Finding God In U2

The Christian Post reports that Samford University's Professor of divinity, Steven R. Harmon, dubbed U2's latest album as their "most thoroughly Christian" project to date. U2's newest album, "No Line On The Horizon" was just released this week.

For some reason U2 has kind of become the heros of 21st century liberal pop-evangelicalism. All of the hippest ministers, it seems nowadays, can't say enough good things about U2. They love the quasi-Christian messages in some of the songs, and they've made Bono the poster boy for humanitarian aid and social justice. Whatever. Fine. U2 has certainly had a big impact on the music industry, and I like a lot of their songs.

My issue comes in when we start trying to "find God" in their songs and messages, and we use them as a means of spirituality. But it isn't just U2 we're talking about. I hate (a strong word, I know, but it accurately describes my feelings) all of the new books that come out that encourage you to "find God" in the latest movie that has been released, or in some band, music, or artwork. For example, we had "Finding God in Lord of the Rings," and "Finding God in the DaVinci Code" (yes, I really did see that one). I even just saw a book entitled "Finding God in Harry Potter." Maybe this is oversimplifying the issue, but wouldn't it be far more productive to "find God" in the Bible, the only place where he has truly revealed himself? I suppose you could "find God" in Lord of the Rings, but I think it would take quite a bit of work - at least a heck of a lot more work than cracking open a Bible. The same is true with U2: although it's a lot easier to pop in a U2 CD than it is to actually study the Bible, the "thoroughly Christian" message you receive is nothing compared to scripture (it's sad that this point even needs to be made).

There's also a serious problem (in my opinion, anyway) in "finding God" in places where you also find evil, sin, and perversion. In fact, quantifying U2's latest release as their "most thoroughly Christian" album should tell you something right there: if someone/something is indeed Christian, and adheres to biblical principles, shouldn't all of their work be "thoroughly Christian"? That's certainly not the case with U2. You don't have to read too many lyrics or listen to too many interviews with Bono to realize that the man (and presumably the rest of the band) do not adhere to scripture, and are most likely not born again. Would you take a preacher seriously who's messages were sometimes "Christian" and sometimes not? Would that be someone that you would go to for spiritual insight? I think not. Why then do so many Christians do so with U2? Also, if some of your pastor's messages weren't "thoroughly Christian," what was it about them that made them so? Did they contain cursing? Heresy? False teaching? You'd be a fool to sit under the spiritual authority of a man who didn't preach "thoroughly Christian" messages week in and week out. But apparently for some Christians, U2 gets a pass. I think, at least to some extent, Christians gravitate towards U2's music because they've got at least some messages that seem Christian, so it's a good enough excuse for Christians to engage pop culture.

This is not to say, however, that we can't appreciate Christian messages in art, books, and music. It is to say that we need not go searching for God in obscure places and try to force him into our view of artwork, because he has already readily revealed us to himself in scripture. If it ain't broke, why try to fix it with U2?

Call me old fashioned, but I still think the best place to find God is in his word.

Belief Vs. Understanding

This past week in my message from Luke 9.37-45 I made a few statements about how not believing God's word is essentially calling him a liar, and so then, not believing God as he has revealed himself through his word is a sin. I still stand on by those statements, based upon 1 John 5.10: "Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son." I've been thinking about this for the past few days, and I believe there are a few important distinctions that need to be made.

I recently read this article by Chuck Swindoll, in which he does not fault the father of the demon-possessed boy for his unbelief. Swindoll goes on to tell about how he preached at his own father's funeral, and gave his family the hope of the resurrection, and several other biblical encouragements. He was later confronted by his sister, who asked him if he really believed all of the things that he said at his father's funeral, to which Swindoll replied something to the effect of, "No, I guess not. I can't really wrap my mind around a lot of those things." Swindoll then goes on to say how it's liberating to not know everything, and that Christians must be careful about having all the answers when in fact they really don't, all of which I agree with.

There is, I believe however, a difference between faith and understanding. The two are not necessarily linked. For example, I don't understand the mystery of the incarnation. I can't wrap my mind around how the infinite became finite. I don't understand how the invisible became visible. But, just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean I don't believe it. Another good example would be the act of creation: I can't comprehend the kind of power it takes to create with a word, but I believe that it happened. Or take the Trinity: three equal persons, yet one. It doesn't make sense, but I believe it. In other words, you don't necessarily have to understand in order to believe.

There is a difference between those things and the lapses of faith evidenced by the father of the demon-possessed boy and the disciples in Luke 9.37-45. Those folks KNEW what Jesus was capable of and saw it with their own eyes, and still did not believe. There is biblical evidence to support the fact that the father of the boy was actually a regular follower of Jesus, and yet he approaches him by saying, "If you can...." The disciples were specifically given power over all demons, and yet they cannot cast this one out.

In this sense, it would be sin for me to know about the mystery of the incarnation, and NOT believe it, even if I can't understand it. Why? Because scripture makes it pretty clear: God became a man who was the same in every way to all other men except that he did not sin. To not believe that is sin because it is what scripture testifies to.

So then, in conclusion, we shouldn't be concerned about sinning because we can't understand something; there are limits to our powers of reason and understanding. But even if we do not understand, we must still believe.

Banana Man Vs. Alien Man

Ray Comfort is the man - Banana Man, that is. I just read this article on worldnetdaily.com and I thought it was hilarious. It's especially sweet, knowing that Comfort's new book "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think" just pushed Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion" out of the #1 spot on Amazon's Atheist book list. Read the article for yourself:


Atheist wants debate to cost Christian author $100,000
Dawkins snubs offer of $10,000 for hour-long event

Atheist Richard Dawkins says he isn't as much concerned with what he would get if he accepts a challenge to debate Ray Comfort as with what it would cost the Christian author.

As WND reported, Dawkins snubbed an offer of $10,000 for a debate, which would amount to an hour's work. Now Comfort, author of "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think," has suggested raising the offer to $20,000, but Dawkins still isn't impressed.

"Twenty thousand dollars is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered," Dawkins told WND in an e-mail. "However, I am not in this for the money.

"My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense," Dawkins wrote.

"The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation," he wrote.

Comfort explained the "Banana Man" reference.

"For years I have held a Coke can in one hand and a banana in the other, and compared the two. Both have a tab at the top. The banana has a wrapper with perforations, is biodegradable, etc. It was a parody – the point being, if someone designed the Coke can then obviously Someone designed the banana. In the mid 1990's I published the parody in booklet form called 'The Atheist Test' and sold over a million copies. When we put it into our TV program, atheists removed the Coke can, and sent the clip all over the Internet, saying 'Ray Comfort believes that the banana is proof of God's existence.' I guess atheists don't appreciate parody."

Comfort cited Dawkins' response to Ben Stein, in the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," when the atheist was asked, "What do you think is the possibility that … intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics ... or in evolution?"

Dawkins said: "It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."

"So let's call the debate 'Banana Man Debates Alien Man' and let the audience decide who is the 'ignorant fool,'" Comfort said.

Dawkins had told WND he would participate in the argument only on a list of conditions, including a $100,000 donation to his foundation.

Dawkins also demanded a staff member for his website be allowed to film the event and then distribute it as a DVD, "if he thinks it is funny enough."

A spokeswoman for Dawkins' website also told WND Dawkins doesn't debate people from "the flat-earth society."

The original offer of $10,000 from Comfort, who also is co-host with actor Kirk Cameron of the award-winning TV show "The Way of the Master," wasn't taken seriously by Dawkins.

"Ten thousand dollars is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher)," he said.

"It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool," he wrote. "You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it."

Comfort said the offer was good whether Dawkins finished the debate with a win, lose or draw.

"Richard Dawkins is arguably the most famous living atheist, now that Anthony Flew doubted his doubts and backslid as an atheist," said Comfort. "Flew said that he simply followed the evidence. I would like to see Richard Dawkins follow his example."

The invitation from Comfort, who has spoken at Yale University on atheism and in 2001 addressed American Atheists, Inc., wasn't well received by the spokeswoman for Dawkins' official website either.

A respondent who identified herself only as "Liz" wrote:

"We know nothing about this – and it is a rather silly publicity stunt," the message said. "Richard has always made it known that he does not debate people from the flat-earth society, those who promote the stork-theory of conception and birth, or young-earth creationists."

Comfort debated atheistic evolution on ABC's Nightline in 2007 and earlier this year debated on the BBC. He is the author of some 60 other books including "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists," "How to Know God Exists," and "Evolution: the Fairy Tale for Grownups." He is the publisher of "The Evidence Bible" and more recently, "The Atheist Bible (Unauthorized Version)" and, "The Charles Darwin Bible." His booklet, "The Atheist Test" has sold over a million copies.

On Darwin Day (Charles Darwin's 200th birthday – Feb. 12), Comfort's latest, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think," published by WND Books, pushed Dawkins' "The God Delusion" out of the No. 1 spot in the atheist category on Amazon.com.

"One of Dawkins' major gripes is against religion," said Comfort. "I am in total agreement on that one. I abhor religion. It is the opiate of the masses. It has left a bloody trail of destruction and human misery throughout history. Hitler even used it for his own ends. His other big beef is that he believes that the God of the Old Testament is a tyrant. If I had the image of God Dawkins has created in his mind, I, too, would be an atheist. The problem is that the god Mr. Dawkins doesn't believe in, doesn't exist."

Before The Throne Of God Above

A few days ago I learned that PW Gopal had just released a set of worship recordings. If you don't know who PW Gopal is, check him out. He's a native Sri Lankan (sp?) who sings folk-style music. He has an absolutely unique and amazing voice, and he sings with incredible power.

Anyway, like I said, PW just released a worship album called "Everyone Loves Sammy" (I don't know what that means). On the disk, PW sings a hymn that I was heretofore unfamiliar with, and after I asked around a bit, I couldn't find anyone else who had heard it either. It's called "Before The Throne Of God Above." It's an amazing hymn, and P-Dub's arrangement of it is fantastic: very simple, just his acoustic guitar and his voice. The song itself doesn't need anymore than that, considering the power of the lyrics:

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God!

Ok, I've got a new favorite hymn. And to hear it sung by P-Dub is awesome.

Gay Man Sues Publishers Over Bible Verses

Here's an article from USA Today that was forwarded to me. Apparently this took place back in July. I wonder what happened with the case? The text of the article is found below in bold type, with my comments in regular type:

GAY MAN SUES PUBLISHERS OVER BIBLE VERSES

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Right off the bat, the whole idea that a gay man is suing a Bible publisher is laughable. The publisher has nothing to do with the content. For example, Amazon is selling copies of "Mein Kampf." Should they be sued? Should the publisher of the book? Secondly, which of this man's "constitutional rights" have been violated? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

A grand total of 70 million? Wow. That's a high price for emotional pain and mental instability. For those of you outside of the Christian publishing bubble, Zondervan and Thomas Nelson are two of the biggest Bible publishers in the country.

Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson. Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

Good luck with that.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Ya think?

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The question here is whether or not Zondervan's publishing of the material that condemns homosexuality, or the man's homosexual behavior itself, is what's causing the physical discomfort, demoralization, chaos, bewilderment, and has made him an outcast from his family. It's amazing (yet not amazing at the same time) that people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Where in the Bible does it command Christians to abuse, discriminate, hate, or murder homosexuals? And don't say Leviticus something or other. That argument is so tired and worn out, and its been explained a million times. Those commands were given to a specific people at a specific time in a specific place. They don't apply to New Covenant, 21st century Christians. So really, where does the Bible say that?

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes. The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.

I have no idea what this refers to. But even if Zondervan and Thomas Nelson included or excluded certain verses, there are plenty of other Bibles out their from plenty of other publishers that we could check with.

As I think about it, I see only two possible reasons why this man would sue these Bible publishers: 1) he doesn't want to have to take responsibility for his actions and his sin (homosexual sin or otherwise); 2) he wants to get rich quick.

I suspect it's probably both.