Atheists and Chick-Fil-A

On a couple of occasions during this Christmas season, the subject of where we shopped came up among friends and family members. Invariably, statements like "I don't shop there because they don't allow the Salvation Army bell ringers" or " I don't shop there because they support gays" came up.

I really hadn't thought about the issue of whether Salvation Army is or isn't allowed to stand in front of some stores. I assume they do receive a large part of their support via the "red kettles." I wrote the Salvation Army a sizable check because I think they do a great work, not because I felt guilty every time I walked past the red kettle. I would have sent the check regardless.

I couldn't think of a single retailer I purposely do not support because of their "support of gays" or any other group for that matter. Because I believe the Bible, I also believe homosexuality is a deviant behavior. People can and DO think I'm wrong. OK. So, I Googled "gay friendly companies" and discovered that Dell, Boeing, Best Buy, Clorox, Coca-Cola, just about every major auto manufacturer including Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Toyota, and Saturn, among a host of other corporations have been rated as "gay friendly." Hmmm. If I was going to start boycotting "gay friendly" companies, looks like my list of acceptable shopping choices would be pretty limited. That still doesn't change my mind, but that's not the point of this post.

Since there are folks-let's be honest, it's mostly those who identify themselves as Christians- that are specific about which companies they do and do not support based on certain behaviors/things they consider to be sin(s), my question is: "Do non-Christians (atheists/agnostics, etc) boycott business for similar reasons, i.e. they are "Christian friendly?" Chick-Fil-A is owned by an openly Christian family. They don't allow their franchises to be open on Sundays. The same goes for Hobby Lobby stores. Do people avoid these and similar companies because of their owner's religious beliefs?

Just wondering.

Alright! Second Place!

The Bible lesson here, boys and girls,is: Finish the race! Thanks to Joe for the link.

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. --1 Corinthians 9:24 (NASB)

It's Not About the Bible - Pt 2

I guess we need to start with some definitions.

• The Church is, biblically speaking, the body of Christ or the bride of Christ or the body of believers/those who belong to Christ. (See Eph 2:20-22; Col 1:18; Heb 3:6; 1Cor 12:12ff)
• The Church is NOT the building. The Church CAN meet in a building. The building doesn't have to have a steeple. It doesn't even have to have pews.
• For our discussion here, the term church is anything that embodies the idea of church, whether the building or the people in the building, or the things that go on inside the building, i.e. preaching, The Ten Commandments, formality implied by dress or structure of a "church service."
• Unchurched. That's just another way of saying unsaved or non-Christians. (Some might even use the term pagan.)

Some--and I said SOME--churches today are doing everything they can to avoid looking "church." I've already chronicled some of the ways they accomplish that in my previous post. The argument is that they are being evangelistic by getting "unchurched" people (UP's) to come to venues/activities where they are more comfortable. This sounds like bait-and-switch to me. The new church planters say they are not changing the message, just the method. Sounds good, at first. But what are they really saying/doing?

So, the new church planters go and find out what turns people off about church and then build their church around the opposite of those things. The problem is they've missed the point. I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not about the church. It's not about the Bible.

So what is it? It is about hatred for God. The UP's (at least the ones I've encountered) are looking for something that makes them feel good about the way they live now! They want to give themselves and/or their children a "spiritual foundation," but they don't want it to be "churchy." They don't want someone or anything telling them what to do. "Just tell me how to fell better about my marriage. Tell me how to get a better job. Help me find some new friends. AND DON'T TELL ME I'M A SINNER." Their God is themselves, their opinion, their own standard. That's a violation of the First and Second Commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:3-5)

What the UP's need is for people to quit lying to them; quit trying to sucker them into church. They need to hear that God is love; but they also need to hear that He doesn't tolerate sin. They need to hear that He is a jealous God and that He will not "share" His rightful place with anyone or anything else. Don't sugar-coat it; don't down-play it. Just tell the Truth. Tell them ABOUT the Truth (John 14:6).

Here's the deal. Before God regenerates any of us--NONE of us want anything to do with God, church, the Bible, etc. Our hearts are dead to those things (1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:5). We shouldn't be surprised that UP's "don't like church"--neither did we at one point. But God "made us alive," drew us to Himself and gave us the desire/ability to cry out to Him for salvation (Eph 2:8-9).

Our job IS NOT to try and make church appealing to UP's--because we already know it ISN'T!

So how do we reach the UP's with the Gospel? We take it to them--just like Jesus said: "Go out..." (Matthew 28:19-20) We take the Gospel to them in our words, our actions, our attitudes at work, etc. To quote Bill Hybels: "[Just] walk across the room."

The UP's are most certainly welcome in our worship services. We want them to come if they will, but that shouldn't change what we do because they might come. We want them to hear the glorious songs of praise to our Almighty God. We want them to hear the prayers for healing, for encouragement, for peace. We want them to hear the Word, unashamedly preached. We want them to feel welcomed. We want them come back. We want them to be saved. That's what church and the Bible are about.

Quiz

You scored as Reformed Evangelical, You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 93% Fundamentalist 82% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 68% Neo orthodox 68% Emergent/Postmodern 32% Classical Liberal 29% Charismatic/Pentecostal 25% Modern Liberal 11% Roman Catholic 7% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

As if there was any doubt?

Trendy Pastors

The men pictured above are all pastors of "churches" (in some cases, I use the term loosely) that appeal to "seekers" or what I call "emergent" types. They have lots of similarities, i.e. casual dress, haphazardly-styled or no hair, some don't appear to be happy, most are tanned (maybe their church is close to a beach), none of them are over forty, and none of them own a tie. (That one preacher/pastor guy is pretty muscley, too.) EDIT: 07.01.07 - I have been informed be a concerned reader that one of the pastors IS over forty. He should know better, then.

Some other things I've noticed about these "trendy pastors":

• They really like to use the word "relevant."
• It's more trendy/relevant to refer to themselves as "Christ followers" rather than "Christian" or "Believer."
• They seem to have an aversion for anything "old" or "traditional."
• They "give talks" rather than "preach sermons."
• Music Ministers don't like to be called Music Ministers...they are "Minister/Pastor of Creative/Christian Arts."
• On one church's website, the pastor wrote: "God began to burden my heart with the need for a dynamic, innovative, multicultural church, where people could learn God’s truths in relevant and creative ways..." (emphasis mine). Honestly, I've always thought that a church that faithfully preached the Word of God, WAS "dynamic" and "relevant."
• One pastor wrote on his blog: "Every movie has a great sermon." Silly me, I thought the Bible had some pretty good sermons in it.
• One pastor commented: "I think it's funny that we meet in a movie theatre that's showing Knocked Up." I think it's sad he thinks that's funny.
• One church's website proclaimed they were "the cool church." Groovy, man...if I'm looking for a place to trip!
• One pastor noted: "Knocked Up is a great movie." I hope he's kidding.
• One church's website, announcing their upcoming sermon series on "sex" proclaims: "God wants you to have great sex." One of the sermon titles for the multi-week series is entitled: "Leather, Whips, and Whipped Cream." Oh, brother.
• Churches are now referred to as "campuses." I guess using the word "church" isn't "relevant."

I guess I'm just old fashioned. I still think that faithful preaching will accomplish exactly what the Word says it will: "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12 (NASB)

They Don't Get It

For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you... 1 Peter 4:3-4

A couple of stories caught my attention last week: one featured a new trend in weddings- wedding gowns for pregnant brides; the other story involved a principle and teacher that were videoed having sex in the principle's office. A DVD of the "activity" was anonomously mailed to parents right before a hotly contested school board election.

The interesting thing about these stories (for me) was the response of some people that commmented on them. Rather than being shocked at the behavior or the lack of morality portrayed in the stories, commentors were more inraged that anyone would question something like a "maternity wedding gown" or why the privacy of the principle and secretary was infringed upon. Commenting on the wedding gown story, one commentor said:

Some of us really don't see this as a problem, and would really appreciate it if you would take your 'morals' back to the Victorian Age they crawled out of. Put your misplaced values back into your house, and quit wagging your finger at people you honestly don't care about.

Commenting on the "principle" story, one individual wrote: "...at least they were doing each other instead of the kids."

They don't get it.

Wedding gown story
Principle and teacher story

A Peculiar People

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous: light. -- 1 Peter 2:10 (NASB)

We've been studying the book of 1 Peter in Sunday School the past couple of weeks. Yesterday, we spent some time on the passage above. Up to this point, Peter has encouraged us by reminding us that we have a "living hope" (1:3) that has come to us through the "living word" (1:23), purchased with the "precious blood" of Jesus Christ, our "living" Savior - the "living stone" (2:4)

But you or because of these things, Peter states that we--Christians--are a "chosen people." The KJV translators rendered the word "chosen" as peculiar. I think I like that translation a little better. If we belong to God ("a people for God's own possession"), then we are peculiar or different, especially in today's world. Not everyone belongs to God, and at times -- actually, most of the time-- those who don't belong to Him seem to revel in that fact. They even "...think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you." --1 Peter 4:4 (NIV)

We are peculiar to the world, but we are also peculiar or "special" to God. He chose us. We are His. And nothing or anyone can alter that. (Romans 8:38-39) Knowing that we are "special" to God, that we belong to Him, should cause us to praise Him!

I don't mind being called peculiar...actually, it's an honorable and comforting label...if you belong to God.

Dem Bones, Dem Bones

Now let me get this straight- with five (or more) LIVE bodies claiming to be the father, along with the body of the deceased mother…we can't / have yet to determine the identity of the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby!!!

However, we supposedly can take 2000-year-old bones from a "coffin" and almost unequivocally determine that we've found the body of JESUS??!!! They talk about having DNA...what in the world are they going to compare it to??!!!

Ain't modern science amazing!

TODAY (NBC) host Meredith Vieira, who read the book and watched the documentary, said the implications are astounding given that billions of people have been taught that Jesus was resurrected both in spirit and body, ascended to heaven, never married and had no offspring. The film and book, if accepted, could shake the church that Jesus founded to its core. “If this is correct, what are the implications? They're huge,” Vieira said.

Here's a couple of articles from MSNBC.

Cameron: Jesus tomb film is a ‘detective story’

Director defends Jesus tomb findings
(Contains video)

I Get Email

I get quite a bit of email--not because I'm popular or an important person. Most of it is "junk":

• People trying to get me to buy something (because I previously purchased something from them)
• People wanting to advise me on my stock market investments (like I have a lot of those)
• Offers for discount drugs that may or may not "enhance" my life
• Offers of REALLY cheap/low interest mortgages or loans for incredibly large sums (my house payment is less than $550 a month--I don't think I need their help in that area)
• Offers of LOTS of money just to "use" my American bank account for a transfer of funds from [ fill in foreign country name here ].

You get the idea. I also send a lot of email. I email my mom, sometimes several times each week (I also call her)-- she lives out of state. I send an email "prayer list" to our Sunday School class, prayer requests that were made that week in class. I email a high school friend almost weekly--we exchange funny stuff we find on the internet, etc.

One of the emails I really don't like though, is the "prayer chain/receive a blessing" email. You know the ones. There's a real tear-jerker of a story and then at the end it says something like: "Forward this to 10 people/everyone in your contacts and you'll be blessed." OR "Are you ashamed to forward this email? Jesus said if you are ashamed of me before men, I'll be ashamed of you before the Father."

Now really. Does anyone actually believe that by forwarding an email they will get their wish/prayer answered? Why would the forwarding of an email be the basis for God answering a prayer? And if I don't forward the email, does that really hender God from intervening in the situation and answering the prayer anyway?

I don't think God operates that way, nor is He "bound" by whether we send emails to each other. Just my "soapbox" for the moment.

But just in case...please forward this post to 10 people.

Christians and Alcohol

Connected to a previous post, I've been having a discussion with an individual about Christians and alcohol. He takes the stance that Jesus drank (it certainly appears that he did--check out this verse and this verse) AND that it is entirely possible for Christians to drink and not be drunk (which is condemned by Scripture).

I take the view that, although I might not be able to make an argument against drinking from Scripture (although I think I could--condsider this verse), I find absolutely no benefit in having that "liberty."

In the course of our conversation, the gentleman I was engaging stated (re: the newspaper article that started this whole thing): "But to be fair, the newpaper article, written by a non-Christian outside, is not an accurate reflection of what happens." So his "defense" is that a non-Christian sees Christians drinking and makes a negative assumption about Christians and therefore, that's not fair. From where I'm sitting, his statment makes MY argument: if a non-Christian (or maybe a Christian) sees him drinking, they assume the "drinker" is not a Christian. That IS the point.

He can claim he has the liberty to drink because the Bible doesn't explicitly deem drinking a sin. He can claim that, in moderation, there is nothing wrong with having a drink with a meal or just for the sake of something to drink---BUT, people that THINK drinking is a sin or wrong aren't going to understand his "liberty."

Now--fair or not--why would he want someone to assume he is NOT a Christian when he really is?!!!

Even though he may have that "liberty", why would he want to engage in something that would cause people to assume something negative about him or his faith? Wouldn't it be easier just to NOT DRINK? And here's the bigger question: Why is it so important that he drink? That he be able to defend his right or liberty to drink? What is the benefit? I've asked the question, but no one will give me an answer.

I don't drink. Ever. It's easier and I don't have to defend myself. Incidently, I don't think that makes me better--it does mean I have more free time since I don't have to educate people about my "liberty."

I like what Phil Johnson said: "while we're not prudes or wouldn't automatically consider a stogie or beer "sinful," neither do we consider such things fitting emblems of Christian liberty. (Blog post, May 26, 2006)