Kids under fire

While every other blogger might have been vigorously pounding at their keyboard by now commenting on the Jesus Camp film, here's my observation for what it's worth.

As depicted in the documentary that came out two weeks ago in the United States, a Christian youth camp called Kids on Fire was underway in North Dakota having children speaking in tongues, weeping uncontrollably for their sins (which seemed to have been owned up to by scare tactics), and claiming the nation for Jesus by being soldiers for Christ who are willing to die for the cause of God. As one boy put it, "A lot of people die for God, and they're not afraid."

The film in dispute opens up an old debate on religious radicalism, an ill-treated topic in the public sphere. Now the issue seems to be aggravated by throwing children into the mix.

I think people at the Jesus Camp are seriously misguided to inject militant ideas into Jesus' teachings and then indoctrinate youths with what's not taught in the Bible to begin with. Pastor Beckey Fischer of Jesus Camp said she wants to see children as "radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places." Granted that's a noble sentiment, I would love to ask Pastor Fischer just how exactly does she intend children to do that. While Christian martyrs in Palestine essentially face persecution by literally laying down their lives to those who want to take it (contrast that to so-called martyrs who wouldn't mind taking other people's lives along), which I believe is what Pastor Fischer meant by radically laying down one's life, it is only silly for Christian kids in America to be ready to lay down their lives in that sense when the persecution they might get more than anything else in their own country is that blank embarassed stare of disconnection from their schoolmates when they start to utter religious babbles. Not unless Fischer intended to station the kids in Iraq at the end of the camp.

It is certainly easier to pound military slogans into the minds of little ones over the weekend in the name of truth and fun—which is a very strange combination by the way—than committing to the painstaking process of real Christian education, which involves critical thinking rather than propagation of religious catchphrases that could be confusing even to grownups. By the way there's nowhere in the Gospel accounts where Jesus was recorded as commissioning His disciples to die for Him either as a means or an end to their faith, which is what the Jesus Camp seems to be explicitly promoting to children. You can't really blame the media for equating Evangelicals with al-Qaeda terrorists when you have people like this misrepresenting Jesus.

It got me worried about the kinds of trash they feed the kids with at the camp, when a little girl of ten or so was shown going to a bowling alley and striking up conversations with strangers that begin with, "Hi, God spoke to me today and He told me..." One wonders if God has really spoken in that instance (see A Private Hot Line to God? by Greg Koukl). And you know you've really had it when children are shown worshipping in front of a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush.

One thing this reminds me of is the immense power of children to imitate. Left with no choice of better Christian examples to follow, kids will follow anyone that comes along and claims to offer them the truth. Rather than preparing children to advance the much-needed Gospel in the world, the Jesus Camp was nothing more than a circus frenzy with a serious role confusion that mistakes themselves as the militant Jesus at end times. Though I'm sure they really meant well, the effort is so farcical it's sad.

Does the Bible hush up history?

First as a runaway bestselling novel and then as a blockbuster movie, The Da Vinci Code has fascinated millions. Its allegations against historic Christianity are colorfully portrayed, and survey shows that reading The Da Vinci Code does alter beliefs. But are these allegations true, or merely inaccurate accounts of centuries-old myths and heresies?

To sift through the evidence, here's a summary of May/June issue of Solid Ground, bi-monthly letter from STR:

• According to The Da Vinci Code, the Bible as we know it today—along with Jesus' divinity—was fabricated at the Council of Nicea for political reasons. The authentic accounts of Jesus were destroyed. However, there is not a shred of evidence for these claims. According to those actually present at Nicea—Eusebius and Athanasius in particular—Christ's deity was the reason for Nicea, not the result of it.

• Writings from the first three centuries are replete with references to Jesus' divinity. Even the heretical Gnostics and the Modalists got this detail right.

• The New Testament Canon was never an issue at Nicea because the legitimacy of the four gospels had been decided centuries before. The Gnostic Gospels that Brown supports—like Thomas, Mary, and Philip—were not.

• None of the canonical Gospels report the most climactic event of the century, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., strong evidence each was completed before then within decades, not centuries, of the crucifixion.

• No evidence suggests the New Testament evolved over time through countless translations and revisions. Instead, the academic analysis shows it to be the most reliable document from antiquity.

Read Solid Ground for more details.

An invitation

Why do we adopt a grave attitude whenever we speak about the God of the Bible? I kid you not, I myself am one of those who often get all serious and grim whenever the topic of God comes up, as if I'm talking about a rich, powerful uncle who wouldn't spare a penny on his needy relatives unless he sees a reasonable return on his "investment", whether in terms of a favor or a twisted sense of indebtedness. We all know someone like that. It doesn't matter if I happen to like this uncle a whole lot. I'd still talk about him the same way. Just like everybody else outside the family who doesn't know him any better.

And for years this "cosmic uncle" seems to have wanted to change my deep-rooted but gravely mistaken perception of him. I know he has been wanting to do that for a long time since I was much younger... if I weren't too caught up with my own problems to notice what kind of an uncle -- what kind of a person -- he has always been. And the kind of inheritance that he's long since written down in his will for me.

If I had told you exactly how God is inviting me to see for myself His true nature, rather than the nature imposed on Him by our wrong perceptions of Him, you would dismiss me as either hallucinating or simply out of my mind. But one reason why I believe what I'm called to do is what God would want me to take up is because it's a task that is, left to my own recourse, humanly impossible. Much more importantly, when I'm brave enough to be honest with my vulnerabilities and despite its immensity, it is a task that stirrs my heart and affirms that this is what I'm made for.

I seek not to convince you of God's good and passionate nature. No man can do that for another. The only way to find out is for each of us to know what He's telling us and do exactly as He says. This I am striving to do well myself. And the first step is to accept His invitation, with the full knowledge that we're not invited to a leisurely walk in the park, but to an adventure. That means we would have to take risks with God. And it also involves sacrifices. And one other thing: success is not guaranteed.

Now I ask myself: What kind of a God would take such a risk with mere mortals? And the conclusion I draw is this: Only the God who sacrificed His own Son for our sake is capable of such adventures. Not Uncle Scrooge.

God's invitation is never for the faint of heart. And the decision is totally ours to saddle up and ride after Him into battle. A battle to ransom hearts.

C.S. Lewis: The godfather of layman apologists

These days C.S. Lewis is better known as the author of The Chronicles of Narnia. Those who are fond of his children's stories (equally enjoyable to adults) will find that Lewis has much more to offer than weaving tales of fantasy and adventure.

I was first introduced to C.S. Lewis by a friend's recommendation of his book Mere Christianity. What I found interesting about Lewis after the first reading was the intense intellectual workout he can put you through, but at the same time making you enjoy it. I think the reason for that is that you cannot read Lewis without being impressed by his natural ability to marry reason and imagination.

Visit this nicely done fan blog dedicated to Lewis, a daily updated site featuring snippets from his vast body of works. Since Lewis is someone you'll find yourself going back to over and over again, I've put this link on the navigation panel to the left under the heading "Blogs I Read".

The importance of the mind in Christian living

J.P. Moreland first gained recognition when in a debate with renowned atheist Kai Nielsen, he displayed an uncanny ability to connect with the audience in arguing for the existence of God. This turned into a book, Does God Exist?, co-authored with Nielsen. Dr. Moreland has since become a well-known name in Christian apologetics, speaking and debating at colleges and universities throughout the United States.

In this audio clip, Moreland addresses an assembly of Christians in Texas A&M University on the importance of the mind in Christian living. Listen or download.

More than personal: A case for an intellectual life in the Church (2)

...continued from part 1

Do you notice that oftentimes when we are asked by a non-believer why we became a Christian, we proceed to detail to them our struggles before we became a Christian, then our encounter with Christ and the changes that followed after accepting Him as our Lord and Savior? Do you notice that instead of giving reasons why we are followers of Christ, all we did was telling them the story of how we became Christians? No matter how impressive, personal experiences – contrary to common belief among most modern Christians – are not the reason for believing in the credibility of Christianity. Statements like "I believe in Christ because such and such a thing happened to me" are not valid reasons for believing. Noticeable spiritual experiences can be the results of believing aright (or they can be mistaken as such when we believe amiss). And the right reason for believing in Christianity, just as the right reason for believing in anything, is because we have come to find out that it is true. Or in other words, Christianity or rather Christ Himself can only be believed in after we are convinced that what Christ claimed to be so are in fact so.

Now the hard work lies in being convinced of that conclusion, which by the way isn't impossible work – in fact far from it. But nonetheless emotional reactions only come after we understand the truth of Christianity, or they may not. No matter what we should never believe because believing brings about favorable feelings – feelings upon which we judge the validity of our beliefs. When that happens, we are in fact projecting a corporate image to the world that is consistent with our mistaken belief that the process of coming to faith is all the reason we need to be and to remain a Christian. Do we still wonder why the world at large finds Christianity something left to be desired? If we were to attempt an answer beyond our personal experiences, which by the way varies from one individual to another, are we in the position to give it? Christians, though passionate and well-intentioned, cannot connect with a world that demands to know why we believe what we believe because we have disengaged our minds in loving God when it matters to Him that we have a sound, intellectual case to present to the world.

Apostle Peter encouraged Christians of his time to always be ready to give intelligent answers to unbelievers regarding their faith (1 Peter 3:15). Apostle Paul clearly appealed to reason in his testimony before the judgment throne of Felix the governor (Acts 24:10-21). Augustine urged us to "think in believing and believe in thinking." These saints seem unanimous in believing that the mind is of the utmost importance in our walk with Christ. But look around and what do we see? Christians throwing around spiritual-sounding catchphrases like "just believe" or "don't judge." The sad reality being the unspoken parts of those statements. When we utter things like just believe, we usually mean it to be a dismissive statement that really says don't ask too much, you're making me look bad with those questions. When we say don't judge, we're most likely really saying don't judge me, lest I judge you back. We find ourselves easily disengaging our minds in our walk with Jesus when the Lord Himself commanded us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." What looks like spiritual maturity for most of us is really just intellectual apathy in disguise. It's no coincidence that we're living in an information-overloaded age. We have too much information available at our fingertips we have lost the ability to examine ideas and think critically on important issues like beliefs and truth claims. Something has definitely and seriously gone wrong in the Church's thinking life.

It is not my intention to profess to lecture my fellow followers of Christ on how to engage the mind in their faith. I am learning that myself every day. But what I want to do here, over the course of future postings, is to bring to your attention thoughts of great writers and teachers who have the knowledge on such a topic. Much more importantly, these are great men who consistently practice what they preach. Do not take my words for it that what these men teach are consistent with God's Word. By all means find out for yourself.

Two clarifications

(1) I do not want you to get the wrong idea that I'm against Christians sharing their emotive spiritual experiences to the unbelieving world, nor do I think such experiences are illegitimate. I don't. What I am against is Christians sharing their personal experiences to unbelievers with the intention to convert based on the merits of the experience, which brings us to my case later.

(2) I'm by no means saying that the intellectual life is the only way of life and the only way to God or salvation. But I do believe, after consulting the Good Book and also minds greater than my own, that an obedient mind – indeed the exercising of the whole person's intellectual faculty – contributes an enormous part to knowing God aright. A distinction derserves to be made between the two. One might be saved by God without first knowing God (of course this statement has to be qualified), just as someone drowning could be saved by a total stranger standing on the bank without knowing the saver beforehand; that's the work of a saving grace, the act of a father giving his little child gifts without first asking for the child's full knowledge of him. But through sanctificating grace, we are asked to participate in our Heavenly Father's business by paying full mind to His real nature and His deepest concerns – not to satisfy the Father's sense of self-regard (for He has none) but to increase our full pontential as His own. This is an errand that cannot be completed without involving the mind in its full vigilance. And it is by so doing that we are enabled to be like Christ. Now on to my case.

More than personal: A case for an intellectual life in the Church (1)

Many people have this idea that the logical or intellectual approach to anything religious is just a clever way to win arguments and it's not a legitimate way for Christians to sway unbelievers to Christ.

In the very early days of my Christian walk, the longer I stayed a Christian the more I had to tell myself that witnessing for Christ is nothing more than just sharing my personal experience with Jesus, because that seemed to be what everyone else was doing. I didn't realize that by doing what everyone else did, I was putting myself in a vulnerable position where it can be said that my religion was a product of a kind of subjective belief that is of no relevance to others, therefore making my witnessing unnecessary and what’s worse, irrelevant. I find that once such an objection is raised, I no longer find my faith credible, let alone defensible, because my witness was based on experiences that are largely personal and therefore cannot be verified objectively.

With the help of teachers like C.S. Lewis, J.P. Moreland and many others, I realized later that something else was needed if I were to take my faith seriously and have an entrenched confidence that Christianity is believable universally, not just for me. We need a belief that is able to stand on its own regardless of our feelings or our vested interest in it. And to identify that diamond in the rough, we need some tools; something which is indispensable in the sharing and defense of the Gospel: a thinking mind.

A lot has gone wrong in people's ability to think critically about the important issues of life, and Christians are no exceptions. One of the most careless mistakes committed by Christians today is making the absence of a thinking life a prerequisite for faith. Join a local Bible study group and you will be convinced that an average Christian no longer holds the truth of God's Word on the level of objectivity. The message of the scriptures has become a subject of a person's opinion of how their experience has led them to believe what the Bible is trying to say to them. When difficult questions are raised by non-believers in our midst, we usually either meet them with a pat response or circumvent them by finding an easy way out of a ready answer. If on the other hand an objection is raised by someone in the family of believers, more often than not we would employ the "I don't want to judge and so shouldn't you" tactic to put people off genuine concerns to which we have no honest answers.

We the Church have lost our ability and courage to critically assess our faith before we eagerly offer it to the world. As a result we not only find that the world has more genuine objections to our faith than we are ready to handle, but that we are pushing our comrades, especially the young, to the frontline of fiercely competitive ideas armed with nothing more than an individual and separate sense of divine duty to convert nations. And when the world spearheads us with challenges (a lot of which are, not surprisingly, intellectual) and accusations of irrational and irrelevant faith, we wonder why our harvest is not more plentiful when our laborers are willing. Why then is the use of logical persuasions so important in our witness for Christ? What can an intellectual argument do that a personal, experiential account of faith cannot?

Two clarifications before I proceed to make my case, lest anyone take my lack of exactitude for certain false endorsements.

Continue to part 2...

Worth remembering

Last year on Christmas I posted this piece by Greg Laurie which I think is a great reminder of the true spirit of Christmas, a season of gifts-giving and renewed hope. There couldn't have been any Christmas without Christ.

The gift of abundance

Tonight as our family sat around the table for our Christmas dinner, I saw that God has been blessing us all year with abundance, and me with a thankful heart to recognize the abundance.

We were in a restaurant of ambient beauty, converted from an old two-storey mercantile shophouse not unlike the one I grew up in. The Balinese-influenced restaurant is a welcomed recent addition to the town's booming dining scene, excelling both in ambience and culinary delights. The last time I was here Sam did his part in the proliferation of urban legends by recounting a ghost story encircling one of the old furniture in the restaurant. Tonight that piece of furniture was nowhere to be seen.

Now where was I? Right... abundance. Our stomachs sure had their fill of abundance after the hearty meal.

Can you stomach the truth?

Friendlier people have tried to hide their wince whenever I steer conversations to touch upon the issue. Most I've met hate to take part in any of the arguments (a word which is sadly taken by many to bear an equal meaning to quarrels), either because knowing themselves, they fear they would turn hostile as the discussion gets interesting, hence hurting the acquaintanceship (which is a hasty correlation at best), or they really only fear to talk about something they never paid serious mind to.

But it's interesting to see that I was seldom the person determined to bring up the topic. Seeing the flag raised by another, I merely seized my opportunity and refused to let it slip off the conversation before it was amply addressed. When I did choose to take over the helm I did that simply because I've realized that such issues haven't been amply addressed in most cases, and that in turn has damaged our ability to think clearly about really important matters; namely, the perception of right and wrong conducts.

It is not my intention to expound my arguments here and demonstrate an upper hand over people whom I've ever engaged in this kind of discussions with. For the purpose of this entry I only want to accentuate the fact that it is most unnecessary for anyone of us to sidestep the issue as if treading a mine-filled territory. I know many people favor social congeniality over the pursuit of truth. But unfortunately for many (including myself), truth is not always something likeable by virtue of its nature. Unlike what some think, no wrong conduct can be made right or justifiable simply because we like it or hope something good to come out of it.

Truth is tough stuff, both intellectually and emotionally. But without truth that is not subjectively defined life instantly becomes a bondage of lies and delusions; it is the only basis upon which true and lasting freedom is built. And to my fellow believers in Christ: Are we to prize emotional and intellectual comforts above Him who did not spare the ransom to demonstrate to us the truth of our fallenness and to free us for His love?

A writing to B on bad dreams

Dear B,

I had bad dreams recently. Not necessarily nightmarish, but it's those rare dreams that disturb you and make you think a lot about what you're supposed to do with your life. I saw myself fervently defensing my faith in one dream I woke up feeling sad about how far that was from reality. In another dream I saw evil manifesting in the strangest of places it broke my heart immeasurably. And I woke up feeling sad once again for how far that, too, was from how I really am in reality.

I watched a good film recently called "The Gathering Storm" about Winston Churchill before WWII began. I'm not sure if that was an actual quote from him, but the actor playing Churchill said of his political ally at his funeral that "People often act heroically before they fully appreciate the dangers that lie ahead. [He] saw those dangers and was afraid of them. But he did what he did in spite of his fear. No man can be braver than that."

I wish at the end of my life something of that sort can be said of me. Maybe I won't ever be brave enough before my life ends in God's hands but I certainly am afraid of the decisions that I have to make. But it's at once strange and wonderful, and it is clearer to me now, how even the tiniest thing one does is tied in directly to one's allegiance to Christ. If that hasn't encouraged brave decisions, it certainly has laid bare the magnitude of our participation in the whole landscape of eternity, which in a divine round-about way encourages brave and right decisions.

Yes God is good.

Yours,
A

A writing to B on stuck-ups

Dear B,

There's so much bridging work to do between my acquired knowledge and my will. They've never been on friendly terms it seems. Nothing beats me more than this. But my first reaction would not be to go to the Bridge, but to build a bridge of my own. To know Christ as who He really is I need to study His Word and spend more time praying, which I'm not doing. Today my family and I were cruising in my dad's car and my mum was giving my brother advice on housing. She has said the same things to me before in private and it hit me today that, regardless of the topic, my brother's reactions to her and mine are never the same. I always knew that, though she could be "overly informative" at times, my mum does what she does because she loves us. Because of that she can talk to me about anything she wants. On the other hand my brother just can't seems to find the time nor the patience to sit through the same stuff from her. He would often react to her in the most off-putting way he knows how just to get her off whatever subject she's on. In essence she wants the best things for the both of us but we just don't see it the same way. And I think that's what I'm like with God the way my brother is with my mum. I don't want to spend enough time with Him to know how much He loves me.

Is there hope for my brother to see my mum's love for him as it is? And by the same token is there hope for me to want to know God enough to pursue Him? On both occasions I hope there is.

Till I hear from you again telling me all about it, God bless you.

Yours,
A

A writing to B on fairyland

Hi B,

I read this by G.K. Chesterton from his piece titled 'Fairy Tales' in the book "All Things Considered":

"We are in this fairyland on sufferance; it is not for us to quarrel with the conditions under which we enjoy this wild vision of the world. The vetoes are indeed extraordinary, but then so are the concessions. The idea of property, the idea of some one else's apples, is a rum idea; but then the idea of there being any apples is a rum idea. It is strange and weird that I cannot with safety drink ten bottles of champagne; but then the champagne itself is strange and weird, if you come to that. If I have drunk of the fairies' drink it is but just I should drink by the fairies' rules. We may not see the direct logical connection between three beautiful silver spoons and a large ugly policeman; but then who in fairy tales ever could see the direct logical connection between three bears and a giant, or between a rose and a roaring beast? Not only can these fairy-tales be enjoyed because they are moral, but morality can be enjoyed because it puts us in fairyland, in a world at once of wonder and of war."

Chesterton says that we're living in God's story. Ravi adds on to this by saying that "Wonder by itself, unanchored in truth, cannot be distinguished from a fairy tale." He also said that "The world of a child may delight in the fantastic, but the world of an adult must move from what is merely fantastic to that which is fantastically true."

I have often thought of life this way, as a "true fairy tale." Christianity or rather Christ is my only support of that notion but one that didn't ring true often enough because I thought if it were true then I should be aware of more fantastic things or at least be more aware of the fantastic. If life is a true fairyland then it doesn't add up that I'm seeing nothing but mundane dealings in it. But I was wrong in making that assessment. Chesterton says that we are in a fairyland on sufferance. Like Uncle Andrew in "The Magician's Nephew", we've long since broken our veto so even the fantastic wouldn't look in the least interesting to us now. Without Jesus it's not possible for us to cross from this sorry state to where He intends us to be.

Something else I read today moved me. It's a quote by a guy named J.H. Oldham from Ravi's book "Recapture the Wonder":

"There are somethings in life, and they may be the most important things, that we cannot know by research or reflection, but only by committing ourselves. We must dare in order to know. Life is full of situations to which I can respond not with part of myself but only with commitment of my whole being."

That is the greatest challenge for me yet - to dare to fully commit myself in order to know God. I'm living off His wonderful concessions while wrongfully questioning His vetoes. It's a shame that I'm wearing out my how-comes.

Hope you are well. Thank you that I'm still wrestling with myself.

Yours,
A

Confessions of a masculine heart

It is only obvious on a clear day. But I forgot that what I need from a woman is not what I often think I need: praises, admirations, such things that all men seem wanting of.

I need a woman who in spite of her lack of praise, could look me in the eyes and tell me the deepest truths about myself that she sees and I don't.

I need a woman who in spite of her blatant disapproval of my certain mannerisms, could still hope for the nobler things she knows I am capable of but never demonstrate.

I need a woman who in spite of her deep love for me, does not show it in a subordinate way, as if she's delighting in Michangelo or mesmerized by Shakespeare.

I need a woman who in spite of the world around her, finds joy in little things like children and the sunset.

I need a woman who could do all these as effortlessly and carelessly as stretching her own bones on a lazy afternoon. I need an equal on my best days, a superior the rest of the days.

I need a woman who got lost in the making. And I end up needing God.