Richard and Lindsay Roberts - Another Black Eye for the Kingdom of God

How many more times must we be embarrassed by the (alleged) improprieties of media ministers? The latest - and most likely not the last - is the developing scandal involving Richard and Lindsay Roberts. I won't list the gory details here, as you can find them on almost any news site or in any newspaper.

The skeptics of faith are having a field day, and it's time that we as followers of Jesus start demanding better of the people who are raking in millions of dollars to fund high-flying lifestyles. No one, in my opinion, should be giving money to the Roberts' and I have felt this way for some time. Their lavish lifestyle, funded by the tithes and offerings of millions, have long been an affront to the cause of Christ. No one - and I repeat no one - should be getting rich off the tithes and offerings of people.

And it's not just the high profile of people like Richard and Lindsay Roberts where we find financial questions. I wrote a piece on this site recently about how many churches no longer list the salaries of church staff. Personally, I would never give a dime to a church that does not make such information public. Has the church learned nothing from the scandals of companies such as Enron? The church should be the most financially transparent organization on the face of the earth. To hide information only gives rise to questions, suspicion, and more questions.

If you are a member of a church staff, you will never become rich. The reality is you will probably struggle financially. Paul writes in I Corinthians 4:11-13 that to this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. He says in I Timothy 6:8 that if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But this is not an excuse for churches to be stingy or to poorly pay those who dedicate their lives to the cause of Christ. In I Corinthians chapter nine Paul makes a case for supporting those who are in vocational ministry - Do we not have a right to eat and drink...Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock...If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you...So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel (verses 4, 7, 11, 14). The scandal of the lavish lifestyles enjoyed by a few ministers is what grabs the headlines, but a greater scandal is the number of churches who starve their staff members or seek to manipulate them by holding back tithes and offerings.

Being a minister is not for the faint of heart. It is also not for those who want to become wealthy. If you want to make a lot of money, do something else. Let's end the scandals of lavish lifestyles by people like Richard and Lindsay Roberts be cutting off the donations. But let's not forget the scandal of the scores of faithful ministers who are drowning financially because of churches that refuse or fail to meet the needs of their families.

John McCain and A Christian Nation

In a recent interview with Beliefnet, Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain made the following comments - I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith. Senator McCain has been widely criticized for his remarks. While he's certainly free to believe what he wants, Senator McCain must remember that if elected president he would be the leader of a nation of many different religious - and nonreligious - beliefs and as such it is important that he appear not to favor any particular group over all others. Having said that, most of us - including myself - would prefer a president who represents our beliefs.

But the comments that bothered me in his interview are the following - I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. A senator should know better than this. Nowhere in the Constitution, in fact, do the words God or Christian appear. To be declared a Christian nation would require some sort of official action, such as a proclamation by Congress. This has never happened. In fact, I am aware of only one time when the federal government, in an official document, commented on our nation's status as a Christian nation. This came very early in our history when a trade agreement with the nation then known as Tripoli was ratified. This document specifically says that the United States is not a Christian nation.

It is correct to say that the United States is a nation of many Christians. It is also correct to say that the founding documents of the United States were influenced by Christianity. But it is absolutely incorrect to say the United States is a Christian nation. I say this as one who wishes that we would become a Christian nation - not by any government decree but by the free acceptance of the Christian faith by all of our fellow citizens.

No senator/presidential candidate should make this mistake.

So Much for Compassionate Conservatism

President Bush is threatening to veto a bill that expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a threat that is receiving a cold shoulder from many Republicans. Even arch-conservative Orrin Hatch has pledged to vote to override a veto by President Bush.

I believe this is the same president that made much of "Compassionate Conservatism." I believe this is the same president who, despite claiming conservative credentials, has thrown truckloads of money at many other causes, some of which are far less worthy than improving the health care of poor children. I believe this is a battle the president will lose.

Republicans, who are busy distancing themselves from the president these days, are not going to vote against a bill that will paint them as being insensitive to poor children. But it will be more than just a fear of voter rejection that will motivate them to vote for this bill; they will vote for it because they believe it is the right thing to do.

And it is, I believe, the right thing to do. Any society, and particularly the leader of any society, who would turn a cold shoulder to the needs of the poor reveals a callousness that deserves to be condemned. Children are those who are hurt most by poverty. A child growing up in poverty has so much stacked against them, including the opportunity to enjoy a healthy life. If we cannot provide decent medical care for poor children we are failing at one of the most fundamental callings we share as human beings, which is to care for the poor among us.

How To Make Your Pastor's Life Easier - How to Provide Information

In my last post I dealt with the pastor's salary and some of the misconceptions of the pastor's salary package. The topic of this post is how to get information to the pastor in a way that will be most helpful to him.

When you have an announcement, call the church office and ask that it be added to the newsletter or the worship program – do not hand the pastor a hand-written announcement or ask him to make an announcement moments before worship begins. Every pastor has experienced the frustration of trying to make final preparations for worship and being handed notes from every direction or trying to listen to several people hurriedly sharing their announcement. If the information is important, treat it as such by not waiting until the last minute to share it.

The same is true after worship. As I am greeting people after our worship services people will often share information I need to remember. This is certainly understandable, because people will tell me what they want me to know when they see me. But after worship, when I'm trying to talk to many people in a short period of time, with several people telling me something I need to remember, is really not a good time. This IS the time to hand the pastor a note so that he will remember. I don't have the time to write down the information as I am trying to greet people but I am happy to receive a note that I can put in my pocket.

Pastors are overwhelmed with information on a daily basis and sometimes things we need to know gets lost or forgotten. You can help your pastor by taking care to get information to him in the most helpful way possible.

Van Halen Reunion

You can't write about something of earth-shaking importance every time (although some people would classify a Van Halen reunion with David Lee Roth as exactly that). Here's what rockers everywhere have been waiting for - David Lee Roth returning to Van Halen, although minus original bass player Michael Anthony.

Although many will believe it blasphemous to say so, I preferred the Sammy Hagar version of Van Halen. Say what you want about the gifts of David Lee Roth (a great frontman to be sure, but lousy singer and lousy lyricist) Hagar is a great singer, great songwriter, and great - although underrated - guitar player. Even before he joined Van Halen Hagar had great credentials, singing with Montrose and going on to a stellar solo career. Talk about classic songs - his solo material is full of great moments: Heavy Metal, I Can't Drive 55, One Way to Rock, Two Sides of Love, Three Lock Box, Your Love Is Driving Me Crazy, I've Done Everything For You. What does Dave have in his solo canon to rival these songs? And what about that solo career - as Van Halen went on to scale new heights with Hagar, Roth's career had some initial success and then quickly crashed and burned.

I saw the first Van Halen tour with Hagar and Sammy was great. During Why Can't This Be Love Hagar stayed right with Van Halen as they soloed together. Hagar is no slouch on guitar; the man is a serious player.

Enjoy the reunion with Roth. As for me, I'm waiting for Sammy to rejoin.

Are celebrity environmentalists full of hot air?

Reading through some political news I stumbled on a short piece about a well-known actor who has not decided who he will support in the 2008 presidential election. This actor, who I will not name, will offer his support to the candidate with the strongest environmental policy. Well, good for him. We should all be more concerned about our environment, which we continue to destroy, but I am tired of hypocritical celebrity environmentalists.

Out of curiosity I looked up one of the actor's homes on Google Earth (that's right - this environmentalist owns more than one house - not good for the environment, heating and cooling all those empty homes!) As suspected, the house is quite large and appears to have a swimming pool. Here's my questions - is the swimming pool heated? Why does one person need to own a home that is probably at least 5,000 square feet? If one claims to be an environmentalist, shouldn't that philosophy be reflected in one's choice of home?

But it's not just this actor who is guilty - how about the Live Earth concert event that spanned all seven continents last month. How many of the artists flew to the venues in private jets? I know they don't want to be bothered by commoners on a commercial flight, but you can't preach about environmentalism while so blatantly being anti-environment in lifestyle. One band even made it their goal to play on several continents during the 24 hour event, which means they certainly were burning up a lot of jet fuel. Why not just play in one venue and save all the fuel?

It's not just industry that is at fault for harming our environment; it's our extreme consumerism and ravenous consumption of the earth's resources that is one of the roots of the environmental destruction that threatens our very existence. We could all take a lesson from an environmentalist friend of mine - who I will also leave unnamed - who truly lives what he believes and is probably leaving one of the smallest environmental footprints of anyone I know. As to the celebrity environmentalists who live an anti-environment lifestyle - give me a break!

No Smoking Means No Smoking!

This is really a pet peeve of mine, and if I offend you with this - good! I am constantly amazed at the number of people who stand at the entrances to hospitals and smoke. Yesterday, as I was exiting a hospital, several people were gathered around a sign that plainly stated the area was a no-smoking zone and plainly stated the location of the smoking area. Yet there they were, blowing their smoke on everyone entering and exiting the hospital.

If you want to smoke, be my guest, but please use some common courtesy and avoid the areas that are plainly marked as no-smoking. This is particularly important at a hospital entrance where patients really should not have to walk through a haze of cigarette smoke.

And don't bother telling me about smoker's rights. Yes, we all know you have a right to smoke, but not in all public places. A few weeks ago, as I ate lunch in a restaurant that neither observes a smoking ban or even designates a smoking area, a nearby diner shared her smoke with a number of us while she loudly proclaimed her "right" to smoke. Her attitude betrayed a lack of concern for anyone else in the restaurant and only served to demonstrate rude behavior.

If you're going to smoke, please don't be rude about it - don't smoke where you are plainly told not to smoke!

Pope Benedict XVI and the Only True Church

In another move that demonstrates just how different he is from his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church and that other denominations are not true churches. Emphasizing points in an earlier document, Benedict asserts that Christ 'established here on earth' only one church, and other communities cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense because they do not have apostolic succession, which is the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

I am a Baptist, but I understand Catholic theology fairly well. I understand the importance of apostolic succession and the role of tradition in the teaching of the Catholic Church. I cringe when I hear Protestants refer to "the Catholic religion," as though it is a faith that stands apart from Christianity. I find it very extremely unfortunate when some interpret the Catholic Church as being the fulfillment of some of the evil images in the book of Revelation. And I find it discouraging when Protestants - including many Baptists - believe we must send out missionaries to convert Catholic populations.

So on the one hand, I find the Pope's comments discouraging and harmful for ecumenical dialogue. On the other hand, being a Baptist, I believe that everyone ought to have their say and that no one's opinion can violate my soul freedom.

Some, no doubt, will jump all over the Pope's comments and condemn him for, well, condemning others. There is an attitude pervasive in our culture that says you shouldn't condemn anyone else, but that we should all be affirming of one another. I say, if the Pope wants to say I belong to a community that isn't a true church, let him. What he has to say has no bearing upon my or my soul. I am confident in who I am, what I believe, and in the church I attend. While I believe the Pope's comments reflect bad theology, he is certainly entitled to say what he believes. As for me, I will continue to pastor my church and to believe that my congregation is as much a part of the body of Christ as any other church.

Wendell Berry always provides thought-provoking commentary. The following post comes from a piece he published recently in the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Why I chose not to vote

By Wendell Berry

I am well aware of the proposition that citizens ought to exercise their right to vote at every election. Even so, I did not vote in Kentucky's gubernatorial primary on May 27. I did not vote because there was nobody on the ballot whom I wished to help elect. I could not bring myself to submit again to the indignity of trying to pick the least undesirable candidate; nor did I want to contribute to the "mandate" of a new governor, who would be carried into office by corporate contributions, and whose policies I would spend the next four years regretting or opposing.

I am entirely opposed to land destruction by mining, to air and water pollution by factory farming, to unsustainable land use of every kind, to the delusion that our "way of life" can be preserved by liquified coal or by biofuels, to the extreme emphasis on research in our public universities, to education as job training, and to state-sponsored gambling as a substitute for responsible policies of taxation and spending. I consider to be utterly offensive and contemptible any revenue-raising scheme that exploits, and encourages, a human weakness.

Is it not presumptuous for a mere citizen, one voter, to insist that he or she should be offered an acceptable candidate? I am sure it is. Should I, for example, not suspect that I may be too odd to be satisfied with any gubernatorial candidate likely to be presented by either major party? Indeed I should, and of course I do.

But my concern has to do not so much with the candidates' "positions" as with their willful refusal to raise and deal openly with substantive issues of conservation and stewardship, fiscal policy, and the economies of energy, land use and education. There is nothing merely personal about this. It is a fact that voters concerned about conservation and economic responsibility had no candidate in the recent primary. Such voters had a vote but not a choice, for no candidate of their choosing was on the ballot. If you have a vote but no choice, then not to vote is the only available choice.

There has not been in Kentucky, so far, an open public discussion of the ecological, economic and social effects of surface mining or of factory farming -- to name just two issues of paramount importance. There is one reason for this: Money talks. When money talks, people who speak merely with words or facts will not be listened to. You can't have a satisfactory public discussion when money is talking, because money does not listen. Money talks, of course, because political "contributions" become in effect bribes, purchases of power.

So non-voters believe, and so do many voters. If the electorate in general were not convinced that state government is corrupt, and if politicians were not convinced that the electorate is so convinced, then why would gubernatorial candidates conventionally promise to "clean up Frankfort?"

Frankfort always needs cleaning up, because when money talks, only money can talk. This is hard to conceal from citizens, who are at least as smart as their representatives, and this is the reason that so large a number of eligible voters do not vote. Why should they believe that their small preferences might outtalk money when "their" representatives are under obligation to listen to money?

Because Frankfort perennially needs cleaning up, because opponents or critics of the big contributors do not run and are not represented, voters either do not vote or they vote cynically and despairingly. The voters don't trust the government, and they don't feel represented by it. This is a crisis of our democratic system -- to give the people a vote but not a choice is a procedure common to modern dictatorships -- but it is a crisis that has been officially unnoticed for a long time.

That I did not vote does not mean that I no longer believe in voting. I take my citizenship in this state as seriously as I can. I want to vote, but I want to vote for a candidate who I am sure takes seriously the thoughts of mere citizens, and who will not listen only to the largest contributors. I think I have a "right to vote" for a candidate who is at least trustworthy.

Because I do want to be a citizen and a voter, I suppose it is likely that I will sooner or later return to the polls, grit my teeth, hold my nose, and give my vote to yet another candidate for fame and fortune who has done nothing to earn my respect. But such a vote is not a right. It is a humiliation and a disgrace.

What then could be done to restore the confidence of our state's thousands of disaffected or disappointed voters?

First, if the candidates cannot make themselves trustworthy by limiting the size of contributions to their campaigns -- that is, by refusing to be, or to seem to be, bribed by rich contributers -- then all contributions should be outlawed and elections should be supported by public funds only.

Reason for Doubt

We have many reasons to doubt that politicians can be made honest by requirement; there is a fine absurdity in laws against outlaws. But even more absurd is the argument that campaign contributions amount to political speech protected by the First Amendment. This has the curious effect of subjecting our freedom under the First Amendment to a merely quantitative measure: Those who have the most money have the most freedom. And that is precisely the reason for the disaffection of voters.

A second possibility is that of printing an additional entry on the ballot to make it formally possible to vote for "None of the above." This would be cheaper and easier than passing a law to control contributions. It might also be more effective. I admit that, for all anybody can tell, only a few cranks would vote for "None of the above." But it might also happen, for all anybody can tell, that "None of the above" would win the election. If a few of the more exalted state offices were to be occupied for a term or two by "None of the above," there would be less need to clean up Frankfort.

Creation, Science, and Faith

Several of us are having an interesting discussion about creation, science, evolution, faith, and other matters over on Martin Cothran's blog. You can navigate to www.vereloqui.blogspot.com and join in the discussion.

Martin often takes science to task for what he perceives as a level of arrogance and will defend Intelligent Design and Creationism (though he does not necessarily agree with those positions - Martin, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you on this).

My problem with those who defend Intelligent Design (that is, the science of Intelligent Design; I certainly agree that our universe was designed by God) and Young Earth Creationism is that it is science that is molded to fit a theological viewpoint. It's not good science to "back into" a scientific position because it fits with your theology.

Anyway, check out these posts, and I hope you find them interesting.

The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath

Continuing on with some book recommendations, this one is for The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and his wife Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Having already recommended several books by McGrath, this one is a quick 100 pages that are well worth the read (this picture must be of the British edition - mine is slightly different).

I have not yet read The God Delusion, but judging by the quotes in McGrath's book it is a book full of poor reasoning and lacking in any evidence to back the core claims made by Dawkins. McGrath, who obviously admires Dawkins' gift for writing, is withering in his critique of Dawkins for his faulty reasoning and for writing little more than an anti-religious rant.

Although McGrath examines some of Dawkins' ideas in more detail in his book Dawkins God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (see earlier post) this is probably a better place to start if you want an excellent response to The God Delusion.

As a relative newcomer to the writings of McGrath, I am more and more impressed by the quality of his writing and his theology. McGrath is a theologian of great importance and his books rank among the best works of theology. I rank him as an essential read.

Toby Mac at Ichthus Festival

One of my favorite events is the Ichthus Festival - four days of great Christian music in Wilmore, Kentucky. Ichthus is the oldest Christian music festival in the country, and always has a great line-up of artists. My favorite this year? Hands down - Toby Mac. I've seen Toby Mac a number of times (even back in the day of DC Talk) and he is always my favorite performer. If you're not familiar with him, he was one of the three founders of the late, great DC Talk, and performs a style of music that is a mixture of rock, funk, hip-hop, and rap. Normally, I'm not a big fan of hip-hop and rap, but there's something about the way Toby Mac does it that makes for a fantastic mix. In the middle of his show he does a great medley of old songs - Play That Funky Music, Love Roller Coaster, I'm Coming Up, and more.

I've seen a lot of artists - Christian and secular - and I always enjoy Toby Mac the most. The energy of his performance, the unbelievable talent of his band, and his ability to engage a crowd is simply amazing. Nobody should have to follow him, and this year Switchfoot had that difficult task. I like Switchfoot a lot, and they did a great job, but the contrast was pretty huge. Not to take anything away from Switchfoot, but Toby Mac is tough to beat. If you ever get the chance to see him, don't miss it.

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins

Continuing with some book recommendations, this one is for The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins. Collins, like the authors in my previous two posts, is a former atheist and now serves as head of The Human Genome Project. This book is his attempt to bring together his belief in science and his belief in God.

Although Richard Dawkins only receives a few passing references, the presence of Dawkins is still heavy in this book. Collins spends a good deal of time speaking to those scientists, Dawkins being the most well-known, who claim that science necessarily leads to atheism.

At times Collins' book gets heavy on science (or maybe it's just me; I did pass biology by just one point) but careful reading will make sense of most of it. Interestingly, Collins has not become a hero to most conservative evangelicals, in spite of his travel to belief from atheism and his championing of faith in the face of science. It doesn't take long to find out why - Collins flatly rejects both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design, claiming they are not only bad science but also bad theology.

Whether or not you agree with Collins on Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design - and I do - this book is highly recommended.

God: The Evidence - Patrick Glynn

I've been finishing up some books lately, and want to recommend some that I think are well worth your time. Preparing for my current sermon series, Confronting the Skeptics, I put together a stack of books as resources and have been working through them over the past weeks.

God the Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason In A Postsecular World by Patrick Glynn covers some of the same ground as the two Alister McGrath books mentioned in my previous post, although he goes in a few different directions. Like McGrath, Glynn is also a former atheist, and he opens his book with a very interesting story of the unraveling of his atheistic faith. Glynn spends time on the anthropic principle, psychology and medicine, and then on to what I found to be the most interesting section of the book - his discussion of Near Death Experiences as evidence of a human soul.

It's a fairly quick read, with some helpful information, and well worth your time. It's not a criticism, but I wouldn't say it's as essential as McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism, but then, not many books are. To me, anyone who has traveled the road from unbelief to belief is worth reading, and on that account alone, Glynn's book is important.

Alister McGrath - The Twilight of Atheism and Dawkins' God

Considering the amount of media attention given to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion it is somewhat of a surprise that it took a while before someone published a book in response. Alister McGrath, like Dawkins a professor at Oxford University, has published Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. McGrath, a former atheist, has quickly ascended to the top of the ladder as one of Christianity's leading apologists and one of the church's most popular theologians. He clearly relishes tearing into the debate over the existence of God and his passion for his subject is evident on most every page.

Of course, how one responds to McGrath's writings will depend on whether one agrees with him or not. Like just about everything else in the debate over the existence of God, where you end up depends on where you start. I find McGrath to be an extremely compelling writer who makes some incredibly insightful points; of course, I also share his faith and point of view so perhaps that's why he seems like a genius to me. Read some of his reviews on the web by unbelievers and you'll find them to be less than impressed, probably because they don't agree with much of anything he believes.

Regardless, McGrath is a writer of note who cannot be ignored, and if you are at all interested in the current debate over the question of God's existence, both of these books are incredibly helpful. Of the two, The Twilight of Atheism is my favorite and one I consider a modern classic that qualifies as an essential read. Dawkins' God is more technical, and if like me science was not your strong suit, there are parts to read more slowly. The first chapter, on a Darwinian view of the world and the fourth chapter, about Dawkins' strange idea of memes, are a little heavy on science. That being said, there is a lot of rich material in this book that pokes numerous holes in much of what Dawkins has to say about faith.

Too much time blogging?

In case you haven't noticed, I do not blog every day. I do check a few other weblogs a couple times a week, and in doing so I get the impression that some people may be spending WAY too much time reading and posting to blogs. Some of my ministerial brethren evidently have a lot of time on their hands, as they sometimes post several times a day and are regularly referencing the blogs they are reading. Here's my question - just how much time every day are some of you people spending online with blogs? And here's my next question - do you really think it is time well spent?

Obviously, I spend a little bit of time doing this, so I am not against it, but we should be realistic and understand that our blogs are not going to change the world and they are probably not being read by that many people. If you are spending more than an hour a day with weblogs, I'm going to say you are probably spending too much time online.

What do you think?

The Lack of Ministers for Rural and Small Churches

This is a piece I wrote late in the summer of 2006, and it's still a topic of huge importance to me. I do not believe the newer generation of ministers are as willing to serve smaller or rural churches and I would certainly like to hear from them about this topic -

Having just begun my sixteenth year of ministry at my church, I’ve been thinking about what is one of the great scandals of the American church – short pastoral tenures (as well as the short tenures of all church staff). The average pastoral tenure in our country, according to various estimates, ranges from eighteen months to about three years. How can we speak about faithfulness and commitment with any integrity when churches and pastors cannot remain faithful to one another? I fault both pastors and churches for this problem. Pastors know there is a career ladder that exists in ministry much the same as any profession. And there are issues of supporting a family; there are financial realities to life. But the Scriptures are clear about the calling of God when it comes to these matters. God did not talk to Moses about securing an adequate compensation package and he didn’t speak to Abraham about retirement benefits. Jesus didn’t tell Peter, Andrew, James and John to lease out their fishing business for a good price while they were following him or tell Matthew to get a good sale price on his tax-collecting business. He simply called them to follow him and they did, and greatly complicating their lives in the process. But churches, likewise, must remember what it means for a family to come into a community, oftentimes hundreds of miles away from any family. They need to understand that ministers have families who need their time and attention, especially when they have young children and face the difficult pressure of balancing family and ministry.

The reality is that it is simply too easy for a church and for a pastor to move on to the next person or the next place. The Scripture tells us the church is the body of Christ and his body should not be so easily pulled apart. We have, I fear, come to the point where we merely reflect our society’s propensity toward short-term relationships and the failure to enter into long-term commitments. It has become too easy to leave either church or pastor as a way of avoiding the hard work of growing together into a sense of oneness.

And further, what does it say that so few are willing to come to rural areas? Why are so few willing to enjoy any kind of tenure in a small town or rural area? I attended a meeting a few years ago and the leader of the meeting, during a break, told one of the participants I’ll never pastor another rural church. The person he was speaking to was in hearty agreement with him. I didn’t say anything, and I regret that I did not challenge them.

Most of Jesus’ ministry took place in rural areas. He spent time in Jerusalem, but it was in the small towns and rural areas that he spent most of his ministry. Today, many pastors understand that a large, urban or suburban church provides a platform that is far broader and more visible from which they can launch a more well-known public ministry. But we are called to be faithful to where we are called, and I fear that many can no longer allow themselves to hear the call to rural ministry.

Creation Museum

The new Creation Museum, founded by Answers in Genesis, opened this weekend in Petersburg, Kentucky, near Cincinnati. Drawing many supporters, and some protesters, the museum promises to be a pretty big shot in the ongoing culture wars.

But as to the scientific and theological claims made by the museum, I will remain skeptical. In saying this, I want to add that I in no way am disputing any Biblical truths - just certain Biblical interpretations. I believe that God created the universe and all it contains, but unlike Answers in Genesis I dispute the Young Earth Theory of creation and I also believe that God used the process of evolution in creation. Despite the fact that many opponents of evolution claim that it is only a theory, I would point out that the word theory does not in any way communicate uncertainty. It would be very difficult - if not impossible - to find any scientist who doubts the scientific legitimacy of evolution (unless they are a proponent of Young Earth Creationism, and that is a very small number of scientists).

Deferring to someone with much greater scientific expertise, I give you the following quotes from the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Dr. Francis S. Collins. Dr. Collins - a former atheist and now an evangelical Christian - is head of the Human Genome Project and a world-renowned scientist. In the words of Dr. Collins -

Many books and videos can be found in Christian bookstores that claim that no intermediate fossil forms can be found for birds, turtles, elephants, or whales (yet examples of all of these have been found in the last few years), that the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of evolution (it clearly does not), and that radioactive dating of rocks and the universe is wrong because decay rates have changed over time (they have not)…In general, those who hold these views are sincere, well-meaning, God-fearing people, driven by deep concerns that naturalism is threatening to drive God out of human experience. But the claims of Young Earth Creationism simply cannot be accommodated by tinkering around the edges of scientific knowledge. If these claims were actually true, it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, and biology…the YEC (Young Earth Creationism) is the equivalent of insisting that two plus two is really not equal to four (pp. 173-174). Thus, by any reasonable standard, Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and tragedies of our time…But it is not science that suffers most here. Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world (page 177).

Christopher Hitchens and Jerry Falwell

Christopher Hitchens has thrown his hat in the ring as the latest author with a grudge against God. His book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, goes several steps beyond those of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins in railing against all things religious. But while Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith is very readable – and a must read for those who want to understand the perspective of unbelief – I find most anything that Hitchens says or writes to be so full of bile and vindictiveness as to be irrelevant. Even Dawkins, who can be petty and harsh when he writes or speaks about religion, seems mild by comparison.

I have clipped some of the words Hitchens wrote about the death of Jerry Falwell and pasted them below. It would be perfectly legitimate to write a column filled with well-reasoned arguments about the faults of Jerry Falwell and one’s disagreements with his beliefs and/or methods; it’s another thing entirely when a column contains nothing but personal insults and name-calling. For someone as bright as Hitchens, this is inexcusable. But this is merely his way of operating; instead of using his intellect to craft a well-reasoned argument Hitchens would rather use cheap insults as he seeks to provoke and emotional reaction rather than a thoughtful one.

In his own words, here is Hitchens –

The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero significance, except perhaps for two categories of the species labeled "credulous idiot." The first such category consists of those who expected Falwell (and themselves) to be bodily raptured out of the biosphere and assumed into the heavens, leaving pilotless planes and driverless trucks and taxis to crash with their innocent victims as collateral damage. This group is so stupid and uncultured that it may perhaps be forgiven. It is so far "left behind" that almost its only pleasure is to gloat at the idea of others being abandoned in the same condition.

From his wobbly base of opportunist fund raising and degree-mill money-spinning in Lynchburg, Va., he set out to puddle his sausage-sized fingers into the intimate arrangements of people who had done no harm. Men of this type, if they cannot persuade enough foolish people to part with their savings, usually end up raving on the street and waving placards about the coming day of judgment. But Falwell, improving on the other Chaucerian frauds from Oral Roberts to Jim Bakker to Ted Haggard, not only had a TV show of his own but was also regularly invited onto mainstream ones.

It's a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to, and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the "faith-based."

If this is the voice of atheism, I am even more determined to have none of it.

Is Mormonism A Christian Denomination?

A segment aired by CNN this morning (May 9, 2007) featured a discussion about the Mormon faith. The reporter continually made reference to Mormonism as a Christian denomination and to Mormons as Christians. Not wanting to be overly picky - this is actually not a picky matter theologically - but are Mormons Christian? CNN's reporter claimed that Mormons are Christians because of their belief in Jesus. What exactly does this mean?

First, it is my opinion that Mormonism is a Non-Christian religion. By saying this, I am not impugning Mormons in any way; I'm simply saying Mormonism stands separate from Christianity as its own religion, as would Buddhism, Islam, or any other religion. Mormons are simply not members of a separate Christian denomination and are not Christian. Although Mormons have a belief in Jesus, it is not the same as the classic Christian understanding of Jesus. Mormons do believe that salvation comes from Jesus, but their views of the trinity and his divinity depart from historical Christian beliefs. Islam, for example, views Jesus as a prophet but we would certainly not claim a Muslim is a Christian. Belief in Jesus alone does not make a person a Christian; there are important factors in how one views Jesus that are important. For instance, does one believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Is Jesus eternal? Does one believe in the Trinity? What does one believe about the resurrection? Mormon doctrine departs from historical Christianity in some major ways when it comes to these questions.

But if Mormons are not Christians, it is also important to point out they are not members of a cult, as is commonly claimed. A cult is often defined as what some would consider a "false religion." In that sense, many Christians would label Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, as cults. But the word cult can be applied to groups within Christianity or any religion. The word "cult" refers to specific sets of behaviors, such as abnormal secrecy and separating people from their friends and family members in order to enforce group behavior and loyalty. Mormons, neither Christian nor cult, are simply members of their own religion.