Environmentalism as Religion

Posted on December 21, 2009 by rbirkey

Michael Crichton was a famous author and speaker whose many books have been made into movies such as: Jurrasic Park, Congo, The Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and many others. He also was the creator of the successful and popular ER television series.

Before his death in 2008 from throat cancer, he had became an outspoken skeptic of man-made global warming and wrote and spoke on the topic and environmentalism in general. I reviewed his book, State of Fear in 2007 which deals with the topic of man-made global warming.

This is an interesting video clip where he comments on Environmentalism as a religion through his training in anthropology. I think his perspective is very interesting and informative. What do you think?

What is the “Faith” of Barack Obama?

Posted on September 8, 2008 by rbirkey

Cover: The Faith of Barack Obama

I recently finished reading The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield [Thomas Nelson, publisher].

I agree with Mansfield’s introductory book premise that understanding a man’s religious vision and personal faith will illuminate how he will lead. To Mansfield, Barack’s faith uniquely positions him as a “healer” and prophetic conscience for our nation, on the level of Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, William Wilberforce and others.

The pertinent question, then, is what IS Barack Obama’s faith and religious vision and how will it inform his leadership?

Although Barack professes to have a personal relationship with Jesus (the historical object of Christian faith), this book reveals little about how Barack’s faith is rooted in that relationship. To me the book reveals his faith to be more rooted in traditions, ethics, black liberation theology and an attractive community life that fits with his personal values, rather than in a personal submission to the God-man, Jesus Christ, as revealed to us in Scripture.

As Mansfield observes, Barack’s faith is in a belief that “Christianity is but one religious tree rooted in the common ethical soil of all human experience.” For Barack, “there are many paths to the same place.”

According to Mansfield, Obama “is the product of a new, post-modern generation that picks and chooses its own truth from traditional faith, much as a man customizes his meal at a buffet.”

I also find it enlightening that his religious vision and faith is guided, not by revealed truth, but by doubt. “Doubt is at the heart of Obama’s religion. Indeed, it is not going too far to say that for Obama, doubt is a form of worship.”

Mansfield moves from these quotes and statements to his conclusions in the last chapter. That religion, to Barack Obama, “is transforming, lifelong and real. It is who he is at the core . . . While Americans are used to religious insincerity from their political leaders, Obama seems to be sincere in what he proclaims. It was his faith that gave him the will to serve in public office and the worldview of that faith that shaped his understanding of what he would do once he came to office.”

“Obama’s faith infuses his public policy, so that his faith is not just limited to the personal realms of his life; it also informs his leadership.”

In what way will a faith rooted in doubt and customized at will inform leadership? Every person must wrestle with doubt, but do doubt and uncertainty qualify a person for leadership? What does it say about our times and culture that our most admired individuals are those who cannot affirm what they believe? That not knowing truth is valued above knowing truth? If doubt is a form of worship for Barack Obama then our country’s infatuation with Barack Obama belies an infatuation with doubters and those who readily admit that truth is unknowable.

We would all do well to remember the famous and timely words of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

In conclusion, there is much to admire about Barack Obama. He is gifted and able in many areas. I commend him for his many good qualities, and respect the hardships he has overcome, and hope that many will emulate the positive choices he has made in his life. But on the question as to whether or not his faith as presented in this book makes him more attractive to me as a leader and presidential candidate, it does not. Rather, the faith of Barack Obama is deeply concerning to me–for him as a person, and for our country.

Unlike Mr. Mansfield, I do not see Barack Obama as a prophet, ready to heal the wounds of our nation. Rather, he is a brilliant politician, a winsome, sincere and transparent communicator, who is seriously confused about the object of his professed faith.

Even though I disagree with the conclusion of this book, I would recommend it to anyone seriously following the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama and the critically important choice ahead for our nation on November 4th.

An Intro to Barack Obama’s Faith

Posted on August 30, 2008 by rbirkey

I am reading a newly published book by author Stephen Mansfield called “The Faith of Barack Obama” [Thomas Nelson]. In the Introduction, the author makes this assertion:

This book is… written in the belief that if a man’s faith is sincere, it is the most important thing about him, and that it is impossible to understand who he is and how he will lead without first understanding the religious vision that informs his life.

I agree with that statement. What remains to be seen is if Mr. Mansfield can convincingly reveal that Barack Obama’s faith is first “sincere” and then what it is about that faith that would convince me to trust him as the de facto leader of the free world.

I am an independent who most often finds himself voting Republican, so I am skeptical. I’ve already posted the problems I have with his stand on partial-birth abortion and marriage. However, I am interested to see if there is anything in this book that would help me understand how his “faith” can allow him to hold these positions, and other positions that I have problems with.

We shall see.

Universal Values?

Posted on June 24, 2008 by rbirkey

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” – Barack Obama in a 2006 speech

Wow! Really? Yikes!

Chapter 2: From House Churches to Holy Cathedrals

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

From House Churches to Holy Cathedrals

As already stated in earlier posts, the early church believed that Jesus was the very presence of God and that the body of Christ (the church) constitutes his temple.

The authors of Pagan Christianity? point out that Jesus made some radical statements about the Temple in Jerusalem that angered the Jews of his day. One that angered them the most was the claim that if the temple was destroyed he would build a new one in three days! (John 2:19-21) Though he was referring to the architectural temple as an example, he was actually referring to the real temple – his body – which he did raise up as Himself on the third day (Ephesians 2:6).

The New Testament teaches that since Christ is risen, we Christians have become God’s temple through his “life giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Through his spirit, he takes up residence with his believers, making them his house or temple. This is why the NT never refers to the church as a building, but as a people.

With Jesus, we no longer need a specific or special place to worship God. We can worship Him in spirit and truth from anywhere.

“When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces.” (James D. G. Dunn)

As another scholar has put it, “The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was essentially a home-centered movement.”

As some early church congregations grew they began to remodel their homes to accommodate more people. One example of this is the famous home of Dura-Europos (AD 232) in modern Syria, which is the earliest identifiable Christian meeting place. It was a private home remodeled by removing one interior wall (between 1 and 2 at right), so that it could hold about 70 people.

Examples like this cannot be called “church buildings” but rather homes modified to accommodate larger assemblies. They were never called temples, nor considered sacred spaces.

I became aware of this particular archeological evidence a number of years ago when my father, Del Birkey wrote a book called: The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church in which this same point is made.

Because of this, on trips in Europe and a recent trip to Spain, I have been keenly aware of the vast changes that occurred in history from the beginning of the church (The Upper Room and the house churches of the New Testament) through history (the basilicas and cathedrals of Europe) on to today (the American church building and church architecture) as it relates to the idea of the church as a building.

The most fantastic example I have seen so far is the Familia Sagrada in Barcelona, Spain. It is truly amazing and incredible… yet sadly, it is not a church, even though millions believe this to be the case.

Even though many of these buildings erected for the purpose of church gatherings are indeed spectacular works of art and human engineering, and deserve our study and admiration, they sadly detract from the original and true meaning of “the church.”

Chapter 2: Temples, Priests, and Sacrifices

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

Temples, Priests, and Sacrifices

Continuing in Chapter 2 of Pagan Christianity? authors Frank Viola and George Barna point out that the Old Testament Hebrews had a faith experience centered around the Temple, the priesthood and the sacrifice. But Jesus fulfilled all three of these by becoming the “Temple” made without hands, the final high priest who has made each believer a priest, and he became the final, perfect, sacrifice. He thus ended all three of these Old Testament practices.

The Greeks and Romans at the time of the early church also had temples, priests and sacrifices. The early church was the first non-temple religion ever to emerge. To the early believers, they themselves were the temple or house of God. Nowhere in the New Testament writings is the word church (ecclesia) used to refer to a building or a place. To “go to church” would have been a foreign thought to a first century believer.

We first see an example of the word ecclesia used to refer to a building in AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria. But even here it refers to a private home used for Christian meetings.

New Testament scholar Graydon F. Snyder writes:

“There is no literary evidence nor archeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine. The first churches consistently met in homes. Until the year 300 we know of no buildings first built as churches.”

The early church also did not have a priestly tribe or caste. They understood that every believer was a priest unto God and encouraged each other to act and worship accordingly. They each brought sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving and their very selves in worship to God.

It was much later, when Roman Catholicism evolved in the 4th to 6th centuries, that a professional priesthood was started, they erected sacred buildings, and turned the Lord’s Supper into a mysterious sacrificial event. Later, the Protestants dropped the sacrificial use of the Lord’s Supper (as it should have), but it unfortunately retained the priestly caste and the sacred church building concepts to this day.

In my own mind, I find it incredible that many in the church today still hang onto the remnants of this kind of thinking. Our houses of worship are not any more holy than any other place, including our own homes, or public buildings, schools, bars, and the like. Holiness and sacredness have nothing to do with physical things or places. Separating the secular and sacred was a gnostic idea, a heresy that the early church constantly battled. Ascribing sacred or holy qualities to objects of any kind is idolatry.

I also find our modern ideas surrounding what we call pastors or elders hard to square with the New Testament. The idea of a hierarchy of leadership with a “senior” pastor, or “head” elder along with associate or junior pastors and leaders is not in the New Testament. Elders and pastors were regular church members who were gifted in leadership and other teaching and pastoring gifts. Since these gifts were given by the Holy Spirit, the individuals so gifted were acknowledged and expected to function using their gifts for the edification (building up) of the body. They had no concept of these words (pastor, elder, bishop) describing an organizational position or a separate category of holiness. Jesus Christ was considered the only “head” of the church.

In my opinion, our modern traditions and expectations about the “senior pastor” position are more similar the the Roman Catholic “priest” idea than to the New Testament concept and practice. Others have called this phenomenon the “pedestal complex” (Chuck Colson and others) and have written and spoken extensively about the inherent dangers. In the New Testament, all believers are saints, priests, and uniquely gifted by the Holy Spirit to function and serve in the body of Christ. No one is more important or necessary than another. All are equal in Christ… this is the message of the Gospel.

When we put pastors, elders or other church leaders in a special category, or up on a pedestal as it were – consciously or subconsciously – we are practicing another form of idolatry.

Finally, I am also pained by the somber, joyless and introspective manner in which we often focus on the Lord’s Supper. What happened to experiencing it as an actual meal (as the original was) and a body life celebration or a “love feast?” Why have we abandoned that tradition of the early church? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about their excesses in it, he never suggested that they discontinue the love feast altogether!

I my mind’s eye I can imagine a group of believers gathered around a meal in a home, weaving together fellowship, prayer, song, thanksgiving, confession, and scripture reading, as they also share bread and wine to remember what Jesus Christ did on their behalf. I hear responses in laughter, quiet reflection or prayer as well as the whole range of human emotion and expression as they “do this in remembrance of me.”

I find myself longing for that experience.

Chapter 2: The Church Building – Inheriting the Edifice Complex

Posted on April 13, 2008 by rbirkey

Well, here we go. Chapter Two of Pagan Christianity? deals with the first specific example of a pagan practice adopted by the church. That being the idea that the church is a building or a place. The authors point out the love affair we tend to have with brick and mortar. When Christians begin to meet and form a new church, most of the time they think they must secure a building.

Furthermore, the idea is so ingrained we unconsciously equate the two ideas without thinking:

“Wow! Look at that beautiful church we just passed!”
“We have gone to church every Sunday for the last three years.”
“Isn’t it great to be in the House of the Lord this morning?”
“We must show reverence when we enter the sanctuary of the Lord.”

The authors make the statement that none of these type of statements or ideas have anything to do with New Testament Christianity.

I have to agree. The church is people.

Intelligent Design in Oak Park, Illinois

Posted on October 30, 2005 by rbirkey

Oak Park is the community where I live and we have 2 local weekly newspapers. On October 26th, 2005 the Wednesday Journal ran an open letter from a local resident, which read:

An open letter to my religious brethren on intelligent design

To my evangelical friends:

Why not consider evolution to be God’s concept of intelligent design?

To deem such a thought as invalid is to restrict the magnificence of our Almighty Creator. And certainly it would be blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God.

Unless we believe that Jonah literally survived the juices of the belly of the whale, then we must recognize the allegorical beauty of the Bible.

Allegory teaches us theological and moral truth in a way that stimulates both the intellect and the imagination. We need not take things literally to know there truth.

So too, the Bible … an incredibly revelatory book when read with a biot of insight and imagination.

Your liberal friend,

Paul Moroney
Oak Park

I don’t know why Mr. Moroney decided to write this letter at this particular point in time. Maybe his concern has something to do with the ID vs. Evolution cases in other states that have been in the news recently? – I’m not sure.

Based upon his letter, apparently Mr. Moroney thinks that it is “evangelicals” who are leading the crazy questioning of evolution. Otherwise, why address this to evangelicals? And what’s with the “liberal friend” thing — Is this a political issue? Is he not aware that it is the scientific community itself that is leading the way in questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Here are some facts for Mr. Moroney to deal with:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine.

“We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”

“More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin’s theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge.”

The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

Darwin’s Black Box

Has Mr. Moroney even read the pivotal book by Dr. Michael Behe called “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he put forth his theory of irreducible complexity? This book and theory had nothing to do with evangelicals or religion. Dr. Behe was looking at the claims of Darwinian evolution, and noting how it did not fit with his scientific observance at the microbiological level.

As one of the “evangelicals” that Mr. Moroney is addressing in his open letter, I simply respond with… “Why should I consider (the theory of) evolution as God’s concept of intelligent design, when (the theory of) evolution itself does not hold up under rigorous scientific scrutiny?”

Pursuit of Truth is the Scientific Method

We evangelicals believe that all truth is God’s truth. We don’t claim to know everything, regardless of how the media portrays us. We actually like science, and believe Christians ought to be involved in science. In fact, as a group we have made many important contributions to science! We happen to think that evolution should be put to the test, just as intelligent design, global warming and any other scientific theory should. We are all about discovering the truth. The issue with evolution vs. intelligent design has nothing to do with religion or God. After all, even if Intelligent Design were to become a widely held theory, it would not answer the question of — WHO was the intelligent designer?

The manner in which some people get so defensive about their beloved Darwin and his theory, makes you wonder who is really interested in discovering truth. Why would someone want to blindly continue to defend a worn out, increasingly suspect theory from the Victorian era? What’s wrong with questioning evolution?

Darwinian Evolution as Religion

Mr. Moroney and others like him have based their worldview squarely upon Darwinian evolution. When something comes along that threatens that worldview, they get all shaky. This response is not very scientific. The scientific method keeps an open mind, and is willing to continually look for truth based upon the evidence. It is always challenging presuppositions, and seeking to break down the ways of thinking that are blinders. I don’t see much of that going on here.

Instead, Mr. Moroney’s letter reads an awful lot like the response you get from a person who holds blindly and firmly to a religious belief and you start asking some probing and challenging questions. The similarity in response is so striking that I would theorize that many people have made Darwinian Evolution their religion, and can’t face the possibility they might be wrong. Sadly, I’m afraid this is what the open letter is really all about.

Mr. Moroney… if you are out there, I welcome your response. Please let me know what is so solid about evolution that should stop me from questioning it’s scientific basis. And, let me know what my being an “evangelical” has to do with it.

Your “evangelical” neighbor,

Randy

Paul Tounier on Silence

Posted on October 26, 2005 by rbirkey

My wife and I went away over the past weekend for some rest, reflection and prayer. We sensed a need to reconnect with God, each other, and our own feelings and emotions.

We read a chapter out of a book called “Spiritual Classics” that focused on the life of Paul Tournier (1898 – 1986). He was a deeply religious Christian doctor and counselor who lived and worked in Geneva, Switzerland. He has helped many believers by putting insights of psychology and psychiatry into a Christian perspective.

Here are a few choice quotes that jumped out at us:

Why have you practiced meditation constantly for the past 50 years?

“Modern people lack silence. They no longer lead their own lives; they are dragged along by events. It is a race against the clock. I think that what so many people come to see me for is to find a quiet, peaceful person who knows how to listen and isn’t thinking all the time about what he has to do next. If your life is chock-full already, there won’t be room for anything else. Even God can’t get anything else in. So it becomes essential to cut something out. I’m putting it as simply as I can.”

Can one define silence?

“For me, above all it is waiting. I wait for God to stimulate my thoughts sufficiently to renew me, to make me creative instead of being what St.Paul called a tinkling cymbal. It’s the cornerstone of my life. It is an attempt at seeing people and their problems from God’s point of view, insofar as that is possible.”