Internet Christianity

I am a member of a number of email "chat" groups. They are all related to the faith. As I participate, and observe the nature of the discourse, I have begun to formulate an assessment.

Internet Christianity is not confessional, nor does it advance confessional thinking, generally. What it advances is personal kind of faith, a highly idiosyncratic theology. People start by asking questions, which is good, but soon the discourse turns to a discussion which floats heavily in the direction of "I think so-and-so," of "I feel thus and so about this or that."

Confessional theology is grounded in truth, an objective, outside-of-me truth. The Lutheran Confessions provide just such a framework on the topics that they address. Internet Christianity becomes very individual and not shaped so much by an external truth but by an internal monologue.

Faith has always been personal and internal, but it needs to be grounded in reality which is not open to personal modification. Scriptures provide that, to some extent, although most people are comfortable doing what they refer to as "interpretation". By that they generally mean that they dismiss what they are uncomfortable with and redefine terms in parts so that what it means to them is often contrary to the literal sense of the text.

Theology which is highly personal and, as I defined it above, idiosyncratic, is not a strength for the church. It may start innocently enough, but it can lead quite easily to the sort of denial and redefinition that one might observe in the Emerging Church Movement.

Aside from the "I believe what I like" sort of excess encouraged in Internet Christianity, we find it possesses an atomizing effect. The Church is a unity, a common confession of truth, and a body of shared experience. The individual sitting alone behind their computer screen determining for themselves what seems right and feels right and does not offend their sense of religion provides only half of the experience of the church. Everyone has always made those sorts of assessments in the privacy of their own thoughts, but historically in the church, people were forced to do this in the context of the constant presence of the body of the believers around them for worship, for the teaching ministry of the church, and for the fellowship of the saints. They were simultaneously being homogenized with the confession of the church around them and wandering freely in their own judgments. Either half of this process without the other is unhealthy.

There is no un-ringing of this bell. The contents of this 'pandora's box' cannot be forced back into the container. Internet Christianity is here to stay. This is just a caution for those who engage in it. Do not allow this process to become a fractionalizing experience in the church. It will not serve the Church, her mission, or you personally, well.

You Don't Own Me

The one perspective I have yet to hear on the news is that the nanny-state health care being proposed for our nation overlooks one thing, the citizen is not a possession of the state. The government in America is supposed to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. The government has absolutely no business trying to decide who should or must have health insurance.

It is none of their business! I am not a ward of or the property of the state. It is supposed to be my servant as a citizen.

The state has no business telling me what I can eat, or what activities I can or cannot indulge in. It may limit activities by law that infringe on others, but what I do that does not involve others is none of their business.

This new none-dare-call-it-socialism is simply the unlawful removal of the basic rights and freedoms of American citizens. Get out of my business, and do your own job, government! Protect our nation's sovereignty, defend our freedoms, help the states co-operate in things that they must co-operate in for peace and prosperity, enforce our laws, but get out of my pocket, and out of my life where I am not threatening any one else's rights or freedom.

The state simply has no business telling me that I must be healthy, or do things the way someone else likes them done - at least not in my private life.

This used to be America, but, as the the security guard in the video that went viral on the web said, "it ain't no more!"

Definitions

Theology is the art of making distinctions, at least in one sense. I like defining things, so that they makes sense, at least to me.

A Politician:

A person who will say anything, true or not, in order to be permitted to do (or get away with having done) whatever they desire.

For illustrations, look to Congress, or any state governing body (or elected government figure), i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, President Obama, etc..

This Is Why

People wonder why the leaders of this nation do not appear to be overly concerned with the troubles that the citizens seem to be enduring. The answer is very simple, they are Humanists.

These people are humanists of the stripe of those who produced the Humanist Manifestoes in the last century. They stand in stark contrast to Christians and other theistic religions which generally have a code of ethics and compassion. It is sadly true that not every religionist has always lived up to their religous confessions. There is a simple reason for that. It is called, "SIN". Humanity, as a species, is sinful by nature, and tends to fail when it comes to keeping moral commitments. Some failures are small, and some are quite large. Some don't matter to anyone except the one who fails, and some matter a great deal to many people. But fail or not, these people who practice religion based on the Bible have a code of compassion toward others, and tend to be concerned about how the other guy is doing.

Humanists do not. They will use the distress of others to motivate people to support them, or to empower their agenda for change, but they do not care about people, precisely because they are humanists. Read the Humanaist Manifesto II. It boldly asserts that there is no deity out there, caring about us, motivating our caring about one another, saving anyone. When they list the great destructive pressures of human society, "vulgarization, commercialization, bureaucratization, and dehumanization", they offer no solution. They simply tell us to pursue life's enrichment "despite [these] debasing forces". The traumas and terrors of human life are merely the evolutionary pressures which are to be endured and overcome by those fit enough to survive.

If you wonder why they campaign on the troubles oflife, as though they were going to resolve them, if elected, but never seem to actually fix the problems, it is because they never intended to fix them. The troubles are easy handles to motivation for getting people to vote for them. Solving the problems would make the elected officials less important and less necessary. Besides, they expect you to either survive or not, pretty much on your own. These problems are viewed as the evolutionary forces necessary to cull the herd of the unfit. It helps to remember, when dealing with committed evolutionists, that evolution does not care about the individual. Evolution is scarcely conscious of the individual. It focuses on populations, and is really about the species as a group, without a concern for any specific member of the group -excluding themselves, of course.

A New World

President Obama proudly proclaims that the United States is not a Christian nation. Sadly, this is only too true.

But now he tells the Muslim world that we are a Muslim nation - Now it is getting spooky!

Nonsense

I read daily about the dust-up in the Republican party between the "moderates" and the "conservatives". Clearly this is a debate by people so deeply entrenched in the world of Washington politics that they have lost all sight of reality.

First, who is Colon Powell to be lecturing on what is or is not a Republican? He went public in support of the Democrat candidate long before the vote, and he has given no evidence that his opinion has been altered by the mismanagement of the government by Obama since. If he is still a Republican, then so is Obama.

Second, political parties are supposed to offer alternative ideas, not simply different groups of men and women to enact the same ideas. If the "big tent" is so big that social progressives fit in and should have a significant voice in guiding the party, where do those who disagree go to find representation? How do we challenge the status quo and the mindless assault on our prosperity and liberties? The Republican party is not just "our team". It is supposed to be the champion of a set of principles and ideas distinct from the Democrats. It is supposed to offer real choice, not just more of the same in a different color wrapper.

Because the two national parties have abandoned the business of offering real choices, the political landscape is becoming fragmented to a significant degree. I imagine that we will see the sort of multiple-party electioneering that we see in Europe in the none-too-distant future, right here is America.

Pity.

Something Old, Something New . . .

I saw it in the newsletter of a congregation I was once a member of.  It is called "Natural Church Development".  I was curious.  The few comments about the program indicated that they had gotten the materials from somewhere official.  The program information suggested it was similar to a host of "church growth" programs.  I wondered where it had come from and who was behind it.  That sort of information often speaks volumes about things - church programs in particular.

So, I "googled" it.  I discovered that it was a program of the Seventh-Day Adventists.  As I read the materials available on-line, I found that it was pretty much a rehashing of the same-old church growth stuff.  It claimed that it was not, and that it was all about allowing the Word of God and the Power of God to cause the church to grow all by itself.  The only problem was that it identified concern over things such as sound doctrine as "legalism" which was detrimental to the growth of the church and of the eight characteristics of a "healthy" church.

The materials quoted by the pastor of the congregation focus on depending on the Word to work all by itself (which is a special phrase in NCD, they call it the "all by itself" principle).  The other materials talk about being "scientific" about things.  The Holy Spirit is the only one who can make the church grow, but if we get out of the way of the Holy Spirit (by doing things as they ought to be done properly) the church will grow.

The materials tell us that the purpose of the NCD program is not numerical growth or increased money in the coffers.  But then the materials go on to say that those churches that have used three or more surveys by the group - and their 'coaches', of course - have a track record of 51% growth in those areas.

I don't want to repeat the eight points of the program.  You can search that out for yourself.  But a "healthy" church, they report, does not care about "right doctrine".  Spiritual worship is "fun" and filled with laughter.  And small groups are very important (not "cells", mind you), but their focus is not supposed to be about teaching what the Word of God says.  No, "holistic groups . . . go beyond just discussing Bible passages to applying its message to daily life" - whatever that may mean.  And the "holistic" group is really focused on reaching out to those who do not belong to the church.  "The meaning of the term "discipleship" becomes practical in the context of holistic small groups: the transfer of life, not rote learning of abstract concepts."

Oh, yes, and Evangelism is about meeting needs.  "Need-oriented evangelism intentionally cultivates relationships with pre-Christian people".  It is to be need-centered, not message centered.  "Using appropriate ministries and authentic relationships, believers can guide others into the family of God."

The congregation in whose newsletter I noticed this program is always facing a financial challenge.  They operate a day school, K thru 8 -- and it is a good school!  I also noticed that the starter kit for this program is $175.  Never let an opportunity to make some money slip by!

The program is church growth warmed over and dressed in scientific respectability.  It is about butts in the pew and cash in the coffers, not about church or salvation at all.  It is like yogurt, you can flavor it any way you want so that it can seem Lutheran, for example, but it is fundamentally guided by those surveys and how your church is or is not meeting the goals and fitting the paradigm of a "healthy" congregation.

The ELCA is all over this program.  And now, it seems that the Missouri Synod is awakening to it, too.  Pastors beware!

An Old Question Answered

They asked the question, "How could all those reasonable people have permitted Hitler and the Nazi's to do the atrocious things they did?"  Of course, that question has been asked of all of those societies that permitted monstrous evil to walk the streets unchallenged.

Our society is answering that question with a living demonstration.  The news media, once responsible, is now demonizing everything they disagree with in the most extreme and irrational ways.  Conservative Christianity is caricatured as the cause for the loss of faith.  Conservative thought is seriously described as a form of insanity.  Conservative religion is styled as "extreme" and "fundamentalistic".  Advocates for liberal agendas openly assault institutions that they see as standing in their way - illustrated for us by gay activists interrupting worship services to throw literature and condoms around, and shout epithets at the worshipers.

Because 53 percent of the voters selected a candidate who was openly associated with the cause of  the social progressives, those who identify with that cause feel empowered and emboldened to spew their opinions publicly, and the media is reporting it all as though it were important news.

When the extremists have control of the political, and the media give voice only to them and their ilk, you end up with a society doing monstrous things, and pretending it is all so very reasonable.  Big Brother has finally arrived, he just got here twenty-five years behind schedule.

God help us, the inmates have taken over the asylum.

I Don't Get It

My puny portfolio has taken a beating.  The value of my home has dropped by approximately 20% -- according to the reports on the financial sites.  Jobs are vanishing with a swiftness not seen for seventy-plus years.  Things don't look good, and the news media is saying positively that things are bad.

Then I go to the gas station, and although I watch on the internet as crude oil drops day-by-day, my local gas station prices just went up a nickle per.  I go to the stores and prices are up for everything.  Walmart's prices are up.  Even the Subway in Walmart is now charging $1.60 for the bag of popcorn that was just recently one dollar even.

My taxes are bound to go up, seeing as how the new president is doubling down on Mr. Bush's unwise and ineffective approach to the economic woes.  Local government is cutting back on services and putting the hourly help on shorter hours (but paying the commissioners and the salaried people - the supervisors - the same money!).

If we are in a recession, shouldn't something other than my income and my investments recede? 

Hey business guys!  If you want more business from a shrinking money pool, raising your prices is the wrong approach.  Try charging less.

Sounding Eerily Familiar

Drudge Report has a headline story about Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi holding forth on how birth control will help the economy.

It has been clear that the pro-choice lobby is anti-human, and anti-life, but now one of the leading democrats has taken the position that people are a problem, and has come one step closer to government mandated birth control. It is a small step from pointing out how extra children are disadvantageous to the economy and regulating the number of permissible children in a family - as China has done, for example.

Spooky!

Here We Go!

We have the first signs. The President refuses to answer reporters' questions. His surrogates decline to answer certain questions. The "drive-by" media scarcely takes notice.

Now we have 'The Media' uncritically accepting false claims because they target the right. Right Here. We have a difficult time ahead when the watchdogs are not only asleep, but are helping those they are supposed to be watching.

Welcome to the New World

I avoided the coverage of the inauguration.  I wasn't able to totally avoid it, but most of it passed me by silently.  Since then, the little news I have permitted into my world has confirmed my suspicions that what was once called "The News Media" is now simply a propaganda apparatus frantically trying to hide the truth and disguise reality.

I have read several comments about how the election of Obama was the fulfillment of the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., that a man would be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.  Senator Clair McCaskill of Missouri - a member of the Obama campaign team - even stated that it was denigrating the president to focus on his color or ethnicity.  He was elected because of who he is and because of his ideas.  Well, at least that was her take on it.

And it was egregiously dishonest.  Obama was not elected on the basis of the content of his character.  The media did all that it could to hide what little about Obama and his character leaked out.  Far from denigrating the president, Obama's identity and chief campaign issue was his race.  No one else talked about it, but he was campaigning constantly on the claim that everyone else would talk about it, point to it and try to make the public uneasy.  Any debate surrounding the few words that slipped out of Obama's mouth during the campaign was attacked as "racist" by his shills in the party and in the main-stream media.

Everybody says, "give him a chance".  Honestly, we don't have any choice there.  He is the president.  He has at least four years.  The first two will be with the most partisan and least rational Democrat majorities in both houses of congress.  We will see what he will be.  Everyone hopes that he is good for the country - for the economy, for our national security, for our future.  I share that hope.

But the man has promised to do things I believe will not work well for our economy, or for our national security, or for our future.  My fondest hope is that when Obama has finished his work, the United States is still a free nation, and not a newly minted third-world country with a struggling economy and gravely distressed national security.

Here's to our 44th president, Barack Hussein Obama.  God help us, and give him wisdom.

Comforable Illusions

I watch the news, and I am impressed by the number of notions that we seem to share as a society that are not true.

That this nation is a free country:  We have a history of freedom, but our liberties are being taken from us daily by laws regulating behavior which is rightly of no concern to others, and by taxes that seek to impose the values of another on the populace, and by a news media which fails in its duty so abysmally and deliberately.

That 'We, the people' exercise significant political power.  That power exists, but it it is muted by politicians who disregard the will of their constituents once they are elected (with the willing complicity of the Media), by politically owned machines that disable the election process - as in Minnesota this year, or Washington state a few years back, and by a double standard of justice which makes what is a scandal for a Republican into a political virtue for a democrat, and always expects morality and decency from one party and excuses the bald lack of it from the other.

That you can depend of the news Media for anything resembling truth or honesty.

That "good people" tend to think alike.  The fact is that when most Americans are confronted by the truth, they choose to believe something else - and don't want to know, for fear that it will upset them.

It makes life a challenge.  We need to deal with reality as it is, not with myths which put us to sleep.

Amusing

It is amusing, in a sad and somewhat frightening sort of way, to watch the media fawn over Obama. The Philadelphia Enquirer had posted on-line (but has since corrected) a poll asking which president Obama reminds people of. The choices were JFK, FDR, Lincoln, or Bobby Kennedy! Set aside the fact that Obama isn't President yet, Bobby Kennedy never got there!

Personally, I would have voted for Herbert Hoover.

A Man Without a Country

Rarely does anything as expected as the Obama election cause so much distress in me as this event has. I am profoundly dispirited by the meaning of the election, as I understand it.

The reality is, as yet, to be revealed. Obama promised a lot of things in his long campaign. His personal history promises many things as well. Nothing he has said clears up the mystery of what he will do, nor reduces the potential misfortune his election presages. The reality awaits. I suspect that it may take a generation of two to fully develop and for the consequences of this election to be fully appreciated - although appreciated is hardly the right connotation to apply.

First, let it be clear that the one factor everyone pretends was a non-factor, and yet is his chief claim to fame (at this point in time) – race – has no part in my reaction to the election. I quit counting race as significant in evaluating a person long ago. In fact, it seems to me that we have fallen far short of Martin Luther King’s dream of the day when we judged a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The most celebrated fact in the news coverage of this election result is that we have elected a black man to the highest office of the land - FINALLY.

The content of his character, however, has been deliberately hidden, covered, and ignored. His personal history, sparse as he has allowed the record to be, is troubling. His philosophical mentor is Saul Alinsky, a communist agitator. His personal hero is Frank Marshal Davis, a communist. His one mistake in the campaign, echoing the Marxist credo with the now famous “redistribution” comments to Joe the Plumber. Programs mentioned during the primary campaign - which largely disappeared from his conversation during the major campaign were frightening: withdrawing our troops immediately from the conflict in Iraq and subsequently in Afghanistan, funding a poverty program for the other nations of the world through the UN, unilaterally disarming our nation, negotiating with those around the world who would like to destroy us simply because we are not Moslem without preconditions, and to the aim of making them more content with us, bankrupting the coal industry, ending the use of oil in this nation within a decade, and declining to increase our use of nuclear fuel - effectively reducing our economy to third-world status.

It comes to mind that Hugo Chavez was elected by popular vote in Venezuela. Adoph Hitler was elected by popular vote in times of severe economic distress in the 1930's in Germany. Given the agenda - murky though it is - which has emanated from the One who has been waiting for himself, the possibilities are troubling. Obama has already thrown newspapers off his campaign plane for failing to endorse him. He does not treasure free speech for those who do not kowtow to his ideas. He has signaled his agreement with eliminating the free expression on the radio by returning to the policies of the “fairness doctrine”. He has given too little information to give any thinking person confidence in what he would not do, and too much for comfort when one ponders what he might attempt.

The President-elect announced in his victory proclamation that now we would begin to change this nation. That agenda tells me that the nation I grew up in, served in the military as my duty, during the Vietnam thing, and have always loved, is soon to be no longer. Something else is to take its place - a changed nation. No longer my America - now just something called the United States, but not the United States of the past.

At the same time, I must admit that my church body has changed too. Once famous for its rock-solid commitment to sound doctrine, our President is now famous for telling us that this is not our grandfather’s church, and he has instituted a program which leads the church body away from its historical practices and commitments. I feel that my church body is no longer the Lutheran Church I grew up in and in which I spoke my vows of ordination.

My country is committed to becoming something else, and my church is committed to becoming something other than it has historically been. I feel like a man without a county!

But I do take comfort in this, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.”

The Tension Is Almost Unbearable!

Tomorrow we vote!

Are the polls rights?

What will this nation look like in a year, or three?

Tonight is a time for prayer.

Among the things we can give thanks for is that this endless election cycle is coming to an end . . . just in time for the 2012 presidential election campaign to start!

May God have mercy on us!

Now This Is Funny!

Scientists in Europe constructed this 17 mile long supercollider to re-enact the Big Bang.  It took more than two decades to build and cost over ten BILLION dollars.  They started it up last week, and it ran for about 36 hours before it broke down.  It will now require a couple of months to repair.

What a remarkable use of resources!  How well built and cleverly designed!  It is reminiscent of the Hubble Telescope which was put into orbit with faulty mirrors and opticals and needed to be repaired in outer space before it was useful.  Don't you just love the care and precision of modern science!  This is just hilarious!

Fascinating!

What would you do if you had the ability to shape the perspective on the world of huge numbers of your fellow citizens?

That is the question the denizens of the so-called "Main Stream Media" have been busy trying to answer. The MSM, as it is widely known, holds the marvelous ability to shape how people see the world by both what it reports (and chooses not to report) and how it deigns to color that report. In some cases, details, like party affiliation, are highlighted, and in others, they are completely ignored. Recountings of history can include events, and assign them a significance they did not originally possess, or significant events can be ignored entirely! The power of the MSM is eeriely like that of Big Brother in the Orwell book, 1984.

So what is the MSM doing with that frightening power? They are using it to reveal, not disguise, their prejudices and errant presuppositions. Rather than quietly and craftily guide and shape public opinion, as they had for so many years, the MSM seems to have adopted the program of wildy flailing about in obvious and ridiculous ways to call attention to the complete lack of objectivity they possess, and to emphasize their utter lack of interest in anything but their own desire to deceive.

This makes for great theater! If you agree with the perspective on society and politics clearly embraced by the MSM, it is pleasing - or it should be - to see one's own prejudices so energetically endorsed. For those who hopes and dreams (or, merely their intellect) lead them to view society from a different political and social paradigm, the display undresses the naked biases and goals of the media that they once sought to hide beneath the disguise of objectivity and the stated desire to merely report (not shape) the news of the day. Those who agree can find joy in such overt endorsement, and those who disagree may find cheer in the transparency of the activism of the reportage.

Oddly, the clarity of their advocacy of a specific partisan agenda seems to have been working against the effectiveness of their effort. Even partisans on the MSM's side of the issues find themselves blushing for shame at the naked ambition and the complete disregard for fact coming from the media claiming the mantle of "truth-speakers".

Take the case of Governor Sarah Palin. She is a demonstrably respectable woman. She is bright, and her value system shines forth from her personal acts and decisions. She takes on political corruption for the benefit of the populace. Her home-grown naivete is reflected in the quaint notion that government should serve the people, and not the other way around. She carries a Downs Syndrome child full term, living out her stated convictions about the sanctity of life, and her opposition to abortion. Like the elephant in the tale by Dr. Seuss, which so many of us grew up hearing, she means what she says, and she says what she means -- or so it would appear. A decent human being, one of apparent conviction and action, Mrs. Palin has natural appeal. She seems like someone it would be nice to know personally.

But the MSM responds to her viscerally and violently. If they don't like her stand on the issues, and it seems clear that they don't, they could debate her, or simply dismiss her stance as they have so many others for so many years. But they attack her ad hominem, that is, against her person and not her opinions or her issues. The depravity of the attack is breath-taking!

What is fascinating is how this time it appears to be flashing back upon the MSM. It puts one in mind of the child's response to school-yard verbal bullying, "I'm rubber, you're glue. Everything bounces off of me and sticks on you." How very appropriate! It is about time.

The Meaning of Words

Rush Limbaugh is always saying "words mean things". During the non-stop coverage of Hurricane Gustav, we became quite familiar with the phrase "Breaking News!" Judging by its continual use to introduce non-news, it appear that the phrase has been forcibly modified to mean, "Here is something we haven't mentioned in the last quarter hour or so." And, by the way, the reporters don't have to look and sound so disappointed that we did not have another disaster with Gustav the way we did with Katrina. It was an almost out-of-body sort of experience to hear the so-called "news" media repeating lies and distortions about Katrina which have since been proven to be false. Oh, for the good old days of hype and excess, eh, Shep?

I must be getting old

I just read the Lutheran Witness for August 2008. I remember a time when it was a theological magazine. Today it is something else. Actually, it has been for sometime now.

In the present issue is an article of personal recollection with no apparent point, except to vent the author's memories. Of course, there was also the cutesy use of the nickname, "Shabby".

The article on marriage was nice, but it almost seemed like a set-up for the reprinting of a widely reported statement by President Kieschnick on the issue of same-sex marriage. The statement is fine, except for the unfortunate use of the term "Judeo-Christian", and the omission of the stance of the Missouri Synod that homosexual inclinations are also not according to the will of God.

The next article dealt with Mormon plural marriage. It makes no point, except to inform in a general sort of way.

Then there is an article by the CEO of the Lutheran Social Service of the South. Judging by the accompanying picture (and the first paragraph) , it takes off from the point of plural marriage to make a heart-felt appeal for dealing in a socially responsible (and culturally mandated) way with abuse of children. It is really about following society's values and doing what our laws instruct us to do.

The high point seemed as though it would be the article on Music. It highlighted a note that organists were becoming harder to find, especially in smaller parishes, but then offered no hope and no ideas workable in my situation, or other situations I am familiar with. Seemed to me that it would have been the right place to talk about the need for standard MIDI music for the parish, but no such luck.

Next was a fine advertisement for the LCMS Foundation, disguised as an article. Give more money was the message. It was followed by a full-page ad entitled, "Have You Discovered the Joy of Giving?", for the Foundation.

Then we have a heartwarming article about people who raise miniature donkeys, and apparently use the coloration of the fur on the animal's shoulders as an evangelism tool.

Then we have a discussion of suicide from the statistical and psychological points of view. No theology here, either.

I confess there was a Bible Study. I tried to read through it, but it was . . ., well, dull. But that is my problem.

And the magazine wraps up with a paean to "Fan into Flame", the fund-raising portion of the "Ablaze " program. More money. Another appeal to give.

Reading the "Official publication of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" is depressing. There was nothing uplifting in it. Like I said, I must be getting old. I expected more.