Yes, People in the Church ARE Human

It is with continued awe that I am impressed, uplifted, edified and inspired while simultaneously (and in equal measure) appalled, dismayed and depressed by the Church. Just after Pope Benedict XVI urges end to conflicts in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Congo, an embarrassing brawl breaks out between fellow believers at the traditional place of Jesus' birth. Merry Christmas! *sighs*

I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas

For the first time in a long time, we have snow on Christmas. Well, it was white and cold and fell from the sky, I tell you!

I was hoping to get a snapshot of some accumulation but, alas, 'twas not to be.

Book Review: The Demon-Haunted World

I have forever been torn between the rigors of reason and the undeniable reality of the spirit world. This tension though does not stop me from being a level-headed skeptic AND a firm believer. There are things in the world that can be easily confirmed (at least to a reasonable level of certainty) and there are other things that little evidence and argument can touch. We as a society seem to have lost touch with that distinction. Only the most credulous observers would find the dogmatic defense of such things as alien abduction, Nostradamus' and Casey's prophecies, vampires as the cause of malaria, Bigfoot and the vast majority of faith healings. While my worldview certainly allows for the possibility (even probability) of such things, I find it very difficult to accept most of the "arguments" put forth by those who do believe.

So, after over a three years of waiting patiently, I finally decided to read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. This is a great book and I would certainly recommend it to anyone wishing a brief introduction to critical thinking, logic and the world of pseudoscience. The chapters entitled "The Dragon in my Garage" and "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" are often cited and are very good overviews of how science and logic work in the real world. Much of the book seems repetitive and probably could have benefited by being cut down by at least half though. I've heard that the chapters are actually stand-alone essays, and it certainly feels that way. Overlooking the lack of editorial review, this is a fine book.

The book definitely has some great food-for-thought. For me, I am constantly annoyed at the amount of sloppy thinking, charlatanism, propaganda and pure, unadulterated bull shit in American culture. We see in almost everywhere from new theories of about the "power" of crystals to the ongoing war over Global Warming. We are especially bombarded with it on T.V. news, where science news in particular has been tragically dumbed down to meet the needs of the sub-average grade-school student as to not make anyone feel like perhaps they don't know everything. (Besides, we just HAVE to spend time talking about poor Britney Spears, right?) Truly useful and accurate health, biology, technology and ecological information is traded in for the latest Mother-Mary-in-a-pancake and alcohol-is-good-for-you stories.

Now, for a believing Christian like myself, I have difficulty sometimes knowing what the limits of science are and where I am allowed by reason to believe in God, Jesus, immortality, heaven and hell. When am I justified, logically speaking, to believe in Jesus' Resurrection? Is there really a separation between what I can know scientifically and what can be known "spiritually"? The standard I use is one I think Sagan would approve of (probably with some qualification on his part though) is one of subjectivity: is there some outward and examinable evidence that something is true? Where as in the New Age there's no objective truth. Rather, in the New Thought community we

make our own truth. There's no such thing as objective reality. We make our own reality. There are spiritual, mystical, or inner ways of knowing that are superior to our ordinary ways of knowing. If an experience seems real, it is real. If an idea feels right to you, it is right. We are incapable of acquiring knowledge of the true nature of reality. Science itself is irrational or mystical. It's just another faith or belief system or myth, with no more justification than any other. It doesn't matter whether beliefs are true or not, as long as they're meaningful to you.

Which is poppycock and potentially dangerous. Meaningfulness does not necessarily correlate to reality. What this fellow is talking about here is art, not science and has very little metaphysical basis for support. Art is meaningful only because it is interpreted to be meaningful. How strongly you feel something does not make it true (with the odd exception to the placebo effect). So, even if I felt strongly that Jesus was Lord and Savior, that does not mean that He really is. Something besides my feeling must support this reality and it does to my satisfaction. On the other hand, skepticism remains an important part of my life and The Demon-Haunted World will remain an important tool for apprehending and living in the real world.

Romans 14 and Church Music

Since reading David Wilkerson's "Confessions of a Rock n Roll Hater!", I've had some more time to contemplate the relationship between musical style and its religious meaning. As Wilkerson points out, Romans 14 is an important passage for understanding our Christian responses to other styles or, what we consider, ungodly activities. I've reproduced the passage in question in its entirety here. As you read, I would encourage you to replace the words "meat" and "eating" with whatever issue seems important to you, whether that is loud rock music, Stephen King novels, long hair on men, Dungeons & Dragons, or anything else that might be an issue with you.

Romans 14 reads:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

From the very beginning, differences of opinion has been a part of Church life. The Jewish converts believed that one must be circumcised to become a Christians, while to the Gentiles, this seemed unnecessary and ritualistic. Others believed that the Jewish Sabbath was the holy day of the week, while others felt that Sunday was. In the context of Romans 14, food dedicated to idols was a major issue. Should we, Christians, eat meat that was sanctified for pagan gods? Obviously, we are talking about issues of secondary importance here. Paul is not allowing for a radical reinterpretation the Easter experience, nor is he suggesting that the diminishment of the centrality of Jesus in Christian life should be tolerated. He's talking about preferences, style, personal liberty and a wider perspective on ownership of our lives.

In the context of Wilkerson's tract on church music, it is important to note that, in applying this passage, people are free to choose whatever music they wish. One person may like all music; others cannot even begin to concentrate on worship when the music is played a certain way. No one should look down on anyone based on his or her preference of music. If a certain song is worshipful for a person, then it is worshipful. If not, then it is not. This, in no way, reflects on the actual spiritual value or quality of the music (though there may be objective standards in terms of musicianship and sound design). While each person must make a determination about the “cleanliness” of any given music, all music can be good. It is still wrong to force someone to “enjoy” something that will cause them to stumble in the faith.

In the end, if the music is annoying to you, then it is annoying and you should speak to God about it. If you finally believe that a certain music style, volume or instrumentation is “unclean”, then you are completely justified in your beliefs and should feel no guilt whatsoever if you do not like the kind of music at your church. This, of course, does not mean that it is unclean for everyone else.

Whether we over-extend Romans 14 to cover church music is, in my mind, within the realm of possibility, but it is clear to me that Christians should always assume a posture of tolerance in dealing with other Christians’ preferences, whether that be in worship days, food and drink, secular music or other leisure activities. As long as those activities do not cause others to loose faith and we are sincerely convinced in our own minds of the ethical value of those activities, then we have no fear of condemnation.

Romans 14 Commentaries

• Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
• Clarke's Commentary
• BibleGateway.com
• Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament
• Commentary

On "Confessions of a Rock n Roll Hater!"

Today at church, our worship pastor allowed up an opportunity to read and discuss David Wilkerson's tract, "Confessions of a Rock and Roll Hater!". I will be giving it some more thought over the following days and weeks as it specifically relates to our church, but I just wanted to get down some first impressions before they drift away.

Essentially, the tract follows Wilkerson's journey from a fierce hater of rock music to someone who could set aside judgment and allow substance to trump style in our church music. Wilkerson recounts his journey as "seven steps toward balance in music" (bullet points are every so important!). They read as follows:

• STEP ONE--The Music offered to God must be solemn.
• STEP TWO--All music must be sung as if in the direct presence of the Lord
• STEP THREE--Loud music is encouraged by the Lord!
• STEP FOUR--It is unscriptural to criticize another's taste in music!
• STEP FIVE--There is nothing wrong with rightfully using that which has been served to idols!
• STEP SIX--There is a risk in offending others by our music!
• STEP SEVEN--There is a better way--above all controversy!

Step One seems the most obvious. Of course, if the musicians and singers are not solemn, then it makes no sense to call our music "religious" or even "Christian". Solemn music is often, but not always, joyful, and it must be designed to touch the hearts and minds of those who hear it.

The most important step, from my point of view, number two. We cannot be considered worship leaders if we do not realize that our only audience is God alone. We must be able to guiltlessly sing our song and play our instruments before God. "Just as I [Wilkerson] must give an account for all my preaching, so must musicians give an account for all their singing."

The issue of music volume in our modern, amp'ed up world can be tricky and I'll have to give this some more consideration before I write on this subject, so, I won't say much about step three here and now.

Step four seems so obvious to me that it almost doesn't warrant being said. I find it difficult to believe that people believe that the music they LIKE is Godly, while the music they don't is "the Devil's heartbeat". Music, in an of itself, is meaningless. Music is simply sounds (maybe noise) set to time. Our judgements about music are deeply cultural, personal, and, while there may be objective measures for good music in an aesthetic sense, are all individual expressions of emotion and thought.

Step five specifically addresses the idea that rock music was originally intended, perhaps, as praise "offered up to idols". Rock n Roll music (the name itself is derived from an immoral act) has been used or was an outgrowth of immoral, perhaps even demonic, behavior. But, as mentioned above, nothing in music itself is "clean" or "unclean". We as Christians are not bound by a religion of ritual, thus allowing us to use even those very things the Devil has made for our demise.

Because music is a cultural and personal thing, a matter of taste and preference, sooner or later, you will offend someone by our choice in music. If we use discretion and intelligence in our choices, without pandering, we will avoid most offenses, because we have gotten to know our audience. But that certainly doesn't mean we should apologize for every choice we make. "Mostly, God wants you to be free to enjoy what you do, and cause God's people to enjoy it as well."

Finally, there is a better way . . . be creative and bring YOU to the music. We don't have to borrow from the world. We should be the ones with the cutting edge music, the new and exciting, the heartfelt and meaningful music.

I honestly didn't find much new in the tract, nothing terribly ground shaking or awe-inspiring. But our church is still going through some transitions where basic conversation about music seems to be appropriate and necessary. I just hope that in the future, we can avoid lock-step unanimity--by forcing everyone to like the same music--and get back to a more basic reason for having music at church in the first place.

Contaminated Portland

I always thought Portland was a clean place to live. At least it was when I was growing up. Apparently, it's not any more, becoming a regular Toxic Town. Pulling in behind Baltimore and Milwaukee, Portland has the highest number of leaky storage tanks (20,655) and has 10 corrective actions. I guess I didn't even realize that there was an air pollution advisory earlier this Fall. Maybe, I've just gotten used to it . . . *wheezes*