them. And they clearly don’t deserve it.

The problem for my friend is they know people who only see the ugly side of Christianity.

But it’s good to know these sorts of people. In fact, that brings me to the main point of this post. You see, I think every Christian should have at least one (if not many) atheist friend(s).

I had a co-worker at one point who was atheist. I still remember the first day it really came out. That he was absolutely completely convinced that there is no God. And that I was absolutely convinced there is. The best description for this occasion would be two cats meeting for the very first time. Our backs arched, we circled, each ready to claw the other, waiting to see who would strike first.

I don’t remember who struck first, but I do remember there was a lot of back and forth for nearly an hour.

But the first day wasn’t our best day for argument and debate. It was merely a beginning. Because we were co-workers and we did have to speak to each other often. So we had to see each other as more than just that Atheist/Christian guy. We saw our strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. And we found we had many things in common. In fact, outside of our spiritual beliefs we were more alike than unalike.

My co-worker challenged me everyday. On what I believed, why I believed, how I believed. And I too challenged him. He sometimes told me that I was the first real Christian he had ever met. This was both heart-warming and heart-breaking. After all he had been in church as a younger man. For me to be the first is a sad fact.

And while I had known that Atheists can be and are good people, there is always the prejudice… the temptation to believe that they aren’t really. That they’re different from Christians somehow. Less moral.

And while it was true that my co-worker and I disagreed on certain points of morality I can say with a strong confidence that he is a good good man. One I am glad to call friend.

We are no longer co-workers, and we don’t communicate as much as we did before. And I can’t say that he became a Christian because of me. But I think I can say he knows more of what a real Christian is because of what God did in my life and in his.

And while he could never convince me that God isn’t real, he taught me many things through his actions and words. He challenged me to look at my spirituality, my beliefs, in new ways that I might never have done on my own.

Every Christian should have at least one Atheist friend. And the other way around too. Through such relationships we can challenge our preconceptions. And our faith can grow.

May 7, 2010

“When atheists read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being atheists to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is false. I highly doubt that most atheists are reading the Bible with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

Hi.  Let me preface the rest of this article with the statement that the quote I just laid out is actually something I do not believe.  I think we can all agree that it is highly intolerant, an extreme case of bad stereotyping, and just plain wrong.  But I want you to keep the quote in mind because it is part of a point I’m going to try and make in today’s piece.

One of my ways of relaxing and passing the time is reading webcomics.  This can actually be a hard thing to do at times, because it seems more and more webcomics are becoming ‘adult’ by nature.  I suppose this is the way of the internet.  I’ve been very pleased to find a webcomic named Max vs. Max.  It is a story about a Christian, struggling with faith, and trying to make each through each day.  It’s clean, it’s funny, and thankfully it doesn’t try to beat you over the head with a large print King James Bible.

The creator, Wes Molebash, signed up for an account at formspring.me a place where you can be asked and answer questions from anonymous or not anonymous readers.  Not surprisingly quite a few fans of the webcomic begin to ask questions about his faith.  At one point he mentioned that “…the Bible holds up under heavy scrutiny.”

One reader, a person who writes in the blog No Forbidden Questions, was stunned by this answer, and probed with a further question essentially of ‘… What do you say to objections like these?”  They also posted links to youtube videos.  Wes answered, and his answer inspired a blog post from the reader.  You can read it here: http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/2010/05/heavy-scrutiny-for-the-bible/

And it’s that post I’d like to address.  Firstly, I’d like to thank NFQ for starting out polite.  At no point did the writer call Wes stupid or use any sort of name calling or anything else of the sort.  And it’s that sort of debate that really allows mankind to grow.

But there are quite a few issues I’d like to take with the post itself.  Because things did quickly start to go downhill, suggesting an unhealthy bias and large amount of stereotyping and intolerance on the writer’s part.

Let’s start with the most blaring comment that came right out and slapped me.

“When Christians read the Bible, they — by virtue of their being Christians to begin with — are starting with the premise that the Bible is true. I highly doubt that most Christians are reading their Bibles with the goal of figuring out for themselves whether the content is authoritative.”

And now you see the “trick” I pulled.  And I’ll admit that it was a “trick”, but not an unfair one.  If a statement is brash or intolerant when phrased towards one ‘set of people’ then it is so no matter what ‘set of people’ it is phrased towards.

What boggles me about this statement, and many statements made in this blog post is the vast generalization and intolerance featured in it.  And I don’t mean in just the usual way of generalization.  This author, for instance, treats each and every single Christian as though they were born and raised Christian and never knew any other life.  (Take their later comment in the comment section: “It’s stuff you get taught practically from birth, and it comes with threats of eternal hellfire for those who do not believe. It’s hard.”)

There are quite a few Christians who were born and raised a Christian.  And knew no other life.  It’s true.  But even more true is that there is an equally great number of Christians who were NOT born and raised Christian.  But came to this belief later in life.  Not all Christians are taught practically from birth.

I myself did not become a Christian until I was 18.  This previous weekend I had the wonderful opportunity of listening to Nathan Grubb for a class.  This is a man who is the son of a Pastor.  One who committed adultery, drank excessively, and practiced every sin he preached against.  This was a man who had every reason not to believe the Bible, not to believe in God, and for a great portion of his life did not.  And now he does.  There is C.S. Lewis, a person who although born in to a Christian family was not Christian and was in fact a person who argued against it (against J.R.R. Tolkien actually) until the age of 32. (And not before at first declaring himself just a theist as opposed to a Christian)

The list goes on and on, and so I find myself dismayed at such a statement which ignores such a greater fact entirely.

Even the fire and brimstone comment is out of place.  This isn’t the 1950′s.  I have never heard a fire and brimstone sermon.  They aren’t common.  And haven’t been for a very long time.  (Yes they exist, but my point is they are not every day lecture as the comment suggests)

I’m also confused and take issue with a few other statements.  For instance, NFQ writes, “…I was also disappointed by Molebash’s use of the old, hackneyed response to contradictions in the Bible: that you have to look at the context.”

I feel this in part comes from two faults.  One being Wes’s, and one being the writers.  There are times when the issue of context isn’t a matter to discuss where ‘contradictions’ in the Bible are mentioned.  Point against Wes.  But there are many times when it IS.  Point against the writer.
What I find confusing is that the writer begins to list several areas they feel context has nothing to do with.  The reason I find this confusing is Wes didn’t bring up these subjects, NFQ did, so applying it to the talk with Wes seems out of place to me.

Context is important in the Bible.  Some things were meant for certain cultures, some things were meant for all time, the problem is often determining which is which.  Context, however, can never be determined from a single line of the Bible and it’s a mistake to use context as an argument for or against this way.  Broaden the portion of the Bible you are looking at instead of focusing in on just one line.  (Also, I thought this section would have been a lot better without the extreme sarcasm, it really brings down any ability I have to take the writer seriously, which is a shame because I want to.)

Another thing I take issue with is where the writer states: “I got referred to someone else who “does a better job” of answering my question. This is another one I get a lot. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to believe in anything as bizarre and counterintuitive as religion without being able to provide an extremely good explanation of it myself…”

I’m confused by this statement greatly.  Whether you believe in Creationism, or Evolution, or a hybrid, chances are you believe that every human is unique.  They all have strengths and weaknesses.  They all have things they are good at, and things they are bad at.  And no one is good at everything.

Yet this statement seems to suggest that every Christian should be able to adequately, thoroughly, and eloquently be able to answer every question they receive about faith without a moment’s thought.  That just boggles me.   Christians aren’t by definition perfect public speakers and writers.  Some of us just stink at explaining things.  Some of us can’t explain how to program a VCR let alone expound upon the mysteries and complexities of God.  And the lack of ability to do so is not a point against faith and God or even the believer.  It’s a natural and normal point of life.

There are plenty of atheists who can’t answer every question they are posed either.  Should the reverse be true?  Of course not.

Furthermore, the suggestion that not having the answers right now (As mentioned in the statement: “Well, guess what? They haven’t figured out all the hard questions. We are still waiting.)means that there are no answers, or won’t be answers and etc. etc. is just off and again wrong.  Sometimes, as Christians, as atheists, as anything at all, we don’t know all the answers.  Sometimes we never do find all the answers.  That doesn’t mean those answers don’t exist.

Let me pose this question.  Right now Science has yet to find an answer for an impossible number of things.  Should I therefore no longer treat Science as a valid point of view, or something to be trusted because it can’t provide me the answers to the hard questions “right now?”

The answer is of course no.  And the same applies to the hard questions regarding Christianity.

My point here today is this.  Yes.  Christians have bias.  And you know what? So do atheists.  So do pagans, and politicians, and everybody else.  NFQ seems to miss this entirely.  They actually portray atheists as completely unbiased (“When atheists and/or skeptics read the Bible (or any other text describing supernatural claims), they consider the claims and consider the evidence for and against them, then they attempt to come to a conclusion on the likely truth value of those claims.”), and Christians as completely biased and completely unable to look at the Bible without bias.

If you must stereotype then do it fairly, and the fair truth is that on average both atheists and Christians are equally biased when it comes to the Bible, although in different directions.  And both are equally capable of reading, examining, and determining the truth and authoritativeness of the Bible.  If they want to.  And you can’t question how willing one side is to do that without conceding the same of the other.

Saying “I’ve never met a Christian who…” or “I’ve never met an atheist who…” is not only wrong, but a weak argument.  You haven’t met every atheist and every Christian.

Healthy debate, intelligent thinking, and true fact seeking means putting aside all preconceptions of a person, a group, an oath or creed, and looking at what is beneath instead.

To quote an episode of one of the Star Trek series, “Challenge your preconceptions or your preconceptions will challenge you.”