Kyle Gebhart

I’ve been reading two books that have me thinking about atheism, Sam Harris’, “The End of Faith,” and a book called “The Reason for God,” by Timothy Keller. Both have been on the NYT Bestsellers list over the last few years. Keller is probably worth your time, Harris is probably not - in my opinion Harris is dishonest (and NOT in the category of a ’sincere’ atheist.)

The people to whom Keller writes, and whom I’ve met, fall into the category of sincere. I truly appreciate them.

A sincere atheist is someone who cannot reconcile the lack of compassion, power, or holiness within various faiths (including Christianity) and is left with the conclusion: If these people define what God looks like, He must not exist. I’m sure none of us have ever had that thought.

The reason I apppreciate the questions of atheists is because they test the depth and sincerity of my faith and my compassion. Unfortunately, I’ve met many Christians who are intimidated or angered by atheists. I believe an atheist is more likely to find the truths of the Gospel than a ‘lazy agnostic,’ however, at least the atheist is asking questions that Jesus answers. The agnostic is usually only asking, “What’s on TV tonight?” The atheist in one sense chooses not to isolate themselves from the difficult circumstances of existance. The agnostic says, “I don’t care.”

I look for the day when Christians are equipped to answer the atheists’ valid questions. I’m not referring here to that nebulous category of discourse called ‘apologetics’. I’m referring to servants of God who pray and unselfishly listen to those that are struggling to survive on a darkened planet, with no light to guide them. I know that ‘most people’ will reject the truth in the end. I understand human depravity, after all, I am human. My point is we should be quick to listen and slow to speak, even when an atheist is doing the speaking.

We have more to gain from a love that is patient and kind and a wisdom that is full of mercy - and we have much to lose from a habit of making rote pronouncements about God assuming we understand the struggles of an atheist, without having listened to them. Presumption is a far cry from evangelism. If we make an assumption about an atheist, perhaps it should be this: let us assume they need to see love in action with a passion that is inspired by Jesus. As a matter of fact, I think there’s a Bible verse somewhere on that…

This post is inspired by Bret Mavrich who emailed me a link to an off-center website called “garfield without garfield”: lots of Garfield cartoons with the cat removed, and mentally deranged Jon Arbuckle fighting a losing battle at keeping it all together.

The working premise is that the louder you laugh, the drier your humor.

The less you get it (or like it) the more you probably like Jim Carrey movies, Dumber and Dumber, and Gallegher (sp?). Funny or not? You be the judge.

(Of course, I think it is brilliantly funny.)

The above statement is author and foodie Michael Pollan’s eater’s manifesto. I’m enraptured with it’s simplicity - and the difficulty of doing it in 2008.

Pollan has emerged as a clear voice in the midst of our chaotic/ironic attempt to eat. The emphasis is upon the word food here - not monosodium-glutamate-ridden, refined sugar-laden, appetite suppressants. Think of an apple. I’m thankful for the clarity and simplicity with which he addresses one of the strangest of modern dilemmas. What should I have for dinner?

It is a bitter irony. For thousands of years, most labor was for a single purpose: to get food on the table. The food provided the energy for farming, hunting and providing oneself with, guess what,  more food. In fact it was such a consuming process, that God required the Sabbath. The biblical mandate for the Sabbath was a ‘counter-cultural’ statement. God declared, “you can’t provide for yourself, you have to trust Me to provide for you.”

In 2008 in America, however, we have a strange phenomenon: our primary jobs so cosume our time that it prevents us from growing or eating actual food. We spend our 40 hour week producing information, products, or ideas. When we come home to eat, we ‘just add water’ - and our stomach is silenced.

I’m not advocating anything here, just musing. Though, I am planting a garden this year. If nothing else, it’s cheaper than driving to the supermarket. I mean, the ground just provides FREE food! What a concept. Oh, and I’m swearing off fast “can-you-really-call-it-food” for the immediate future.

A few years ago, this term came to mind to describe the nationalism, patriotism and social ethics that fuel the imaginations of most Americans. Though I never assumed I ‘coined’ the term I’d never heard it before.

A simple Google search revealed to me that American Civil Religion has some other observers; the most notable seems to be this guy. I’m putting his book on hold at the library as we speak.

In any case ACR is by far one my favorite topics on my mind at any given time (just ask Zack). I’ll be putting together a series of posts on how ACR and biblical Christianity are dangerously at odds with each other. Look for thoughts on subjects such as: America’s ‘covenant’ with God, Manifest Destiny, Israel worshipping golden calves, genocidal acts, faith in the White House, and even Mormonism - that unique and much maligned religion created right here in the good old U-S-of-A.

One quick note: my primary citizenship is in heaven - but I do love Americans. I just have questions about how long we can continue to claim to be a Christian country, and whether claiming to be a Christian country was ever a good idea.

I’ll leave us with a quote from Belleh I snagged from the wikipedia page on ACR:

And to that I will say, Amen Robert, Amen.

The peace sign, it is part of our corporate consciousness. Apparently it has only been around for 50 years.

Did you know that it = ND? - that is: nuclear disarmament. Check out the history of it here.

I’m going to keep my posts short. This is in response to one of my pet peeve: posts that are longer than one (or two max) screen lengths. Who reads posts longer than that? I guess there ARE people - and if you ARE that people, I bless you. But man, if it ain’t short and sweet I’m not gonna read it most of the time. And if I’m not gonna read it, I’m not gonna inflict it upon my readers.

Jean Louise Finch, will you be my friend?

I finished reading To Kill a Mockingbirdtoday. Scout Finch is one of the most endearing, likable and entertaining persons I’ve encountered in a novel. Her dry, brilliant and compassionate perspective on the tragi-comic events in Maycomb County Alabama have won my heart.

How I got through 32 years of life without reading this book is a mystery to me. I attribute it to my tendency to assume that common or popular is equivalent to shallow and meaningless. Think of Melrose Place, or Survivor, or The OC. I’ve learned from this novel that sometimes the popular is equivalent to the great. A recent poll asked librarians the question, “Which book should every adult read before they die?” Their answer was: To Kill a Mockingbird, the Bible came in second - but admittedly is much, much longer book.

If you’ve never read this book - I plead with you, find the time on your summer vacation this year.

And, if anyone meets Scout out there, could you please arrange an introduction for me?

My problem with blogging: inevitably what I post is a first draft.

I hate first drafts. Almost no writer can write well in a first draft. By nature, blogging is instantaneous. Most blogs are about ‘venting’ whatever thought comes to mind.

A brief story: I used to regularly write letters to friends. From my senior year of high school, through much of college, I corresponded with 4-6 of my friends through letter writing. Often, I would write 2-3 drafts of these letters. I would try to improve the clarity of my thought, my style, and communicate exactly.

This zeal for clarity of thought has caused me to rarely blog - often I don’t want to re-write or revise my blog posts.

I’ve decided today to turn the tide. 80% is better than nothing. On the plus side, any writing at all will cause clarity to grow. It will also be nice to at least attempt first drafts that are as clear a possible. I firmly believe that all writers can improve greatly with revision and attention to detail in their craft - but I can pay attention in my first drafts too - making them easier to revise and improve; and I can apply some of the tools I’ve already learned.

Look for more consistent writing here in the next weeks and months.

In context: we were talking about God’s immutability (unchangeableness) in a worship briefing last week and someone chimed that the word immutability always makes them think of God not being a mutant (here I resist a commentary on how pop culture has influenced the English language) - moving on…

I picked up Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy this week. I love Tozer’s vantage point, but there is always something that is left ‘wanting’ for me when I read this book. I’ll call him “Aquinas lite”. He hits the big ideas on God’s nature and holiness. He proclaims the Father. However, I wish He brought Jesus into the center of the discussion more often. That’s where Aquinas has him beat.

For those that don’t know, St. Thomas Aquinas was a medieval Catholic theologian who created one of the first ’systematic theologies’. Translation: he tried to examine every attribute of God, and the church. Impossible of course, but reveals he had a king’s heart to search out the depths. Being catholic, and medieval makes Aquinas a bit too lofty for most 20th century believers. His Treatise on the Incarnation covers pages 2973-3451. Of course, Aquinas has his problems, but I’m very forgiving of the medieval believers. It was a tough century.

Let me put it this way: What happens to the immutability of God when we consider this verse, “Jesus grew in stature”? I’ll tell you what happens, Jesus now redefines immutability through His incarnation. Whatever we thought immutability was, gets turned around. It is no longer conceptual, but about the nature of a man, or at least a trait and characteristic of a man.

I love incarnational theology. Keeping the central truth, Jesus, as central. Not that we have to ‘name drop’ Jesus; or implying that if we are not talking about Him 24/7 we are missing it, but our theology must come from Him and go towards Him.

One of my frustrations over the last week was in interactions with someone who is attached to their inability to change because of what they refer to as ’social conditioning’. I’m not a fan of this mentality.

Too many people paint themselves into a corner as a victim of their social or genetic circumstances - while I don’t deny we all have certain ‘unchangables’ - often people use their social status or genetic tendancies as their primary reason for doing what they do.

The bottom line is the power of God has the ability to transform our behaviors - to prevail over our family dysfunctions, social status, and even our genetic predispositions. The unfortunate reality is most people will never appeal to the power of God to transform them. They will continue to use their life circumstances as an excuse for their behavior.

This is essentially a means of self-justification. It is becoming disturbing how even the legal system is becoming attached to these theories to the degree of claiming morally and legally deviant behavior as genetically pre-determined. For example: some people are just ‘born’ with a predatory instinct related to children. This is a rabbit-hole that ends in the depths of hell. Suddenly murder, theft, and adultery become genetic pre-dispositions - not choices made in a human heart. Human choice is removed from the picture and we all become victims of our genetic code or our socio-ecomonic milieu.

The irony in this is that those humanists who shout the loudest for ‘human rights to choose’ - are the same ones claiming that we really don’t have much of a choice. We’re simply ‘born’ to murder, steal or lie.

Of course, this is the natural state of the unrenewed mind, to submit to a harsh master, a ‘ba’al’. In this case the master is genetically hard-wired, relentless and exerting it’s power from within our own DNA. Talk about a bleak future. Of course, one of the biggest proponents of this type of determinism is quite infamous: Adolph Hitler. He claimed that the genetic code of the ‘Aryan race’ was the answer to our problems - while the genetic ‘deviations’ of the Jewish race were the source of all of socities’ ills. Is this really a path we want to start down?

Again, it is obvious there are many things that are not within our power to see changed; but this list is far smaller than more people wish. God has placed within us His Spirit - the very power of God that brought forth all of creation. The good news is that our family situation, where we were born, or our ‘genetic predispositions’ are not what primarily defines us. God is the one who names us, changes us, and has the Divine right to determine our identity. That is good news indeed in my opinion.