A Journal of Anger

Last week, my family and I went on Thanksgiving vacation at Sea World. We shared a house with my friend Sam Crum and his family, and had a wonderful time. The trip did have one hiccup, though. On the second night we were there, we were playing a game of Monopoly (the perennial game that is so similar to real life that it causes people to lash out at one another as if it were real money they were losing). I won’t bore you with all of the details of what transpired, because I don’t want to bore you (or because I am too embarrassed maybe), but let’s just say that I took the game way more serious than I should have. Not only was it stupid for us to have a conflict over this, but it perpetuated into the next day. Thankfully, we did work things out, rationally concluding that our marriage was more valuable than Monopoly, and we went on to make some great memories (as well as other things).

This past Sunday, the Lord reminded me of some valuable truths with regards to sinful anger and pride, as I listened to our lesson during the bible study time on “The Stress of Anger.” My friend Mark did a fine job leading us into a Scripture-based but very penetrating talk on dealing with anger. I felt like God was reminding me of how stupid and sinful I have been through demonstrating my sinful anger towards people. I also felt God revealing to me the massive pride that I have, and how wicked I have been in trying to metaphorically murder people with my words, thoughts, and actions.

After our bible study time, I went to the worship service, only to hear our worship leader deliver a message about spiritual blindness in all of us that keeps us from seeing Christ. The Holy Spirit spoke to my heart about how blind I am to my own pride, because I rationalize things away, and defend myself to the death, when it is really my own usefulness to God I am killing. On the way home from church, I apologized to my wife for being a stubborn jackass so often, and asked her to forgive me.

This morning, I went to the doctor for the fourth time in three weeks to get treatment for something that is known as iritis, which is an extreme inflammation of my iris. As I struggled to read any of the reading chart with my left eye, I thought of the blind people in our church, and I thought of how I frequently take the goodness of God for granted. I then thought back to the messages that God had spoken very clearly to me on Sunday, and how he has been so merciful to me in sparing my life and giving me good health.

This afternoon, I called the owner of the company who put the flat roof on our church a few weeks ago, to ask him about an insulation estimate. I casually asked him how things were going, and he told me that he was dying with arterial sclerosis, and could go any day. Immediately, everything I had complained about or fretted over during the past week grew very pale in comparison to what he was experiencing. I asked him if he was ready to die, as I myself wondered if I was. I thought of how sinful I have been in my anger and rage and bitterness and malice, to the point of losing all effectiveness and respect. I thought of how foolish it was for Michael Vick to extend his middle finger to thousands of Atlanta Falcon fans in that game against New Orleans, thereby revealing the depth of his frustration, but also exposing the depth of his depravity. I thought of Mel Gibson ranting and raving in a drunken stupor over the Jews. I thought of Bobby Knight throwing chairs and slapping players on the sidelines of a basketball game. And I thought of myself getting upset over not having enough fake money and fake property during a Monopoly game with which to escape my hopeless life.

How many times have we bowed to the moment of temptation, and given up valuable time, territory, and joy for the “principle of the matter”, when in the end it really didn’t matter. What if all the conflicts and arguments and tirades were wiped clean of our lives forever, and we could love one another unimpeded by human pride and selfish anger? Thankfully, the blood of Christ does wipe us clean from our anger and pride and wickedness. We, as believers still struggle with sin (like anger), but we have the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome it, and one day we will be at home with righteousness, and sin will be no more, because we will be just like Jesus in perfect joy and perfect love. As I reflect upon my question to the man dying of arterial sclerosis, I also reflect on the opposite question, which would be “am I ready to live?” God has renewed his mercy to all of us today. Therefore, how then shall we live? Angry at people we are supposed to love, or satisfied in Christ so completely that we do not have to die for our pride?

To the Darwinian, I Became a Darwinian?

There is an article that came out a couple of weeks ago from Time Magazine, called “God vs. Science” (you can access it at Time.com). This article features a debate involving Richard Dawkins, probably the most well-known scientist-atheist in the world, who recently came out with a New York Times best seller called The God Delusion. It also includes Frances Collins, the director of the National Genome Research Institute since 1993, who is a theistic evolutionist, who has been praised by President Clinton for his monumental work in genetics. To his credit, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who unfortunately talks down to his opponents, as if there is no intelligent person out there who believes in both God and science. Collins is an able defender of the Christian faith, who is a former atheist who was converted at the age of 27, and is no stranger to the naturalistic claims of many scientists. Collins does a good job of engaging Dawkins on the basis of philosophy, design, and moral presence within humanity.

What is also interesting is the fact that the New York Times ran a poll back in April of this year, asking people if they found fossil evidence of evolution more credible or the creation story as told in the Bible? The results were 56% in favor of fossil evidence, and 44% in favor of the creation story as told in the bible. The poll, to me, is not surprising, because it is worded in such a way as to reveal that there are a lot of people who accept evolution as fact, and yet believe that God originally created our universe.

The issue that needs to be discussed among Christians is how we reach people in this highly secular world who wholeheartedly buy into the claims of science, and yet are still interested in spiritual things. The Barna Research Institute has actually discovered that people are more spiritual now than they have ever been. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are interested in the God of Christianity, but it does mean that they are searching for answers. One of the telling things about this debate is the fact that Dawkins, as well as many other Darwinians who reject God, fails to deliver in the realm of our everyday existence. While science should be pursued and can answer many questions about the how, only faith deals with the why. That is not to say that faith is blinded by wishful thinking or empty headed assumptions. Faith that is strong is built on reason and revelation (as Collins points out). The cold logic of Dawkins, again, makes sense from a non-God perspective, but is not complete in terms of answering bigger questions that every human wants to know. Here are some observations from the debate that I think are worth considering:

1. Science is incomplete (not futile) in answering the question of whether God exists.
This is not to say that studying science can not tell us anything about God, because that would contradict the Scriptures, which tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the sky shows us his handiwork.” That certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be a scientist in order to discern the splendor of the constellations, any more than you have to be an architect in order to discern the grandeur of the Eiffel Tower. What it does mean is that the basic scientific tool of observation reveals to us the beauty of God. Nevertheless, science is not the final frontier, in terms of discovering who God is. On the contrary, it is actually the beginning point on the journey for many people. The Scriptures also tell us that “what may be known about God is plain to them (those who suppress the truth about God), because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In summary, nature reveals to us a Creator. It can’t reveal to us the message of that Creator; only a special revelation from him to us, but if we don’t accept that truth, we can’t go on in the journey of faith to find out who he is and what he desires.

2. Evolution is considered “scientific” on the same grounds that God is considered unscientific.
Evolution is accepted, because it (as science) can be observed. The only problem is that evolution has never been observed. There are evidences of it that give us insight into its existence, but there is no hard, fast trace that we can currently look at in a laboratory. On the other hand, God’s existence is denied on the basis of not having been observed, either. Nevertheless, in the same way that the traces of evolution have been researched, the traces of God have also been discerned, such as design, nature, and moral presence.

3. The likelihood of God existing is greater than the likelihood that he didn’t.
One of Collins’ best sellers, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief, cites the fact that there are six universal characteristics, or constants, of our universe, and if they were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. Dawkins argues the counter point that this universe is one of a zillion other universes, and that most of these will not have the right conditions for life, but as the number rises, the probability increases that one of them will contain the right recipe. This actually is very faith-filled for Dawkins to purport, since there are no known, observable, other universes. It seems more likely, as Collins argues, that there was someone planning the infinitesimally exact components to coincide for life to exist.

4. The acceptance of biblical miracles does not betray science, but only gives credence to a real creator.
Miracles are that which defy the normal laws of nature. It is not implausible to believe that if there is a creator, then that same creator is able to invade our world, and transcend the very rules he established. His doing that would be, interestingly enough, more plausible if he wanted to demonstrate his love and power to us by interacting with us through Jesus Christ by his incarnation, death, and resurrection.

5. Human beings acting out moral laws within this world is a good indicator of a Creator who put that in us.
This evidence is seen in those who do not have any knowledge of God’s revelation, acting on the law of their conscience. Speaking of the non-Jewish nations (or Gentiles), the Scriptures tell us that those “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them).” How is it that people will sacrifice their DNA existence within the gene pool for those outside of the gene pool if we are only trying to survive and look out for number one (C.S. Lewis talks about this power in his masterpiece Mere Christianity)? I think this is more plausible than Dawkins’ thought that we (now in a much bigger world) are merely acting out our ancestors’ drive to help those within their own gene pool, so that we can survive.

6. Whatever our Christian position of how creation came about, our main goal should be to demonstrate the fact of creation.
There is a big controversy that has been going on for quite a few years within Christian circles about whether the creation came about literally in six days, or whether it came about over the course of eons and eons by evolution. The fact is God created the heavens and the earth, and humanity, and all that is. We must respect the findings of science, but we must also seek to communicate the gospel of God. That is not done by narrowly repudiating everything that comes from science, but by seeking to find common ground between that and our faith, and seeking to become Christ (not a Darwinist) to all those we seek to reach.

Borrowing Some Thoughts On Clothes In Church

This is a blog from Mark Driscoll's blog site (TheResurgence.com), called "Dear Abby, Can I Wear My Swim Trunks To Church?" He asks some very good questions about a common debate among many evangelicals. I could try to blog about it, but he says it so much better than I, so here you have it...

A while back "Dear Abby" was asked a missional theology question. A debate ensued when one of her readers asked if people should be expected to dress up for church. The responses were all over the map:

A priest who likely wears a dress/robe curiously said, "I'm appalled at how some people come dressed for Sunday worship. . . . What has become relaxed is the attitude, the respect and reverence people have for worship and church buildings. . . the lack of respect and reverence to worship is disgusting. These same people would never allow their children to play in a sporting event out of uniform, or apply for a job interview themselves dressed inappropriately. Sunday worship should be no different!"

Diana from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wrote in, "More important than what people are wearing is the reason for being in church in the first place. Maybe it would be better if we could all enter God's house blind. If we can't see what people are wearing, we can leave our judgments and prejudices outside and use the time to learn more about God's purpose for our lives."

A cowboy from Iowa wrote in, possibly with a crayon, "That we worship is more important than what we wear. That letter reminded me of the story of the old cowboy who visited a new church in his jeans and boots. After the service, the pastor greeted him and remarked, 'We enjoyed having you here today, but before you return, you should have a talk with God about proper attire in church.' The next week, the cowboy returned wearing the same clothes, so the pastor approached him again. 'I thought I told you to speak with God about what to wear when you came here,' he said. The cowboy responded, 'I did. But he said he didn't know because he'd never set foot in here!'"

Barbara from Pennsylvania wrote, My pastor says no one would consider dressing casually if they were going to be in the presence of our president or any other dignitary. Why would we consider anything less for our Lord? Makes perfect sense to me."

And Matthew in Peoria wrote, "Church is where you go to give praise to the Lord, not check out what others are wearing. If 'Dismayed' feels put out because someone isn't dressed the way she'd like, then maybe the services should be held at Macy's so she can feel more comfortable."

The entire exchange raises an interesting series of questions, such as:
If God is our Father and the church is our family, should we view going to church services as a formal event or a family event?
If we are to welcome the poor and socially outcast, does a dress code essentially push such people away from church?
If people become overly worried about their appearance instead of their heart, are they like the Pharisees that Jesus chastised for only washing the outside of the proverbial cup?
Is the church building somehow a magical sacred space like the Old Testament Temple? Or is it simply a place where God's people gather that is no more and no less sacred than the homes they live in, now that the Spirit has been released from the Holy of Holies into the whole earth?
Do we think that Jesus the homeless guy who was born in a barn was dressed up when He held church outdoors?
Why should we press for formal dress in church when one of the only passages in the New Testament that speaks about what to wear to church rebukes women for dressing up to the degree that they turned church into a fashion show (1 Timothy 2:9–10)?
When Jesus says that people judge the outward but God is looking at the heart, does that mean that as long as women don’t show up in clear heels looking like they need an aluminum pole to dance around, appearance is really a secondary matter?
Since we are supposed to be hospitable and welcome people to church as missionaries, does it not make sense to dress like "normal" people rather than make normal people dress up like "church" people?

At our church I usually preach in a button-up shirt, jeans, and boots. A number of our worship bands, especially the indie rock ones at the evening services, play in t-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops. This is something I've been thinking through since I will be preaching a twelve-week series on questions about Jesus this fall. For the series, I am planning on wearing some funny Jesus t-shirts to show how much of a pop-culture icon Jesus is. They say things like:
Jesus is watching you smoke that weed!
Jesus is watching you download porn!
Jesus is my homeboy
Buddy Christ (from Dogma)
Jesus vs. Satan (from South Park)
WWJD for a Klondike Bar
I heart Jesus and french fries

"Dear Abby" hit one of the more debated missional theology issues in our day that is related to many other issues, such as how we view God (e.g., daddy, boss, or president), church buildings (e.g., God’s special house or just another room), what constitutes a church (e.g., a formal building or a people who love Jesus), and the feel of a church service (e.g., formal meeting or family reunion).