Thursday, February 26, 2015

Russell Brand and Special Revelation

1. A Different Brand of Message


Even a loose cannon is right twice a day?


Along with thousands of other people online, I have been entertained by some of Russell Brand's viral posts (one on the existence of God, another on the problem of porn in today's society) which have circulated recently.
One can't help but wish the man was a believer, both for his own soul's sake and also in terms of the impact his native intelligence and charisma would allow him to have for the kingdom. (On the other hand, we see repeatedly in scripture and in life that God purposefully chooses the humble and unimpressive as His instruments to accomplish His purposes, for His greater glory.)

Mr. Brand is a man of... interesting beliefs, and an interesting background. If you weren't aware of his existence prior to those videos which are circulating to some extent in the Churchosphere, go searching for much of his other material and you might find yourself scrambling for the pause or back buttons. So understand that of course my post is in no way an endorsement of Mr. Brand as a good role model (he would insist that he is not, and we would all agree), or his opinions to be generally trustworthy. (He's a marxist, self-confessed heroin addict who enjoys transcendental meditation, for starters)

I'm not linking to the videos here because I'm not really interested in promoting Mr. Brand and his variety of other outspoken opinions on this blog; if you are a responsible adult feel free to find them on YouTube. ("Russell Brand", "Stephen Fry", "is there a God" will take you to the first. Take note, it includes Stephen Fry's arrogant, blasphemous little rant accusing God of being neither sane nor good.)

While Brand argues against the possibility of a literal interpretation of (any religion's) scripture, and says he doesn't like dogma or organized religion, he does argue enthusiastically that we live in a world where there is a sort of God behind everything, and whose image is reflected in us, and supports the basic idea of a sin nature. In the second video he argues that pornography is wrong, goes against conscience and warps our perspective of each other as human beings, and that both men and women (and he himself) should stop doing it.

The first video, though too vague to call support for a monotheistic concept of God, was also an effective refutation of Stephen Fry's disrespectful and unsubstantial proclamation of unbelief in a recent interview. Though lacking any logic and pretending perfectly good answers to his questions haven't existed for hundreds of years, Stephen Fry was rhetorically aggressive in his "assault" of theodicy, and millions of non-scientist science groupies, "brights," and god-denying, would-be intellectuals doubtless think it quite a devastating argument and the end of any discussion. (Ideological wars are reminiscent of the Bronze Age; most soldiers weren't particularly good at fighting and nobody liked dying, so it was often preferable to have two champions fight and each side could cheer theirs on.)

But Brand basically popped up unexpectedly and dismantled Fry's negative attack, and it's strange but compelling stuff. It's hard to think of an American equivalent, but it would be a bit like the countering argument to Bill Nye coming not from Ken Ham, but an excited Steven Tyler.

The strange thought occurred to me that, sadly, in some ways the videos are better than various sermons I've heard. I have sat through plenty of vaguely topical sermons, in churches both in America and in Taiwan. Honestly, watching those two videos of Brand's excited rambling probably made more of a difference in my life overall than listening to some of those sermons did.

2. Majoring on our Minors


How could that be? Because I'm a worldly Christian who needs dubious celebrities to say things on TV or the internet before I believe them? Because I'm not willing to search for some applicable truth to my life in every sermon I hear, even the bad ones? As Paul wrote, "By no means!" Much of what Brand says are simply purported truths he's personally noticed about our world that are misunderstood or purposefully obscured. One reason his words in those videos resonated with many people is that much of what he claims to be true is truth that can be seen from the world, what we would call general revelation. To borrow Paul's words again, from Romans 1, evidence for God can be plainly seen in what has been created. Those who reject that evidence are given over to depravity and sentenced to live out the consequences of the delusion they preferred to the truth.

Brand has indeed indulged in depravity, admits he still does a variety of wrong things when he can't stop himself, and can speak with sincerity of what results from it. In recent years, he has sought the path of becoming "a better person," and now apparently seeks to encourage everyone to be better people as well. It's a sort of secular gospel, with some truths we would recognize as scriptural mixed in there here and there, with a lot of hindu-ish mysticism and Brand's own randomness mixed in. It does come across as an interesting breath of fresh air in the addled chaotic mess that a culture of "do as thou wilt" has led us to. But clearly, it's not the gospel of Christ that brings eternal life, not the message the Church is on earth to proclaim.

Conversely, when the Church lays aside its unique identity and blessings, loses sight of a gospel focus and tries to copy what the World already specializes in, it fails almost every time. That extends all the way to the pulpit. If you just want to pick a topic and give a good talk, there's someone in the world who has more natural talent and can do it better than you. A gifted agnostic speaker could no doubt pick a Biblical topic and give a better talk on it than many preachers "sharing" a message. Many would be edified, (earthly) lives would be changed, etc. That's the power of a good speaker.

So what does the church have that the most positive, talented, morally-upright (in content, if not in life) speakers and encouragers don't have? We have the special revelation of God about Himself and His promises, accurately in the words of scripture and perfectly in the person of Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to proclaim that revelation and live it out in this world. That's "all."

The Church instituted by Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth and make disciples of all nations until He comes has been equipped by God to do exactly that, and no one else can do it. So we preach Christ resurrected, and a hope placed not in this world but in its Creator. Or at least we should preach that.

Whenever we stop preaching it, whenever we start trying to make people better, or use man's wisdom to achieve God's results, or desperately long for recognition from Hollywood, the media, etc. to validate our way of life and thought, we fail.

What Russell Brand demonstrates is that general revelation, truth anyone can observe which ought to lead them to seek out God, is out there, and those in the world with the motivation and willingness to do so can perceive it, at certain times and in certain ways. This kind of general truth is never a bad topic, but if that's all we're preaching, we're not sharing much that Mr. Brand can't say too, probably more interestingly. We have more to offer: the words of eternal life.

3. Κήρυξον τὸν λόγον (Preach the Word)


So then, why do we keep trying to major on our minors? I don't even know. There are probably a hundred reasons, not least of which is the constant clamor of the world around us. We live in the "loudest" age there has ever been, with more distractions than have ever been, being bombarded constantly by more information than humans have ever had to endure. Eventually, it seems compelling. The problems with which we are confronted by the world seem compelling for the same reasons. That's an external factor.
 An internal factor is that a lot of pastors are tired. Regardless of whether or not they've ever been trained to dig deeply into scripture and present the fruits of that labor to their flocks in an effective and challenging way (globally, most have not), sometimes they simply have too much on their plates for one human being.

This could be their own fault, for not saying "no" when they should, but more often it's because a lot of Christians "delegate up," assuming many of the spiritual responsibilities of every believer are really the job of "professional Christians." (Of course Christians should try to do it more, but you have to do it, it's your job. Even as a fairly new missionary I've heard that line a time or two.)

I have good news for the church: God trusts you with the job too. There are no professional Christians, there are only professing Christians. Want to change the church overnight? Convince those sitting in rows on Sunday morning, or maybe even yourself, that church is not an event, it's us. We are the Church, and every believer is a priest; we are, as one of my Hebrew professors at seminary wrote, a Kingdom of Priests. Christ is our heavenly mediator, and we are His representatives on earth. There's no one else to give that job to; no one else is doing it if we aren't.

Of course, it's true pastors do have a sacred responsibility to proclaim the word. And a nice homily on showing gratitude or being kind to others is great, but it doesn't provide vital spiritual nourishment any more than a cookie does. We live in a wrecked world, infected with evil. Evil men are systematically rounding up and murdering Christians as you read this, both in Africa and in the Middle East. If the roots of our faith are not deep, the winds of adversity or attacks of temptation will simply knock us down. A topical message with a couple relevant verses simply won't cut it. Believers need the spiritual protein from the meat of the Word to build the necessary muscles, or we'll be weak Christians forever. And that's not the kind of weakness the Bible is talking about when it says "when we are weak, He is strong," it's more like the weakness of Proverbs 24:10: "If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small." We must Preach the Word.

So in conclusion, if our faith is weak, and our understanding of the Word is weak, we cannot boldly proclaim Christ to the world. We won't even see why we should, let alone be willing to risk loss and embarrassment for it. Maybe we'll retreat to nice-sounding messages with "enough Bible" to be legitimate. Maybe we'll even retreat to "positive, morally-uplifting" messages that lack scriptural foundation altogether. At that point we're no more helpful than Mr. Brand; we've left our spiritual inheritance, and wandered into the domain where he speaks with more authority to many than we. How embarrassing would that be?

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Chinese Religion, and the Excluded Middle

1. Intro - How we explain the World


Hello, tonight I'm writing about a topic that has been the source of much misunderstanding and miscommunication between Westerners (especially missionaries or those whose work involves them with Eastern religion one way or another). It's called the "Excluded Middle." (For those interested in more reading on this topic, here's a link to an essay by the late missiologist/anthropologist Paul Hiebert, to whom credit for the concept of the excluded middle is typically attributed.)

In the West, we have a more or less binary view of the universe/all-that-is:

Blue: Unseen/Supernatural world, dealt with solely in a religious context.
Green: Seen/Natural world, dealt with by science, etc. (Light Green: Mysterious, but not religious)

Notes:

1. I'm talking about 2015
It was not always so in the West; pre-christian/pagan Europe would have looked a lot more like the Chinese Religion chart we're covering later. Up until modern science, the light green area would have included things like alchemy.

2. This is the West as a Whole
I've drawn the blue section that small to demonstrate how for much of the modern-day West, religion is considered extraneous to normal everyday life. Those of us who grew up in the Bible belt sometimes don't realize how secular most of the West is. By the same token, yes there are a few westerners running around who espouse hinduism or some other non-western-origin worldview. But they'd probably be the first to tell you what a non-typical-westerner they are, so we don't need to consider that kind of outlier here.

3. This is Showing how We Explain Reality
As believers we know God is not separate from His creation, nor is He uninvolved in our day to day lives. However, this chart is referring to how we explain the world around us, not our teleology. (The "how," not the "why.") When you encounter repeated car trouble, you may pray about it and wonder what God is teaching you through it, and you may try going to a different auto mechanic, but you do not blame it on your deceased Uncle Joe who's angry you didn't put flowers on his grave this year, or a rival at work secretly stealing some of your hair and attacking you with voodoo.

4. Most People Do Leave Room for the Mysterious
I've included a little band for the "unexplained," those mysterious phenomenon which lots of people find fun to think about and talk about. Go out far enough into the American countryside to encounter folk culture, and this gap widens considerably. I did this to show that really in the West we have our own category here, the big difference is that we draw a firm line (represented by the thicker black line) between that kind of thing and anything religious. If, in certain churches, as I mentioned in a previous post, you start getting blurry lines there (believing in God but also carrying "lucky" tokens, putting a cross over your door not just as a sign of faith but also to keep "evil" out, etc.) then you are descending from orthodox doctrines into the slippery slope of folk theology, which typically leads towards an increasingly fear-based way of thinking with less and less resemblance to orthodox, scripturally-based faith.

So that's the West, in general. But in strict Modernism, and today for both atheists and the "science replaces god" people, you have the most simplistic possible view of the universe:

I could reduce it even further by simply writing "Synapses firing to no purpose."


Looking at this chart, perhaps it becomes apparent why it's so difficult to have conversations about the existence of God with those who hold to this way of thinking. To them, there is only the dark green part steadily filling up the light green part, no need for any blue at all. They must have life experiences or realizations of some kind that totally shatter this too-narrow illusion of reality to open up to the idea of a supernatural world, otherwise they simply ascribe anything "weird" to that buffer category as one more thing science will eventually explain. (This is what I call the "Science of the gaps" theory)

2. Chinese Religion - A Different View of the World


So that's "The West." When approaching "The East," a lot of Western people expect some mystery, some things that operate according to different rules than they're used to. Asia is that place where odd, inexplicable things can happen. However, and this is important, for westerners all those inexplicable things typically go into the "Mystery" category that is not religious and not really supernatural. Though it's not politically correct now, you've perhaps heard or read about various tribal/traditional religions described in older literature as "superstition," "mumbo-jumbo," and similar deprecating terms. The implication is that they aren't based in any kind of reality, that between the scientifically explainable world (creation, for believers) and God in heaven there is no "middle world" that civilized, educated humans need take into account.

Outside of many churches we might describe as charismatic, even Bible-believing Christians are usually very hesitant (in the West) to ascribe anything they observe to those kinds of spiritual forces the Bible clearly teaches exist, let alone those on which it does not comment.

Contrast this with how a typical Taiwanese person might view the world:

So here you can see, the world for a Taiwanese believer in traditional religion is a much more complicated place. The majority of Taiwanese would look at the world in this way to a certain extent, even if they do so by rejecting parts of it. ("I don't really believe ancestral spirits come into our world and bother people" is a statement only someone raised in and recognizing this worldview can make; a Christian Westerner does not believe that either, but they wouldn't ever say it because the question itself does not exist for them.)

Note the "Gates." In a folk/traditional religious world view, there are portals of various kinds between this world and the unseen/spirit world. Some of these may simply be natural objects of significance- a notable boulder, an impressive tree- that are "linked" to the unseen world (thinking of them as having spirit-wifi access might be a good analogy), as certain kinds of animals are considered to be as well (especially the "tricky" ones, like foxes). In Chinese traditional religion, however, there are "higher" portals or gates between this world and the spirit world that are open at various times or in various ways. One very notable example is during Ghost Month, when the gates of hell are said to open to let spirits of various kinds come into our world and potentially trouble the living in various harmful ways. (There is a long list of activities deemed "risky" during this time due to possible attack or negative influence from the spirits)

In the West, we might think of something like an Ouija board as a similar kind of "portal," and often Christians who lack a robust understanding of "spiritual warfare" -really just the wider reality the Bible clearly teaches that we live in- will instinctively revert to a very folk religious way of thinking when confronted with the occult. That might be the easiest way to visualize Taiwanese traditional religion for a Westerner, however- imagine if you lived in fear of the occult every day, and your culture lacked a "highest God" who could hear your prayers and who cared about you. Your only option would be to invoke what powers you knew of to protect yourself. Throw in the very strong mandate regarding ancestor worship, and that's basically how religion works in Taiwan.

Notes for the Chart:

1. This is a general attempt at contrast, not a highly accurate parsing of Chinese belief
It would require a hugely complicated chart to even begin to explain a vanilla version of the world according to Chinese folk religion, and to some extent it would be impossible because many people embrace multiple conflicting belief systems, feeling logic is inadequate to deal with the divine and it's better to be safe than sorry if one turns out to be true. This is a rough sketch, and if you want to find fault with it, it would be easy to do so. (If you feel I've really made a basic error, please leave me a comment and explain how so.)

2. "Grey Areas"
Another Western thing to do is place things in clearly divided categories. Things like Qi/Chinese medicine (somewhat related topics) and even business profit are not purely natural, scientifically explicable phenomenon, but are connected to the invisible/intangible and spirit worlds. More on this later...

3. I'm not clear on the Chinese pantheon, but few are, even adherents
What I have observed is that few people try to grasp the recognized hierarchy of gods and approach them accordingly. People in different walks of life and from different families and ethnic backgrounds worship different collections of big and small gods. There are gods associated with certain places/areas (The city of Taipei has a patron god, for example, every patch of rice fields has a little earth god shrine, and some say every house has a little spirit), gods associated with certain trades (the sea goddess Matsu, very important in Taiwan, is connected to anything that has to do with the ocean, like fishing, and much more besides), and gods associated with certain roles. (Guanyu is a warrior god of justice and protection, worshiped variously by those who wish for protection for their business, and by both police and triads/gangs)

4. Chinese "Heaven" is hard to explain
In Chinese thought, the idea of 天 (Tian, "heaven," but that's a misleading translation, it's not a place people go after death) is more like the divine order which maintains the universe, decides justice, decrees fate, and is over all things. Apparently Tian varied and still varies between being thought of more like a highest God (getting close to a transcendent monotheistic God, which some claim it originally represented), and more like an impersonal divine force, depending on the time period and the variety of Chinese religious thought/philosophy. "God's in His heaven, all's right with the world," might be getting a little bit closer to the idea for Westerners, if you imagine that the terms God and Heaven were identified closely enough to be interchangeable. But this all gets confusing because at the same time there's the diverse pantheon of gods, as mentioned above.
How those gods and Tian divide up responsibility for governing the affairs of men (not even to mention various Chinese flavors of Buddhism with Buddha/manifold Buddhas being present as well, alongside Chinese traditional religion) is far beyond the scope of this post, but I think I'm not entirely wrong in say it's rather like a Roman Catholic idea of the Saints and Archangels and Mary doing a lot of the helping, protecting, and blessing for individual people, while God can of course also be prayed to directly, but is farther away and less accessible, ruling and sustaining all, and taking care of managing the big picture. (I hope I have not falsely represented Roman Catholicism by that description, but that's quite orthodox compared to what I observed in Mexico...)

 3. The Excluded Middle


Now think of the conflict in worldviews we have. On the one hand, you have science handling the task of explaining anything we can reliably observe and a transcendent Christian God who cares about and engages in the affairs of men, and on the other hand you have a whole "middle world" of spirits and the spirit world which plays an intimate role in the affairs of men, with a Creator or Highest God far off and not practically involved. The Western worldview, based partially on the revelation of scripture itself but also on other secular factors, simply discards the "hidden" reality of this world and also any "lower" divine realm altogether. Most of the rest of the world does not. Sharing the gospel effectively in a traditional/folk religious culture may require understanding this fact.

Given this view of reality, by way of analogy, a "vanilla" western approach to sharing the gospel to a traditional religious adherent might sound similar to one janitor at an overseas Microsoft office telling another janitor to call Bill Gates and ask for a promotion (in a culture that doesn't reward such audacity). You are telling someone who believes in a whole tiered hierarchical system in which even dead relatives must be appeased and in which the gods, if they be willing, provide assistance purely on a transactional basis (worship and sacrifice, in exchange for blessings or protection), that the God higher than the entire hierarchy wants to have a personal relationship with him. If the Holy Spirit has not already been preparing their heart, it may take some time for them to wrap their head around that notion. They will be more interested in knowing whether your God is more generous or powerful than their current gods, what kind of benefits He's offering in exchange for their loyalty. (Thus, sadly, the prosperity gospel is rampant and popular in Taiwan. In one sense, it's simply monotheistic idolatry)

Western missionaries are often put into a difficult position, therefore, of being asked to explain how Christianity as a belief system handles situations which we have never previously acknowledged as existing in the world. And sometimes it can be unnerving. Exorcisms are already shaky ground for most of us, but at least any Biblically-literate Christian knows they were happening in the New Testament, though their life in the West is not likely to have provided them with experience in that sort of thing. But what happens when entirely alien scenarios unfold? "How will your God protect me from ancestral spirits bringing bad fortune to my business if I don't set out the spirit offering tables?" is probably not a question for which most American pastors have a quick answer. The knowledge does not fall into one's head the moment one lands in one's ministry field, I can tell you that much for sure.

Thus, the default quick answer, very often, is "I have good news: there are no: [ancestral spirits, gods, evil spirits, curses, etc...] who can harm you, because they don't exist." (Or worse, "because the Bible says they don't exist.")

"Ok, now let's figure out a culturally relevant way to share the gospel."


Even if it's true that no spirits of the dead are roaming around the town waiting to inflict misfortune on those whose rice offering is too scanty, this reply does little for the inquirer. That's because he wasn't asking you about his world, he was asking you about your God. If the question is whether God can and will protect him when he needs protection, the answer is yes, God can and will do that according to His will, and no spirit- evil, ancestral, or any other possible kind of spirit- is outside the will of God. Teach him to read the Bible for himself and he can decide whether his cultural opinions regarding the afterlife are reconcilable with Scripture. And it's likely he'll do a much better job of explaining the gospel inside his culture, having accepted it inside his culture, than you would. Taiwan is full of Christians who never understood the gospel until they lived in the West. There the gospel made sense, but returning to Taiwan, they find it difficult to share with people not similarly familiar with western ways of thinking. There are many reasons for that, not only the one we're talking about here. But it seems something must be done to share the gospel inside Taiwan's traditional culture that seemingly has not yet been done.

4. Then, What?



Must we avoid syncretism? Yes we certainly must. I am not advocating in any shape, form, or fashion blending Biblical truth with traditional beliefs or confusing the two. But we can recognize that everyone comes to Christ from where they are, not from where we are. A step towards Christ from within Chinese traditional religion, or any local religion or different world religion, will not necessarily look like a step towards Christ from within your own background.

As I shared in a previous entry, everyone comes to Christ within their own cultural context. So if we want to take the gospel across cultural divides, we have to go to them not only geographically, but step inside their context and point the most direct path to the Kingdom we can, not one that snakes back away through our own cultural context beforehand.

This is just the basic idea, there are vast arrays of subcultures from which people believe on Christ

If we need for a local person to be educated regarding our Western worldview so that we know how to share Christ with them, we'll never really take Christ into that culture, only take people out of it. We have to continuously point them to Christ from wherever they currently are, even if that means their walk towards Christ looks much different from what we saw in our home culture

That's much more challenging than just translating our favorite gospel presentation into their language. But we have the Holy Spirit, and we have discernment, we have Christ Himself and His life in us, we have special revelation in Scripture which can keep us in the right path if we keep it in heart and in mind, and we have a calling from God to reach every culture with the gospel. That's sanction enough to figure out a few things along the way.

I increasingly feel our job is not to educate, but to introduce.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego at Hogwarts

In a previous post I mentioned I would next deal with the topic of metanarratives. That's coming down the pipe, but first I want to deal with a subject that came up in that entry as well, that of the recognized tendency for young people to abandon or at least set aside their faith in college. There are lots of ideas about why this happens; today's entry is based on my observations working with various church youth groups, focusing more on those whose situation lets them go to good colleges and face the World's temptations of prosperity and success, as three young men did in the book of Daniel.

1. Why the Names?


Three young Hebrew men, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were prisoners of war after a powerful empire invaded their small country, which was weakened after years of poor leadership and had all but totally forsaken the God who had delivered them so many times in the past. This time, He spoke through His prophets to announce the day of Jerusalem's fall was coming certainly, so much so that his people should go along with it, and make lives for themselves in the lands to which they were deported, for it was God Himself who granted success to their enemies and they would not quickly be returning to Israel, though someday they would.

This Babylonian empire was ruled not by a moustache-twisting villain or fearsome lord of darkness but a powerful, vain, and capable leader, who considered himself the hero of this story. (he learned better years later, eating grass in the field) Pragmatically, he sought to both remove the ruling class from the Hebrew people and also bring the best of them into his own service.

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (along with Daniel) were found to be far superior to those already in the King's service, and were quickly drafted to join his team. It's hard to imagine what was going through their minds as they agreed to serve the king who had attacked their country and deported their people, but it seems clear they sought ways to honor God in the midst of this radically different environment and situation. They are our success stories; they succeeded at being in The World but not of it.


But before they got their high profile government jobs, they had to complete their Babylonian education. This began in an interesting way. The first chapter of Daniel tells us that the young men were given new names.

Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

You may have studied Daniel at some point and know the meaning of these names, honoring Babylonian deities to demonstrate where their new loyalties were supposed to lie. But I think there's another way to look at it. Giving them new names as they enter the Babylonian royal school of magic is basically saying this:
"You're a wizard, Harry!" *cue the theme music*




"You're sure you won't eat the rich food from the king's table? Ah well, more for me."


2. Life in Hogwarts and what comes after...


"Your old life is behind you." "Maybe you had it easy back in Israel, not anymore." "The rest of your lives are ahead of you." "Welcome to Babylon, kiddies, the new capitol of the world." "This education is the key to your future success." "You're lucky to have this opportunity." "You're a long way from home, kids, you're going to make your own choices now." "Study hard if you want to make it here." "Ace this stuff, and Babylon's your oyster." "Here's a little taste of what might be in store:" (And a dramatic feast from the king's own table is unveiled. Intimidating music plays, and representatives from the royal magicians and astrologers are putting on an impressive little show)

I don't know if that's exactly what it was like for the young men, described in the book of Daniel as Israel's best and brightest, as they were placed under the court overseer who gave them the new names. But if so, I'm guessing most kids didn't stand a chance. And don't today. This is what heading to college is like for smart and talented kids. The world unfolds for them, with all the temptations and distractions it has perfected over the centuries. You put on the Sorting Hat, and it says "Anesthesiologist," "Bioengineer," "Fortune 500 CEO," "Future 'it' fashion designer" (or maybe:) "Slacker who somehow always does ok," "Stressed out math teacher," "Peace corp trust fund baby," "It's ok, the army will straighten you out," or the inevitable "Ah, now this kid is Going Places."

Of course, by the end of college and as the job search starts many of them will know just how tiny a slice of that world is actually available to them, but by then many of them will have made mistakes and spent years doing things that make them embarrassed to return to God or the church.

3. The Beautiful Lie


For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. (1 John 2:16)




And beautiful it certainly can be...

The world has a thousand false narratives, and for middle-to-upper class American kids headed off to college, it might be recognizable: "What happens here stays here. Have as much fun as you can because after this it's nose-to-the-grindstone time, to see if you can cut it in the working world." A kaleidoscope of semester projects and crazy parties and staying up all night to drive to the beach to get drunk and high and then watching the sunrise and feeling 100% alive, having all the sex you safely can while you're young and at the peak of attractiveness, drinking in life deeply before packing away all the happy memories, saying goodbye to the birthplace of your nascent adulthood, and putting on the suit and doing what grownups do, according to the world's definition, working your butt off and getting the corner office, the killer ride in the company parking spot, finding a wife/husband and having a couple of kids, smiling sadly at a few more wrinkles in the mirror and reflecting nostalgically when you bump into old friends on what a crazy trip life is. There are dozens of variations on this, of course, but you get the idea.

It feels like a life lived well, beautiful in its own way, full of fun and drama and pathos and hard work and quiet satisfaction, and seems entirely complete without the gospel in there anywhere. (and for those who do try to wedge the gospel in there somewhere too, it will seem mysteriously extraneous and hard to relate to, less meaningful than those rich life experiences) The World can fulfill you physically, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, pretty much any way except spiritually, and it can do a decent job of pretending to do that too. "Religion" is not dangerous at all in this scenario. A bit of a spiritual experience on an Easter Sunday in the unfamiliar setting of a church or some sober reflection on life at a funeral is good for the soul, no doubt. A good way to round out life, not missing the deeper things, so long as one doesn't go overboard, of course. Can't become a fanatic and start giving up fun stuff and make the rest of us feel awkward.


After all that, the idea of actually devoting one's life to God, whatever it sounded like in youth group, comes across either as a nice fairy tale story, a beautiful dream of innocent childhood you left behind when you entered the real world, or perhaps as a noble and deep calling, for those saintly people who can hear a heavenly voice the rest of us can't, the monks and mystics who enrich life in their odd way and might have a bit of unearthly wisdom for those who are down on their luck or failing at life.

As Christians we're not allowed to refrain from showing God's love to someone just because their mistakes are observably their own fault. It's tempting, when they're not sorry but rather proud of them, but still wrong. The spell of confusion the world casts is the lie that when truth is in your mind you should listen to your heart's excuses ("It can't be wrong when it feels so right"), and when truth is in your heart you should listen to your mind's excuses ("Life's tough; I had no choice"), and after you've made the mistakes, to accept the world's consolation that your troubles are someone else's fault, and "making it" through life's struggles is not the default state of all human beings, but is somehow a noble calling, "far more so than those hypocrites in church could understand." So many will say- "Church is for good people, I'm just trying to get by, I figure God will understand." -and actually mean that they want the comfort they feel is within their grasp and not God. (George Muller kept an orphanage open solely through prayer and faith, so God is quite able to help you "get by" and far beyond that. But there are wrong excuses we are culturally conditioned to accept, especially when offered with humility.)

So the idea that living a life ignoring God and dealing with the consequences of your sin on your own is a struggle more "real" or authentic somehow than seeking your Creator doesn't actually make sense if you parse it out, but ingest enough of the world's propaganda and it can seem and feel very true. It's what the world is good at.



4. Is There a Solution?


I write to you, dear children,
    because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers,
    because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
    because you are strong,
    and the word of God lives in you,
    and you have overcome the evil one.
(1 John 2:14)

Yes. Lots of kids are going to college and coming out young adults strong in their faith and ready to serve God and live their lives according to His word, in whatever career they choose. How does this happen?

Students' faith is between them and God, and nothing can be done for them in that regard. But we can help, and indeed that is our responsibility, to prepare them. Let's look to our 3 heroes as an example. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego endured by being prepared in several ways:

A. Able to apply their faith and knowledge of the truth to an unfamiliar situation.
Though suddenly in Babylon, faced with situations they'd never encountered before, they knew the truths they learned were universal, and how to apply them to meet new temptations and challenges.

B. Banding together for support
We can't know for sure, but I suspect if there was only Shadrach, only Abednego, it would have been a much more difficult struggle. Would the overseer have permitted a lone boy to resist the command, where he permitted four (including Daniel) together? And in the story of the fiery furnace, the three could stand together and give a response to the king as one.

C. They were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their faith
Although they were surprisingly willing and able to adjust on cultural issues, when it came to honoring God, they were willing to die (again, together) rather than dishonor Him.

Now let's quickly look at how these apply to today's students:



A. Applying faith and God's truth to unfamiliar situations

 One word: discernment. If your Christian life as a student was a list of do's and don'ts, it won't survive the college transition, and you'll be left to muddle through on your own. My life was a bit along these lines, and although I didn't do the wrong things that are quite normal in college, it was a less fun and memorable experience than it could legitimately have been because I was very worried about doing something wrong. I don't believe this will be the problem for most students, rather the opposite. They'll find themselves doing things they definitely know are wrong after a chain of decisions they'd never had to face before. ("Whoa, how did I end up here? Well, no going back now...")

I'm not a parent, but I've been a kid and grown up. If kids, as they mature, are allowed the opportunity to make less damaging wrong decisions, they will have much better discernment by the time they're ready to head off to college. Try to remove all opportunities for wrong-doing is both fighting a losing battle (the sin nature is defeated in Christ but the sanctification process is a long one), and not preparing them to succeed when suddenly plunged into a multitude of opportunities for fun wrong-doing.

B. Standing Together, Growing Together



It takes more than once a year... though Passion was pretty great.
I mentioned in that previous post I mentioned at the beginning, the greatest factor I've seen in kids staying and growing in the faith while in college is getting plugged into active and solid christian fellowship groups on campus. The Christian life was meant to be lived in fellowship with other believers, and most students crave and need fellowship like oxygen. (I was both introverted and still figuring things out socially, but I enjoyed pretty much all the Christian groups I was involved with during college.) Also, practically speaking, they provide fun things to do that are often actually fun, and a real alternative to "let's play drinking games and strip poker because no parents are around to stop us anymore."

College is the time when a lot of kids find out what kind of adults they're going to be. It sets the stage for the whole rest of their life in some ways, and certainly the next phase of their life. That time needs to be spent in fellowship with other Christian students going through the same process. So for a Christian parent who wants to do the best to help their child grow and not lapse in their faith during college, I strongly advise you to steer (or send, depending on how traditional your parenting style is) your children to colleges that have strong Christian fellowships. Of course, they still have to choose to attend them. Which leads me to the last point:

C. Deep Conviction

(Note: Above I used the wording "prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice" and not "prepared to die" both a) in the exaggerated sense, as there are things students think they would rather die than do (death may seem like the easy way out when one has to forsake one's social group and be ridiculed by them in order to make a stand for God), and b) sadly in the literal sense, since for the many students silently suffering from extreme depression (I was one), the ultimate sacrifice for God may sometimes be the decision to keep living.)

It saddens me to say it, but it's very obvious to those of us who are or have been youth counselors: A lot of youth group kids aren't believers, even some of the ones whom the rest of the church (and their parents) assumes to be. Yes, they said the right things, yes they were baptized, but they don't have a vital and saving relationship with God through faith in Christ. Maybe they felt pressured, maybe they were impressionable as young kids but didn't really understand what they were doing, there are lots of different situations. I know it's soul-wrenching. Sometimes the more loving parents are desperate to know their child has accepted Christ, the more they push the child to make a declaration of having done so when it's not true. (It happens a lot in Taiwanese churches too, where parents often have more say in their children's lives even into adulthood) 

But some kids are bored to tears in youth group, aren't buying most of it, and are out the minute they get a car or have any other options. (One kid I knew was quite straightforward. "I don't really care about all this stuff. I want to make tons of money and live the good life." The sentiment is not uncommon, only the honesty) Other kids are the type to meet whatever expectations are placed on them, and so they'll play the youth group game as long as necessary, and seem genuine, but when college comes with a new and very different set of expectations, and friends, they'll morph into someone who matches those instead.

You can't give a child, or anyone else, deep conviction, any more than you can give them a patient heart or give them experience in resisting their own temptations. It's something that happens between them and God. But you can model it for them. Let them see that your life is a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, and that your relationship to God is loving and not legalistic. (Quoting angry scripture at them whenever they do anything wrong, for example, is not the kind of admonishment that leads them to love God's word. But neither is letting them do whatever they want and calling that love.) 

If children, or students, or maybe adults too, see that you are patient in suffering, joyful in affliction, hopeful in chaos, that you have something the World can't offer, then that example is something they can take out into the World as an alternative to what they typically see there. When the World presents them with bad choice A and worse choice B, they'll know a third choice exists.


5. Conclusion

 

So, when the new Christian student arrives at Hogwarts, and the World seems to be laid at their feet, and they are encouraged to abandon muggle religion and join the rarified air of the famous wizards-who-know-better or at least take the respectable road of a life spent in the rat race without looking up until retirement, the decision is up to the student. No parent, older sibling, role model, caretaker, youth counselor, pastor, etc. can make it for them. But they can go in with the preparation of discernment, the support of fellow believers, and the conviction that has been modeled for them by those who had the chance.

If we have prepared them well, we can stand back, pray, and trust God. Some will still make foolish choices, some cannot learn from warnings, only through the consequences of their mistakes, but God knows how to deal with His own. The greater danger is letting them go off to Hogwarts never having seen genuine faith modeled by those closest to them.


"The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."

Thursday, January 29, 2015

The China-Taiwan Situation: An Alternate-History American Version

I almost never post on Taiwanese politics, and I'm not going to make a habit of it. Picture the emotional involvement of an issue in the US like abortion, and then apply it to something as deeply felt as your personal and national identity.

As someone who didn't grow up here, increasingly I feel like I want to support my Taiwanese friends but by wading into the fray would only compromise my ability to serve. I also have a lot of friends in Texas who are from China (and a few in China too), and I know they see things differently. That's the tough part. It's not that we see the same thing and argue about it, everyone sees it differently. The argument is that you're seeing it wrong. The best one can hope to do as an outsider is ask questions and try to piece together what the historical and political context actually looks like. One problem is that even the words you use to describe the situation demonstrate how you feel about it. It's hard or impossible to find neutral vocabulary.
 I've noticed people's eyes tend to glaze over when I try to explain the complicated relationship between Taiwan and China, because there's no way to do it without going back and explaining history. I am going to try an analogy which uses a sort of alternate American history, which might help people get a better handle on the situation, if they have any wish to do so. It's long, but the familiar names and geographical nearness might help people picture the relationships better, and take away the associations we make with the actual countries involved. Those familiar with the issue might even find it amusing.

A final note: I am not trying to imply anything by my selection of which country to represent which country, except a very rough geographical parallel if you flip East Asia and rotate it 90 degrees. Also, the Soviet Union represents itself, there wasn't another good choice for the historical/geographic context.

So, then, imagine if...

See how quickly you can guess which country represents which...


...After the forces of the British Monarchy were defeated in America, there were just the Articles of Confederation, and no one got around to a Constitution so quickly. The United States was very much a collection of various states and not so much a unified country, and states and regional alliances scuffled with each other, though order was slowly being established.

Let us then say that Mexico had, previously, decided that rather than be a colony of Spain or anyone else they wanted to be a Power too, and went through a surprisingly rapid period of modernization, reaching WWI levels of technology while the various American States still retained the Jeffersonian ideal of "keeping the factories in Europe" and maintained a traditionally conservative agrarian society. The north/south cultural differences still applied, but did not lead to a north/south Civil War, and America was considered to have two capitols, the southern capitol of Atlanta, and the northern one of New York City.

Now Mexico, on dubious grounds, announced that the newly developing state of Texas could not be considered part of the United States, and occupied it as part of the Mexican Empire, which also spanned across the Caribbean and included French Louisiana, as the result of a previous clash with the British Empire in America. (England lost badly, contributing to its overthrow and the establishment of the new democratic government in America.)

Meanwhile as in real history, labor union activists and crypto-anarchists formed a movement from within which various leaders rose to power. One, we'll call him Boss Moe, was particularly revered and ended up as both the symbolic and real leader of the whole movement. This uprising happened across a wide swath of the country, and the activists were influential in various places and controlled some state and city governments. In the Southern capitol of Atlanta, however, a national constitution was being drafted, and it was decided that the weakly-linked states should become a united country.

The constitution called for a government with a legislature and president. George Washington, being a respected statesman who had fought in the revolutionary war against England was chosen. He was popular both with Constitutionalists and the Labor activists, who called themselves Communists, but with the delay between the revolution and establishing a constitution was quite old. After his passing, the new president -we'll call him Sean Cachét- was a strong supporter of the new constitutional government and also strongly opposed to the Communists. He launched a campaign to bring the states into a stronger union, and also began to lead the Constitutionalists in a fight against the Communists, resulting in a civil war.

It was at this time that the Mexican Empire invaded the United States, using its more advanced army to push from Texas across the South to take the Southern Capitol of Atlanta in a bloody battle, then subjecting the city to widespread pillaging and atrocities. Sean Cachet and Boss Moe signed a temporary truce in order to fight their mutual foe, but both knew their fight would resume if Mexico was ever defeated.

Gradually during this time Europe had been consumed in a massive war, and their various colonies and allies were affected. Brazil, having broken free of Portuguese rule long ago, was an economic powerhouse, and had succeeded in taking over nearly all of the South American continent. Worried that Brazil might try to interfere with its plans in the Caribbean, Mexico launched a surprise attack on a major Brazilian navy base on Trinidad, destroying a good portion of its Caribbean Navy. Brazil declared war on the Mexican Empire, and eventually defeated it totally, having intervened successfully in the European War as well.

It was decided after the war that the areas taken over by the Mexican Empire should be restored to the nations to which they originally belonged. One area of confusion was Cuba, which had previously been part of the British Empire in America but had already been part of the Mexican Empire during the Revolutionary war and subsequent rise of the US government. Though Brazil debated the idea of retaining control of Cuba, as it had Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, it was decided after some discussion that having originally been part of America, giving it to the new constitutionally-established United States of America which currently governed America made the most sense.

Shortly after the war ended, as expected, the fight between the Constitutionally-elected government of the US led by Sean Cachet and the Communist movement under Boss Moe resumed. Eventually, through the leadership of Moe, a lot of grassroots support, and some risky strategic moves that paid off, the Communists got the upper hand. The Constitutional government was pushed back, eventually moving their base of operations from the Capitol in Atlanta off the mainland to Havana, Cuba.

Cuba was now an interesting place. The original inhabitants were fierce Caribbean tribes, many with a tradition of headhunting, who over time had largely been displaced from the coastal areas by early American settlers, mostly from Florida. Those living in the mountains had resisted the Mexican occupiers so strongly that they were mostly annihilated, though their deeds resulted in a change of policy in the Mexican Empire to treat local populations less severely to prevent similar uprisings. Mexico had also built up the first real infrastructure in Cuba, however, establishing roads and bridges and schools and plantations. Many Floridians living in Cuba spoke Mexican Spanish, some thought of themselves as citizens of the Mexican Empire, and most had begun to take the benefits of Mexico's advanced levels of technology and civilization for granted.

Some prominent Cubans had tried to declare independence for Cuba after the war ended, setting up their own local government, but with the arrival of Sean Cachet's troops to establish control of the island, most vanished mysteriously. Many Cubans with roots in Florida and other parts of America were initially excited to be part of America again, but were disappointed by the harshness with which they were treated by the incoming troops, many of whom came from remote parts of the USA and were unfamiliar with the customs and more modernized society to which Cubans had grown accustomed. Cubans were increasingly upset to find they were treated not as long-lost Americans being returned to the fold, but as a colony that was merely another piece in the struggle for the American mainland.

After some violent incidents which led to uprisings among Cubans, martial law was established, as Sean Cachet and the defeated Constitutionalists were forced from the mainland entirely and retreated to Cuba, bringing with them American symbolic artifacts like the Liberty Bell, to preserve the American government and plan their next steps. Boss Moe and the Communists, wishing to finish off their foe entirely, planned to launch an attack from the Florida Keys, but the Constitutionalists fought them off and retained control of several of the Keys. Meanwhile Cubans were treated with suspicion by the USA Government based in Havana, and numerous searches for Communist sympathizers were held. The local Cuban Spanish was banned from public use, and children were taught American history, with Cuban history suppressed or altered. At the same time, economic and land reforms took place which laid the ground for decades of prosperity. Former tenant farmers were given their land, with much extra labor going into industrialization, which was modernized with the help of the basic infrastructure Mexico had already put in, and considerable post-war aid from Brazil.

As time went on, though the USA maintained for years that an offensive would be launched from Cuba to retake the American mainland, it became obvious this was not possible. Moe consolidated Communist control of America, moved the new Red Capitol up to the old northern capitol of New York City, and declared the foundation of the PUSA, the People's United States of America. Moe continued to rule until he died, exalted by Americans as the father of the New America, despite having initiated flawed economic reforms based on communist ideology that caused a massive famine and the deaths of tens of millions of Americans. His successors, praising him as their spiritual example, nevertheless pursued a more pragmatic course, and America's economy soon began to develop.

Brazil, staunchly anti-Communist, still recognized the USA as the legitimate government of America and provided some level of support, though this was made more difficult by the fact that USA rule in Cuba was not democratic, and the government continued to detain and execute Cubans accused of Communist sympathies. Most non-Communist nations, followed Brazil in continuing to recognize the USA as the legitimate government of America, but as time went on and it became clear that the PUSA was the new permanent government of America, some began to recognize it.

The USA government, permanently exiled in Cuba, berated those who would choose to side with Communists over them, but eventually even Brazil changed over, recognizing the PUSA as the government of America. In doing so, however, it also committed to protect the USA from Communist aggression. With Brazil as the Caribbean Superpower, the PUSA therefore could do nothing against the USA at this point, though it demanded that Cuba be "reunified" with the rest of America, a complex claim considering that while Cuba had been considered part of its American Empire by Britain, it had at no point been part of either the USA or the PUSA. The PUSA's claim was that, being now synonymous with America, the USA must be an illegitimate government, a renegade province, and what had once been considered part of America ought to be returned to it. Hundreds of millions of Americans, having grown up hearing no other opinion and patriotic to their country, said the same.

Brazil's situation was complicated. On the one hand, geopolitical pragmatism dictated that the PUSA -now considered synonymous with America and usually simply referred to as America- Communist or not, with its massive population and rising economy would be a major player on the world stage in the days to come. On the other hand, with the Cold War going on between the Free world and Communism, Brazil's citizens and congress strongly supported the US, as an ally against Communism in the Caribbean and also a nation that was at least nominally a Constitutional and democratic government like itself. This led to Brazil not conducting official nation-to-nation diplomacy but doing quite a bit of nonofficial business on an ongoing basis, including selling advanced Brazilian weapons to the USA to help deter the PUSA from trying a forceful annexation. Meanwhile it assured the PUSA that it considered there to be only one America, not two.

After a ruined Mexico accepted the terms of complete surrender demanded by Brazil, Brazil turned around to rebuild Mexico, where it maintains military bases to this day. Also to this day, Mexico is vilified by the PUSA and hated by many in America, for the memory of the destruction wrought in the invasion and the cruelty of the occupation and atrocities committed in places like Atlanta. This stands in noticeable contrast to Cubans, who have a more ambivalent view as they mostly don't consider the Mexican occupation to have been any more damaging to their island than the American one that followed, and Mexican media and culture remain influential and popular in Cuba.

In Cuba, Sean Cachet had passed away and his son who succeeded him as president-for-life had eventually allowed increased liberties among Cubans. When his son in turned passed away, the first free election in Cuba was held, and the first native-born USA president of Cuba, Lee Dunway, began his term. It was then that the idea of a nation of Cuba began to be revived, decades after having been crushed with the arrival of the USA after the defeat of Mexico. At the time, the USA government recognized no such idea, as it regarded Cuba as merely one of the provincial territories of America to which circumstances had restricted it. This claim extended to all former parts of America, including even Alaska which had since become its own nation, nestled uneasily between the powers of the PUSA and Soviet Russia.

USA citizens were divided on the question of their identity as well. Asking someone who lived in Cuba whether they were American, some, especially those who came to Cuba with the US relocation, would say "of course, we're all American." Others, especially those who traced their lineage back to the Floridians who came before the Mexican colonization, would likely reply. "Of course not, my family have lived in Cuba for ages, I know nothing of America, I am Cuban," and might even react to being called American with anger, thinking of the USA treatment of native Cubans. But with Lee Dunway as US president, Cuba entered a new era, and something like a Cuban identity began to emerge. Slowly people began to use the terms USA and Cuba interchangeably.

On the American mainland, the lure of America's vast market had attracted much foreign investment, and a modernizing economy allowed America to strengthen and modernize its armed forces as well. "Returning Cuba to America" remained a major military goal. The Florida Straits had always been a barrier to this, since the USA's Brazilian and domestic weapons advantage made invading across the strait a very difficult and costly exercise. But in the years that followed, as following the fall of the Soviet Union Brazil enjoyed sole world superpower status, America began to close the gap.

A gap still remained, however, as proven when America launched missiles into the Florida strait to convey its displeasure of Lee Dunway's pro-Cuba policy as he sought reelection (an election they sought to influence even as they didn't recognize it). In response, Brazil, who had previously not permitted Dunway to enter the country, sent aircraft carriers to the Florida Strait, a clear message that they intended to enforce their policy of preserving the status quo. As a result America pulled back, but made a strong bid to increase its power in the Florida Strait so that foreign intervention in its own coastal waters would be impossible in the future. It also continued to buy off the few nations which still recognized the USA as the government of America, providing economic incentives for them to swap to recognizing the PUSA instead. It also used its growing influence and seat on the permanent UN security council to ban the USA from participating in various global organizations and pressured other nations not to having dealings with them.

The internal debate in Cuba raged, with many people claiming the USA had no choice but to join with the PUSA, called it "rejoining America." "After all," they said "we are Americans too. It's better for Americans to be united than divided against each other in this way. And our economy can never recover apart from America, America is too big and too close. Eventual unification is inevitable." Other hotly protested. "Cuba is Cuba. It may have been part of the British Empire in America but it was never really part of America, and we are not Americans anyway, we are Cubans. Joining America would only mean we would lose both our freedom and our identity." Some sought to find a third way, claiming that they would be willing to join the PUSA as a "reunited" "America" but only if the PUSA would reform and become a democratic government more similar to the USA.

The debate among Cubans continues to this day, with an increasing number of USA citizens identifying themselves as Cuban, and considering the USA government to simply be the government of a country called Cuba. This country of Cuba, however, is recognized officially by no one, not even itself, though a few small nations still recognize the USA government as that of America. Recently there was a push for the USA to join the United Nations as "Cuba," reflecting a shift on the part of people the USA government as well. However not everyone agrees.

(And now I think we can wrap up our little game for a conclusion on where things stand now:)

Ironically, as Taiwanese have increasingly seen themselves not as Chinese people living in Taiwan but as having a unique Taiwan-based identity (an identity perceived by many Taiwanese people with older and deeper roots here all along), the current Republic of China administration has worked to improve relations with the People's Republic of China, trying to walk what seems an impossible path, but one in which clarification in any direction could theoretically mean World War 3. Direct flights between Taiwan and Mainland China have already been established for a while now, and various economic and investment agreements have been made. It is unknown how all this will look in the future, with the Taiwanese populace increasingly seeing itself as "Taiwanese," the ROC and PROC both seeking closer ties between Taiwan and China while neither acknowledges claiming the existence of any country called Taiwan and both claim to be the sole rightful government of China. Massive protests occurred last year, partly because of the increasingly wide gap between this growing sense of Taiwanese identity among the citizenry and the government's insistence on staying on the pragmatic path to nowhere. Yet, as I said, any attempt to rectify the situation has the potential to produce dire outcomes, which is why the US opposes any unilateral attempts to change the situation. (The current administration seems to be trying to therefore proceed very slowly in a bilateral way, which some officials in China seem amenable to, but it does so to a great extent against the wishes and self-determination of the Taiwanese people)

The US, much less able to interfere in the Taiwan Strait than during the days of Lee Teng-hui but still the greatest power in the Pacific, has claimed it opposes a unilateral move from either side to change the situation, either by the Republic of China government to claim it is not the (non)government of China but of something called Taiwan, or by China to attack Taiwan and take control of the island.

Meanwhile, Beijing has made moves to adjust the borders and sphere of control of China, especially in the East and South China Seas, to the alarm of various surrounding nations. Japan, at first forcibly disarmed and then voluntarily limited to self-defense forces since the end of the War, has begun to rebuild its army again.

As an outsider, what I hear my Taiwanese friends wanting to say is: 
We are Taiwan! Taiwan is our home and we love it, and we want the world to know about it too. The government should hear our voice, remember that the future of Taiwan is not China but us the people of Taiwan, and stop ignoring us to act on its own. We are watching.

And what I hear the current administration of Taiwan wanting to say is:
We are the Republic of China! Young people should remember everything they enjoy is because of our hard work. We are walking on a tightrope, and China is waiting at the other end. If we don't move, we fall, but we don't want to run either, and we don't dare cut the rope and trust the safety nets. So we are trying to walk very, very slowly. Stop shaking the rope.


The two sides both make some valid points but there doesn't seem to be any way to reconcile them, since one's future relies on changes that seem likely to make the future look untenable to those who have to make those changes. So, there are lots of arguments... pray for Taiwan!

Sunday, January 25, 2015

3 Things I Wish Christians would Stop Doing

In this post I want to talk about 3 things I've noticed a lot of Christians doing (and of which I've certainly been guilty at times as well) which I submit aren't doing us any favors. I believe noticing them and trying to reign them in would strengthen the Church and our witness.

1. Being Careless with the Truth in our "Edifying Anecdotes"


Many of you have doubtless heard the story about the church in a persecuted part of the world where one day masked men broke in brandishing guns and demanded that anyone who wasn't a true believer and ready to meet their God should leave. Once a large portion of the worshippers had fled in panic, the leader removed his mask and said to the preacher something along the lines of "Ok, all the fakers are gone, you can keep going," and he and his team of not-actual-terrorists then joined the worship service.

This very well may be based on an original true story. (If you know the source, feel free to share) The problem is that I've heard it told as a true story many times, and the location seems to wander around. Africa, China, Russia, etc. Did anyone bother to verify the origins of the story before sharing it as true? "Oh, don't be such a stickler," you might think. "the important thing is that it's making a point."
But the same thing happens with miraculous stories...

Recently it has been in the news that a boy who told an amazing story about a trip to heaven while in a coma, having grown up a bit, recanted the story and chided Christians for believing his account which does not adhere to scripture. Lifeway has since pulled the book from its shelves. But these "trip to heaven," "trip to hell" stories which so many people marvel over and find edifying can usually be dismissed offhand early on, not because heaven or hell aren't real places, but because the stories in question describe a creative take on the pop culture version of heaven or hell. That's usually quite different from what we find in scripture, which is that upon dying one goes either into the presence of God or away from His presence to Sheol (Hebrew, "the grave"), and that the fiery place of torment of Matt 25 and pearl-gated golden city of Rev 21 are both descriptions of post-final-judgment destinations, not the immediate destinations of the departed.

(Another common mistake: while we don't know much about Sheol -the waiting place until judgment for those who die without Christ- from scripture, we do know the lake of fire was created for the punishment of satan and his fallen angelic allies (Matt 25:41), and they will suffer there too. Satan is not the ruler of hell, hell was created as his punishment. According to the book of Job, he is not enthroned in some fiery realm like Surt in the Muspelheim of Norse mythology, but apparently roams around the earth itself, which I find in some ways to be a more unnerving image.)

And speaking of angels, fallen or otherwise, there are innumerable stories about angels out there. Some are doubtless true. I've seen a weird thing or two myself. But note that the Bible is not very talkative about angels, at least not in the systematic way that would satisfy our curiosity (and lead to idolatry...). Angels are not the point- God is, and they are God's messengers. Scripture also describes angels as guarding us, though not to the extent that the "guardian angel" idea has been developed in popular thinking. (Psalm 91:11 is very general, Matt 18:10 is very interesting statement by Jesus but leaves us with more questions than answers, and it is unclear whether Hebrews 13:2's "some" is talking about people among his readership or referring to Old Testament accounts like Lot's angelic guests) 

How angels feel when you share questionable anecdotes about them...
("DespondentAngelMetCemHead" by Infrogmation -
Own work. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.)
I like the story about the guy in the jungle being protected by angels from the people who were going to attack him, who said he was surrounded by armed guards (who were invisible to him), but it turns out that may not be true either.


I say "may not" because the writers at Snopes dot com (urban legend debunking site) are quite obviously antagonistic towards Christianity (even for faith-inspired stories they had to verify as true due to factual evidence, they feel necessary to interject that they don't think anything supernatural occurred). At the bottom of that article, for example, they include stories of missionaries receiving help just as someone far away felt led to pray for them as supposedly obvious fabrications. I don't know about those particular incidents, but I happen to know that does sometimes happen, because it's happened to me before. On the other hand, they raise some reasonable doubts about the details of the story as presented in print, based on multiple printed versions. My guess would be that the earlier Billy Graham book account is closer to whatever true event inspired the story. Of course it's possible the story is entirely made up, but these things definitely do happen on the mission field, and my guess would be it was in someone's prayer letter and unfortunately things proceeded loosely from there.

However, just because "these things happen" doesn't mean that particular story is true, or should be repeated as a true story, details being altered as time goes on. The snopes article itself ends like this:

Moreover, it's sadly ironic that so many tales contrived to display a particular belief system as The One True Way include fabrications tossed in to better carry the message.

While their sarcasm is unwarranted, there is an important point we can take from it- our willingness to accept and pass along any story because we live in a world where supernatural events can occur is not a good witness, making faith seem like mere credulity. And it's dangerous for us too, a little like building our faith not on the solid rock of God's faithfulness and work in our lives but on the shifting sand of anecdotes that "seem likely."

So should we be finding inspiration in unverifiable stories just because the content is beautiful or motivational? Should we be scared to share any story at all? At least, let's treat them as just that: inspirational but unverifiable stories, and be very, very careful what we pass along as "true." Truth should hold special value to those who believe in the Truth of God's word.

Supernatural events do occur in this world (I have fun stories), and we have real evidence for what we take on faith, but assuming every story, whether miracles, angels, trips to heaven, etc., you hear is true (or not bothering to consider whether it is or not) and passing it along, slowly but surely weakens our habit of testing what we hear. We have to be neither cynical nor naive, like the Bereans who were praised by Paul for not taking his words for granted, but searching the scriptures before accepting them.


2. Confusing Apologetics with Evangelism

(Yes, I know apologetics can be used in an evangelistic way, first hear me out:)

A. Evangelism is not arguing until the other side admits you're right

I think we all know this already, and I'm reminding myself as much as any of you reading this, but we can't debate anyone into the kingdom. So as a method of evangelism, a good debate, beloved by so many educated believers in the Western tradition (me too), serves at best either as a transition for sharing the gospel directly/sharing one's testimony, or to remove the false facades which people claim prevent them from believing, which are really smokescreens and excuses. Having removed those, someone will typically say something like "well I still just don't think God exists." Now they're being honest- all that other stuff was not the basis for their unbelief, it was the other way around. The assumption is "no God," and all the other stuff proceeds from that assumption. Which is why...

B. It is typically not helpful to argue with scientists about evolution

It pains me to say that, having been raised in the proud homeschooled evangelical tradition of "creationism vs. evolution" debates, and have years of experience doing so online and occasionally in person. Sometimes I've "won" the discussion and sometimes I've "lost" (at least, I did my best to learn from each discussion, so they were profitable in that sense), but what I would say is that unless you have a pretty good grasp of the scientific principles involved and some basic understanding of what the modern set of theories collectively described as evolution are in 2015, you may actually do more harm than good in trying to jump into the fray. One thing you have to realize is that the average non-believing scientist (or worse, 'science groupie') considers questioning evolution to be about as viable as proposing the earth really is flat. It doesn't matter if that's an unfair comparison, that's what it's going to sound like to them.

You may quickly discover you are at a home field disadvantage, because for decades most scientists have taken evolution as a given and worked from that basis. So if you do something like claim there is no evidence for evolution, they can just laugh and bury you under decades of scientific papers that all assume evolution. No one not coming from a religious background is going to question evolution at this point except real experts in those fields where it becomes obvious that evolution lacks some basic mechanisms to explain very specific phenomena they are qualified to speak up about.

In short, if you really can't help yourself, realize that you're going both against popular trends and against more or less the entire scientific community. Also recognize this is typically someone who has "there is no God" as their premise. You'd better have a pretty airtight logical case, be familiar with the normal counterarguments (the Socratic method of asking more and more difficult questions is a good way to learn these, and doesn't put you in the position of being the antagonist) and be prepared to explain exactly why you feel you can challenge the underlying theoretical assumptions of entire fields of research. And hopefully, you are praying for them and that the conversation will be edifying, not a triumph of your finely honed reasoning skills. As an INTP I face a frequent temptation to bring the logical smackdown on those who are clearly out of their league, forgetting that we are called first to be evangelists of Christ, not knights of reason.

Most actual arguments for evolution go like this: [In the chart above, let's say that "Some birds can't fly" = "God did it." Therefore, since "that's crazy" or "highly unlikely" (claims entirely outside the realm of science) all birds -must- be able to fly. Therefore, since Science can demonstrate with total confidence that penguins are birds, penguins -must- be able to fly, and you are just another naive believer in outdated superstitions who doesn't understand logic.] Ignoring the insults and countering this valid structure but invalid premise means you have to show them that their underlying assumption of "no God" is baseless. Therefore the rigorous science which demonstrates that penguins are birds is great and no problem for us either, but it has no bearing on the assumption that there are no birds that can't fly. But we believe, and have quite a bit of evidence that points to the fact that there are birds that can't fly. (That "God did it")
The argument then rests on whether you can demonstrate that convincingly.


Note: You can challenge their premises, with the method I outlined in the picture caption there. But I pick that kind of battle carefully these days. Only a few will be fruitful, and a good conversation about the gospel is so much better than lots of arguing which half the time ends up being over how you're using the same word in two different ways. I usually try to get the discussion over to my testimony, if I can.

A sad excuse for preparation:

(I rarely rant on this blog, so please excuse me while I do so for just a moment.) Back when I was in high school, we were taught as Christian students to challenge future college professors with "unanswerable questions" that would stump them. Personally I studied engineering which didn't require biology at my school, so topics like evolution only came up once or twice in chemistry class, and I didn't have any of those antagonistic sort of professors I read about.

But I submit that part of the reason so many students raised in the church get disillusioned and their faith shaken while in college is that some people are doing them the disservice of sending them into college thinking a) they will encounter Richard Dawkins-like antagonists who rant against God and use logical-fallacy-riddled arguments to promote evolution and other anti-scriptural ideas, and b) that their duty was to publicly call out these educated, experienced authority figures who could wipe the floor with them rhetorically, with the idea that this is "defending the faith" and their responsibility.

Instead they find that a) often their professors are of the shrugging agnostic or "I grew up in church but decided religion wasn't for me" variety, are sometimes even charismatic and dignified, and can make a student feel not that the gospel is false, but simply that they've lived their entire life in a broom closet, and the gospel might apply in there, but this is the big, wide world, and they're being invited to grow up and join it. Or, b) they do run into one of those antagonistic atheist professors, and trying to be a good witness, stand up to him/her in class, are then subjected to a good drubbing and public humiliation by the professor who has years of education and life experience to his advantage, and has perhaps polished his craft on the few unfortunate students who do this from time to time. At that point a crisis in confidence is almost certain, and without the right support a student will start to question what seemed so certain and straightforward "back in church."

And that "back in church" is where a lot of the trouble starts anyway. Getting plugged in both to a good local church and to a Christian fellowship at school can go very far to mitigate both of these dangers. Far from being bowled over and questioning their faith, students can come out of college strengthened in their faith and with some valuable ministry experience if they are active in a (good) Christian campus fellowship of some kind. (Be aware that there are one or two cult-ish groups that operate under this disguise)


So hopefully we can avoid the problem of setting students up for possible failure by making sure they'll have good spiritual fellowship and growth opportunities during their time at school, and not teaching them a vastly oversimplified version of what they're likely to encounter out in the world. Which leads me to my third plea, which is to please stop...

3. Simplistically Stereotyping other Belief Systems


I sometimes wondered, as a young Christian, how anyone could not be a Christian. It made so much sense, and none of the other religions I'd heard of seemed to make any sense at all. How could those people keep believing something so weird and nonsensical and obviously false?

But I found, around the time I started doing mission trips, that the beliefs of people I encountered overseas seemed fully developed too. Of course, many adherents of Chinese religion here in Taiwan don't even claim to believe the various major and minor gods to be real in the way we believe God to be real (more like "they might be out there, and if so it's better to be on their good side"), but developed in the sense that they had a worldview which explained things around them to a degree they found to be satisfactory. If a gap does occur, if a time comes when their religious system becomes unsatisfactory to them or their worldview can no longer adequately explain the reality they live in, then there is an increasing openness to new worldviews and metanarratives (which are something I'll discuss in my next post), and often a special spiritual hunger and the potential for gospel movements as well, like what happened in China during the turbulent years of communism when it was closed to outside missionaries and is happening in some other places as we speak.

But when reading about those other religions, in non-academic Christian materials, I have often found a strictly polemic attitude. That is to say, the main purpose was not to explain what other people believe, but to demonstrate the flaws and weaknesses in those belief systems, and perhaps reassure readers/listeners that only our own faith makes any sense at all. On the other hand, some explanations are not antagonistic but are simply such a watered-down, simplified version of those beliefs that one is left wondering how any adult could really believe that. Yes, some localized religions have degraded to more or less that point, and any contact with outside religions results in the locals hastening to drop their "old ways" and embrace what is clearly a more impressive belief system. But any major world religion has survived long enough that it's got to have some qualities which people find attractive, especially if it's spreading, like Buddhism or Islam. Prior to encountering the Perspectives course materials and then attending seminary with some great books on the required reading lists, the resources regarding other religions never mentioned what those might be.

Let me be blunt. That's bowling with the lane guards up. If we truly have faith, and if we are grown-ups, or even teenagers bumping into classmates with other belief systems, we need to recognize that people have reasons for what they believe, and if they're going to stop believing that and accept Christ, they're going to need reasons for doing that. That could be as simple as someone having grown up in a non-religious family and being curious about what you believe and asking you to explain, or as challenging as a need for deliverance from demonic oppression which only the power of Christ can effect through the prayer and fasting of His saints. But either way, if we're afraid that merely reading or hearing accurate depictions of earthly religions is going to tempt us away from the Living God, the effects of whose Incarnation changed not only our lives and the destiny of our souls but all of modern world history, then the problem lies not in those descriptions but in our own lack of faith.

Now obviously, I'm not suggesting you send a bunch of grade schoolers to Buddhist summer camp. And in the States, when teaching younger students about world religions I have always pointed out the differences between those and God's revelation to us. Anyone who feels their faith is weakened by exposure to other beliefs should pray for their faith to be strengthened, and take heart from the evidence that abounds, showing that though not seeing, we have believed, yet our faith is not blind.
But students who are mature enough, and certainly adults who are mature in their faith, should have a basic understanding of what other people in this world believe, especially if they intend to witness to them.

 For example: Paul was upset by all the idols in Athens, but he observed them carefully and when sharing the gospel before the Areopagus he used the example of one idol dedicated to an unknown god, and also quoted a Greek poet. He was not respectful of their beliefs (he got very quickly to attacking the idea of idolatry itself), but he made careful observations and tried to share the gospel in a way that had some connections to their worldview. He wanted to share the gospel in a way that would make sense, and used what he knew about Greek culture and had observed about their religion to do so.

A Taiwanese altar to an unknown god






Why does it matter?

It matters not only because if you don't understand what someone else believes, you will have more difficult sharing the gospel with them, but because when we are always surrounded by other believers it's easy to fall into the idea that the gospel is inherently reasonable or self-evidently true. Don't forget what Paul said:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
The gospel is not going to sound inherently reasonable either to people of other religions, or to people who think that a modern education puts them above "organized religion." But understanding that following another religion or belief system doesn't make them stupid or naive, but merely in need of the gospel that will sound a little strange to them, we can speak God's truth into their own context in an effective way. Some will never accept it, but "to those who are called," of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages, it will be the saving message of Christ, the power and wisdom of God.

That's it for today. I hope by understanding these issues a little better, we can be a stronger Church and more effective disciples of Christ.