Michael Spencer may no longer be with us, but Chaplain Mike et al. have been doing a wonderful job of continuing his legacy of thoughtful-yet-passionate discussion of the many issues that face today’s Church. And one of the biggest issues is the apparent “war” between science and religion. And so, the Internet Monk is going to spend the next week at “the front lines of the Creation Wars”.

Do Christians really want to be the ones who deny, not merely the scientific model of biological evolution, but whole swaths of accepted scientific findings in geology, astronomy, physics, and many other fields based on a passage in the Bible that was never intended to address such matters?

[...]

I am no expert on questions of science. You won’t find me holding forth on these matters from a scientific perspective, because, well…because if I did you’d laugh at me and go read some other blog. At this point in my life and study, it is enough for me that many fine, thoughtful, committed Christians believe we don’t have to view this whole subject as a site for trench warfare.

We can talk.

On a related note, thanks to Elastic Heart for bringing to my attention “Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary?”, a fascinating article on possible explanations for the Bible’s first humans that are faithful to both the Bible and science. For more on this topic, I’ll refer to an entry I wrote back in March on Tim Keller’s essay, “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople”.

Stephen Prothero was recently on The Colbert Report to talk about his book, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter. As you might expect, it’s entertaining and humorous—though I wish Colbert had dropped his schtick a little bit to allow Prothero a bit more airtime.

Via Rod Dreher.

“Ecological Catastrophe and the Uneasy Evangelical Conscience” by Russell D. Moore:

Someone once described Roe vs. Wade as the “Pearl Harbor” of the evangelical pro-life conscience. Pearl Harbor is an apt metaphor. Before that date of infamy, foreign policy isolationism seemed to be a legitimate American option. The “America First” committees and some of the most influential figures in the United States Congress argued that Hitler’s war was none of our concern. We should tend to ourselves, and we could deal with whomever won in Europe and the Pacific when all the dust had settled.

After Pearl Harbor, the shortsightedness, and indeed utopianism, of isolationism was seen for what it was. After Roe, what seemed to be a “Catholic issue” now pierced through the consciences of evangelical Protestants who realized they’d not only been naive; they’d also missed a key aspect of Christian thought and mission.

For too long, we evangelical Christians have maintained an uneasy ecological conscience. I include myself in this indictment.

We’ve had an inadequate view of human sin.

Because we believe in free markets, we’ve acted as though this means we should trust corporations to protect the natural resources and habitats. But a laissez-faire view of government regulation of corporations is akin to the youth minister who lets the teenage girl and boy sleep in the same sleeping bag at church camp because he “believes in young people.”

The Scripture gives us a vision of human sin that means there ought to be limits to every claim to sovereignty, whether from church, state, business or labor. A commitment to the free market doesn’t mean unfettered license any more than a commitment to free speech means hardcore pornography ought to be broadcast in prime-time by your local network television affiliate.

Via Rod Dreher

You may have already seen this video as it made its way through the blogosphere within the last few weeks. It was produced by the media team at North Point Community Church for the Drive 2010 conference and “was meant to be a funny, shallow perspective at programming Sundays and ‘what really goes on’”.

It’s a good-natured and well-made video (though almost too similar to both “Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer” and “How To Report The News”) and as someone who used to work “behind the scenes” on a church worship team, there were parts of it that really hit home.

I remember all too well the struggle to make a Sunday morning worship service involving and yes, even entertaining, for hundreds of churchgoers without it becoming cheesy and contrived or watering down the presentation of the Gospel. It’s a fine line, and personally, it was one that I became tired of walking. It led to a great deal of cynicism about church in general and was one of the main reasons why I found myself increasingly drawn towards more “traditional/liturgical” services that stripped away many of the trappings of so-called “contemporary” worship for something a bit simpler. (I realize that may sound a tad arrogant and self-righteous, which is not my intent.)

All of that is to say that I found myself ultimately having mixed reactions to the video, particularly because I wasn’t quite sure about the point to it all. It’s intended as a “funny, shallow perspective”, but to what end? Most of the reactions that I’ve seen to the video have been Christians treating it as a sort of inside joke, an opportunity to laugh at our foibles. But again, I ask, to what end?

Brett McCracken, whose views on modern Christianity are always interesting, recently posted an analysis of the video. He writes:

Clearly the video hit home with many evangelicals, because it so aptly captured the decidedly un-cool/formulaic/lame nature of the average evangelical “wannabe cool” church today. Evangelicals laughed and passed it around in droves because they could collectively identity and purge their shame of having been associated with such ridiculousness. It allowed people to point a critical finger at something both familiar and “other,” while simultaneously allowing them to derive a satisfied sense of “we have moved on from that now” elitist amusement.

In his article, McCracken links to an article by Bill Kinnon, who is particularly critical of the video.

Rather than comedy, the above video from Andy Stanley’s* North Point Church’s very well-equipped media department should really be seen as simply admitting the truth of something that won’t be changing anytime soon in that world. No doubt, some churches will even use it as a teaching tool for their teams who aspire to megachurch greatness.

In the past couple of days, Twitter has been filled with the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge, nod, nod” tweet response to this video (which went up on the 5th of May).

The “isn’t it great we can make fun of ourselves” response of many made me want to pick up my laptop and toss it across the room (into a stack of pillows so it wouldn’t be damaged, of course.)

People mistakenly want to call this “satire.” But the definition of satire is the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices.

Do any of you really think the North Point media team meant to expose the “stupidity or vices” of their Christotainment Sunday morning services which no doubt follow the very pattern shown in the video?

Hardly.

I have no doubt that North Point created the video with good intentions, and by no means am I trying to cast doubt on their faithfulness and desire to serve God. But the more I reflect on the video, the more I find myself leaning towards Kinnon’s reaction.

It’s “inside joke”-iness, as well as the irony of a video poking fun at hip, slickly produced worship services being made by a church that does hip, slickly produced worship services ultimately doesn’t sit right with me. And it reminds me all to well of what drove me to a cynicism towards the Church that lasted for several years.

It may be that Jon Stewart rejoices in his bleeding heart every time some conservative pundit or figurehead gets caught in an awkward situation. And if so, then the last week has been a very joyous time for him indeed, what with the recent George Rekers incident. Rekers, a prominent anti-gay activist who formed the Family Research Council with James Dobson, is the latest in a long line of conservative figures—which also includes Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and Edward L. Schrock—who have been caught engaging in homosexual activity despite being known for their outspoken condemnation of homosexuality.

It’s the sort of hypocrisy that lends itself well to both righteous indignation and potty humor (both of which Stewart is very well-versed in). But it would be foolish to think that hypocrisy exists only within conservative circles. Certainly, there are folks on the Left who are just as stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical as any of the aforementioned individuals. However, it sometimes seems as if all we hear about are conservatives who have fallen from grace, and I’m curious as to why. (I’m not saying that’s actually how it is—I have no quantifiable data either way—just that that’s how it feels.)

Perhaps folks who lean to the left of the spectrum are just better at keeping their skeletons in the closet (so to speak). Or conservatives are so driven by the guilt over their double lifestyle—guilt which comes from the typical “conservative” values—that they eventually do something foolish so they can finally come clean. Maybe it does get reported in the news when a left-winger gets caught in a compromising situation, but their hypocrisy doesn’t seem like a big deal in comparison to the right-winger’s because of specific ideals that right-wingers espouse. Or perhaps it’s all part of some ominous, far-reaching liberal media conspiracy.

I have my own thoughts on the topic, but I’m curious what others think. Are there liberals who have been caught in Schrock-esque situations? Is there a liberal/left-wing equivalent to an anti-gay senator getting caught soliciting sex from a male prostitute? Are the typically “liberal” values and ideals capable of giving rise to that level of hypocrisy? What does it take to pick on the Left?

Stephen Prothero—a professor of religion at Boston University—recently posted a very interesting article on the foolishness and danger of claiming that all of the world’s religions are essentially the same and that their differences are unimportant. I highly recommend reading the entire article, which is adapted from his book God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter, but here are a few excerpts (emphasis mine):

At least since the first petals of the counterculture bloomed across Europe and the United States in the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true. This claim, which reaches back to “All Religions Are One” (1795) by the English poet, printmaker, and prophet William Blake, is as odd as it is intriguing. No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same. Capitalism and socialism are so self-evidently at odds that their differences hardly bear mentioning. The same goes for democracy and monarchy. Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, both essentially the same and basically good.

[...]

Of course, those who claim that the world’s religions are different paths up the same mountain do not deny the undeniable fact that they differ in some particulars. Obviously, Christians do not go on pilgrimage to Mecca, and Muslims do not practice baptism. Religious paths do diverge in dogma, rites, and institutions. To claim that all religions are basically the same, therefore, is not to deny the differences between a Buddhist who believes in no god, a Jew who believes in one God, and a Hindu who believes in many gods. It is to deny that those differences matter, however. From this perspective, whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) or whether human beings have souls (yes, say Hindus; no, say Buddhists) is of no account because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials.”

This is a lovely sentiment but it is untrue, disrespectful, and dangerous.

[...]

...this lumping of the world’s religions into one megareligion is not just false and condescending, it is also a threat. How can we make sense of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir if we pretend that Hinduism and Islam are one and the same? Or of the impasse in the Middle East, if we pretend that there are no fundamental disagreements between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

[...]

What the world’s religions share is not so much a finish line as a starting point. And where they begin is with this simple observation: Something is wrong with the world. In the Hopi language, the word “Koyaanisqatsi” tells us that life is out of balance. Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” tells us that there is something rotten not only in the state of Denmark but also in the state of human existence. Hindus say we are living in the “kali yuga,” the most degenerate age in cosmic history. Buddhists say that human existence is pockmarked by suffering. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic stories tell us that this life is not Eden; Zion, heaven, and paradise lie out ahead.

[...]

...here is another problem with the pretend pluralism of the perennial philosophy sort: Just as hitting home runs is the monopoly of one sport, salvation is the monopoly of one religion. If you see sin as the human predicament and salvation as the solution, then it makes sense to come to Christ. But that will not settle as much as you might think, because the real question is not which religion is best at carrying us into the end zone of salvation but which of the many religious goals on offer we should be seeking. Should we be trudging toward the end zone of salvation, or trying to reach the finish line of social harmony? Should our goal be reincarnation? Or to escape from the vicious cycle of life, death, and rebirth?

[...]

What we need is a realistic view of where religious rivals clash and where they can cooperate. The world is what it is. And both tolerance and respect are empty virtues until we actually know whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating or respecting.

Via Rod Dreher

I found out about Restore Stephen Baldwin—an online effort to undo the effects of Mr. Baldwin’s bankruptcy and theoretically restore his Christian influence in Hollywood—a week ago or so. At first, it all seemed like a joke, or even worse, a scam (an impression aided by the website’s awkward, spam e-mail-ish copy). But apparently, it’s the real deal, and has even received endorsements by such luminaries as Movieguide’s Ted Baehr.

There are so many things that are wrong with this restoration, but Rod Dreher sums them up nicely:

Look, I’m sorry that actor Stephen Baldwin is bankrupt, but this whole Restore Stephen Baldwin campaign is the ne plus ultra of Evangelical cheesiness.

Baldwin is the D-list actor who became a born-again Christian in 2002. But he got into financial trouble, and is now deeply in debt. Now this coterie of Baldwin supporters, who claim to be operating independent from the Massapequa thespian, are trying to raise money to get him out of bankruptcy. Well, look, I’d love it too if I went bankrupt, and my friends rallied to help me out. But what they’re doing here is Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey crazy.

[...]

...I doubt the poor choices that led to S. Baldwin’s bankruptcy had anything to do with God, and had everything to do with, you know, spending more money than he had coming in. Well, that, and the fact that—oops!—the Born-Again Baldwin neglected to pay over a million dollars in state and federal taxes, according to his bankruptcy filing.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that S. Baldwin was the greatest actor since young Brando—I know, I know, but let’s pretend—but his acting jobs evaporated after he came out as a born-again Christian. That would be tragedy, but worse things have happened to people. But guess what? Stephen Baldwin could have gotten a regular job like anybody else. Would it have killed him to work at Costco? That would have been honorable; having your friends beg publicly for money to restore you to celebrity income status is shameful and pathetic.

Dreher has also posted some excellent follow-up thoughts here:

One reason the Restore Stephen Baldwin nonsense bothers me so much is that it gets to something that bothers me to the marrow about religious culture, and it’s this: that religious people have a weakness for disguising ordinary crappy human behavior with a spiritual mask, thus granting it legitimacy.

Stephen Baldwin’s bankruptcy cannot, therefore, be a matter of a spendthrift celebrity who wanted a lifestyle he couldn’t afford, and who didn’t pay his taxes. Rather, his suffering has to be seen by some as a matter of “spiritual warfare,” thus disarming people from within the Christian community from dealing with the situation as it really is. I am reminded of three incidents from my own experience, one benign, the other malicious, the third downright evil.

Via Jeffrey Overstreet, who’s also posted some thoughts on the debacle.

I’m not exactly sure when I discovered the Internet Monk, aka Michael Spencer. I think it might’ve been back in 2007 with this piece concerning Joel Osteen’s appearance on 60 Minutes. In any case, I quickly became impressed by Spencer’s passion for God, the Church, and Christianity.

Sometimes, that meant he said some very hard things in a very direct manner (especially when it came to the “Prosperity Gospel”). But his writings were also thoughtful, gracious, and compassionate, and he encouraged discussion with ideas and people that many Christians might find challenging and troubling. And in an age, and a medium, where snarkiness and vitriol all too often pass for good argument, his writings were a relief… and a conviction.

There have been times where I’ve rewritten, or simply deleted altogether, an entry because it was becoming too snarky for its own good, or for the good of anyone who might read it. And some of that is, no doubt, the result of Spencer’s influence.

Sadly, Spencer was diagnosed with cancer last year, and though he underwent surgery to fight it, Spencer’s wife announced in early March that it was too late: his cancer was too advanced to be treated successfully. Michael Spencer died earlier tonight, surrounded by family. He will be sorely missed and the entire blogosphere is much poorer with his passing.

May God welcome him home with open arms and may He grant peace and comfort to his friends and family.