How old is this old (???) earth?

“And now for something completely different!” This post and my last few posts have this in common: They are both written by me. And that’s about it!

It seems the question of creation and the age of the earth pops up with great regularity. Friends have posted blogs about it (I guess I’m adding to that list); books (new and old) address it; pastors speak about it; schools teach it (well, most teach evolution, which still addresses origins). Some Christians talk about it, some with great fervor.

Let’s back up from the age issue, though, and look at what I think is the core issue. Philosophically, the battle boils down to this: Is the earth and its creatures created or did they come about purely by natural forces and processes? Am I, as a human, created in the image of God or am I a glorified primate? The question here of where man came from outweighs the question of when he came. I think we must think about creation and the “age” issue on two levels. One is apologetics; the other is the text.

Before I continue, I must give three disclaimers:

  (1)    I am not saying the “young earth” view is necessarily wrong. You’ll see why I say this in the next section.

  (2)    I do not believe theistic evolution provides a valid explanation of origins (theistic evolution typically says God set the initial conditions (pre big-bang) and then allowed evolution to proceed, knowing it would eventually produce humanity).

  (3)    I am not advocating we ignore the biblical text.

Apologetics

When talking with an unbeliever or someone who hasn’t looked carefully at the issue of origins, we will almost always lose our audience if we introduce “young earth” too early in the discussion. Why? They are indoctrinated with the idea that the earth is old. Most science classes teach an ancient universe. And if young earth is even addressed in educational settings, it is usually ridiculed. So, our audience holds as true that the universe is old. Frequently, they turn us off as soon as we mention “young earth.”

In addition, if we hold a young earth view, we face a credibility issue. Most of us are no more than amateur scientists, if that. But, if we hold a young earth view, we must argue that every field of science is wrong where it touches on any aspect of origins. This includes astronomy, physics, geology, radiometric dating, biology, paleontology, and others. Might they be wrong? Yes (I won’t argue one way or the other here), but most of us do not have the background to evaluate the “party line” of the sciences, the critique of “the party line” or the critique of the critiques! Most of us have some knowledge of the basics, but we must rely on third parties to form our opinions. So, when we say “science is wrong,” the logical response (often unspoken) is, “you’re not a scientist – how do you know”? This issue is particularly relevant when we talk with someone who does have a background in science!

So, where can we start?

“Given that”

I heard this at a conference a few years back, and it makes so much sense. “Given that the universe is old, do we have evidence of design?” By saying this, I am not saying that the universe is old; I’m simply sidestepping for now the issue to get to more central issues: creation and the existence of the creator. Using the “given that” approach simply says, “I’ll grant you your point for the sake of argument. Even if your point is true, we still have evidence that supports creation. Let’s look at it.”

And the evidence does exist. Specified complexity (such as the “programming” of DNA). The fine-tuning of the universe. Irreducible complexity (such as cellular “motors”). The rapid expansion of the so-called Cambrian explosion (significant increase in genetic information in a short period of geological time). The limits of the change mutations can actually cause within an organism. These are not simply “God of the gaps” explanations (i.e., “we can’t explain it, therefore God did it”). Rather, they are “arguments to the best explanation” (i.e., parallel phenomena such as computer programming are the result of intelligent, creative action).

I fear too many people (aka, high school and college age kids) lose confidence in the Bible because we don’t arm them well enough with the “apologetic” answers. I want them – and us – to have confidence that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. And I want them to have confidence in the Bible.

The Text

If you know me, you also know I hold a high view of the Bible. I firmly believe it is our ultimate authority. So, in a discussion of origins, I cannot ignore the text! In the few words I have left, let me give four thoughts about the Genesis account:

  (1)    The facts of science and the Bible must agree. However, the interpretation of one, the other, or both might be wrong.

  (2)    The argument that says disagreement with an interpretation means you deny the inerrancy of Scripture is a false dichotomy. I found eight different approaches to Genesis One from writers who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture but interpret the passages differently (this group does not include theistic evolutionary approaches, although some theistic evolutionists such as Bruce Waltke hold to inerrancy). Not all such interpretations are equally strong, but the issue is interpretation, not inerrancy.

  (3)    The writer of Genesis (whom I believe to be Moses) wrote to an agrarian, non-scientific culture roughly 1500 years before Christ. What did he intend to communicate to the original audience? “Given that” we might disagree on the details of the Creation, we can agree that the text tells of the existence and nature of God, that He is the creator, that objects and creatures worshipped by both Egyptian and Canaanite cultures are created, that man is uniquely created in God’s image, that through the sin of the first created man, Adam, sin entered the world, and so on. These principles do not rise or fall based on the age of the creation.

  (4)    By all means, come to a conclusion about the interpretation of the text. Discuss it with others, but be gracious with those who interpret it differently – especially in public settings.

How old is this old (or not-so-old) earth? If you noticed, I didn’t answer the question. I have my convictions, but I’m not going to give them here. If you take a guess, some of you will be right and some of you will be wrong. Wrestle with the answer to the age of the earth; come to a conclusion about the age; but keep the main thing the main thing: that God created, not when He created.

Connecting with "Them" (a spin off from "The roasting of Chick-fil-A")

The crowd didn’t look like “my” crowd. Different clothes; different hair; different adjectives falling from their lips with great regularity; different topics of conversation. I won’t tell you where I was, because that’s not the point (it was no place inappropriate, that much I’ll say). But while there, the thought popped in my head, “If I were given a microphone and told to talk to this crowd, how could I ever bridge the gap between their world, which is much different than mine, and the gospel?”

How can we connect with, respond to, treat, and talk to “them”?

“Them” is anyone different than us. The crowd at the above event. The gay couple in the apartment upstairs.  The homeless man pushing his shopping cart down the street. The hooker on the corner. The cultural “untouchable” at the bottom of the social caste. The unmarried mom on welfare with a bunch of kids. The “undocumented immigrant” living down the street (and please don’t throw rocks at me for not calling them “illegal aliens” My point is to bring a face to mind, not stir a political issue).  The classmate who “parties”. The neighbor who supports “that” candidate or platform. The thief in jail. The liberal family member (or the conservative family member, depending on your bent).

In Jesus’ day, “them” included people like tax collectors, immoral women, lepers, Samaritans. “Them” looks different in different times and different cultures, but “them” always exist. So, how can we respond to, connect with, treat, and talk to “them”?

Let me offer six ideas (okay, I know I’m a math and science nerd who likes lists).

First, develop your convictions about our world. We shouldn’t start a conversation here, but we do need to know what we believe and why we believe it. I hold biblical marriage unites one man and one woman for life. As such, I think gay marriage runs counter to God’s design. That is my conviction, based on the Scriptures. When I talk to the gay couple in the apartment upstairs, I may refrain from saying anything, but I need to know what I believe so I can listen wisely. (By the way, I’m only using the gay marriage example because the idea for this post arose as I was thinking about the Chick-Fil-A issue, not because I’m a one-issue writer).

Second, humanize them. Here’s what I mean: I need to keep the “Pharisee in me” from getting out. I cannot become like the one who prayed, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector” (Luke 18:11). Do not view them as projects or by a label. “Them” are people, not just gay, or homeless, or poor, or …. “Them” are people made in the likeness of God (James 1:10). Like me, they have strengths and needs. Like me, they struggle with sin issues. Like me, they are imperfect. I need to remember that, like me, they need God’s grace. Like me, they are part of the world that God so loved (John 3:16). I’m not better than “them”.

Third, know that we have good news that “them” need to hear. The gospel message – justification by faith alone in Jesus alone – applies to any and all. The promise of “abundant life” (quality of life, by the way, not a promise of heath-and-wealth) applies to any and all who have trusted Christ. Since all of us “fall short of the glory of God”, none of us deserves grace. Those of us who have tasted grace have the greatest message in the world to present to “them.”

Fourth, show compassion first, not judgment. Someone once said he knew all the Bible verses about his lifestyle. Christians had thumped him with them repeatedly. But he said he started to respond to the words of Christ only after someone showed him the love of Christ. Compassion doesn’t mean we condone what others are doing (any more than we should condone our own sin), and it is faulty logic that leads someone from “You are opposed to gay marriage” to “therefore, you hate gay people.” Instead, compassion means we accept them as people with needs. Compassion looks like the tired but true cliché, “hate the sin, love the sinner”. And this compassion isn’t optional (Col. 3:12). Be good news, and then at the right time, tell the good news.

Fifth, as a friend of mine worded it, “get your hands dirty.” It is easy to write about “them” in my office; it is something else to associate with “them” in their world. Jesus did it. How many times is He reprimanded for spending time with tax collectors and sinners (e.g., Luke 5:30)? Peter did it (Acts 10). Paul did it and encouraged it (1 Cor. 5:10). Be the hands of Jesus in “them’s” world.  Get involved. (How, you might ask? Several books give practical ideas for involvement – e-mail me at rsfankhauser@bellsouth.net and I’ll send you more information. Or, find someone who is already involved and tag along. Or, look for agencies in your community and ask them how you can help.)

Sixth, while getting your hands dirty, listen and be teachable. Being teachable doesn’t mean I will (necessarily) change my theology or my convictions about a particular topic, although I might. I may discover I’ve been wrong about something or overlooked something (using Scripture as the standard, of course). Even if I am right, listening and being teachable makes me step into the world of “them” and better understand them. I don’t have to agree with “them” to understand and empathize with them, but I do have to listen.

So, back to the story in the opening paragraph. As the evening wore on, several bridges came to mind (whether I would have the courage to actually speak had the opportunity actually come up is another issue!!). The beauty of the gospel is that it fits their world and their needs. The difficulty of presenting the gospel lies in empathizing with their world, finding a point of connection with “them”, and getting my hands dirty.  

The Roasting of Chick-fil-A (Part 2): What do I stand for?

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Matt. 7:3, NIV)

I believe the Bible clearly defines marriage as one man uniting for life with one woman (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:4-5, Eph. 5:31). However, if I am honest, I must recognize that our culture accepts, the Bible speaks of, and too many Christians participate in practices in addition to “gay marriage” that don’t line up with this definition. Practices like divorce, sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, polygamy. I cannot “throw rocks” at one practice that doesn’t fit the definition if I “wink” at others. What do we do with this stuff?

Before I try to answer the question (in 1,000 words or less), let me give two broad disclaimers. First, the Bible tells us to “speak the truth in love” and to love “in deed and truth.” This post focuses on “the truth” side of the equation, as did my earlier post on marriage. We often tend to fall on one side or the other of “truth in love.” Sometimes we focus so much on truth we forget about love; sometimes we focus so much on love we dilute (or ignore) truth. But, we must think right before we can act right (or, to sound really intellectual, orthodoxy precedes orthopraxy), thus my reason for focusing on “truth.” It bothers me when Christians use harsh tones and harsh words when defending their views; it equally bothers me when Christians say things like, “it’s not up to me to say if it is right or wrong”. As believers, we must understand what is biblically right, wrong, or “gray”.

That leads to the second disclaimer: What we believe the Bible teaches as right or wrong does not, in itself, define how we treat people. That’s the love side. Jesus did not start his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well with the words “You are practicing sexual impurity. Therefore, you are going to hell.” He eventually got to the point of her lifestyle, but only after developing a relationship (John 4:1-30). Truth in love. Grace and truth. He did not “hate” her because she lived immorally. Similarly, in today’s world, it is bad logic to conclude that if I hold the traditional view of marriage, I hate anyone whose lifestyle differs from that view, whether gay or otherwise. But how we treat such people is stuff for a future post.

So, back to the question. Let me oh-so-briefly touch on the four practices that run counter to the one-man one-woman view of marriage. All four undermine traditional marriage, the Bible mentions all four, and the last three are widely practiced in our culture and among Christians.

Polygamy. Polygamy is not (yet) legal in this country, but people often use polygamy in the Bible as evidence that marriage need not be limited to one man united to one woman. The Bible records history – warts and all – without always commenting about the rightness of those events. That the Bible records occurrences of polygamy does not imply the rightness of polygamy; it simply records what happened. Second, with the exception of the (likely) rare case of Levirate Marriage (Deut. 25:5-10), polygamy never appears in a positive light in the Bible. Every record of polygamy paints a picture of a messy family. Kings in particular were commanded not to take many wives (Deut. 17:17). When they did, trouble ensued (e.g., 1 Kings 11:3). Third, the Bible mentions only a handful of polygamous relationships (a dozen or so). Most marriages in biblical times united one man with only one woman. Polygamy serves as an example that people did not always honor the one-man, one-woman standard, but it does not serve as a positive exception to that standard.

Divorce.  Divorce is rampant in our culture. For every two new marriages granted, one divorce is granted (which isn’t quite the same things as “half of all marriages end in divorce”). “No-Fault” divorce made divorce easy. And divorce creates all kinds of fallout within families. Granted, divorce is not unique to our culture and our era; even in Jesus’ day, questions arose about when divorce was valid. What did Jesus say about? “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Time doesn’t permit addressing any biblical exceptions permitting divorce, but as a whole, the Bible frowns on it. The ease of divorce in our culture certainly hurts the case for marriage.

Sex, sex, and more sex.  The so-called sexual revolution of the sixties changed the way our culture views sex outside of marriage. Now premarital sex is largely considered normal. In fact, one resource reports over 90% of dating men or women between the ages of 18 and 25 are sexually active. Multiple studies reveal a high percentage of men – married or not – access pornography regularly. Sex, designed by God as an act of intimacy between husband and wife (“and they shall become one flesh”) now serves only as something “we just do” in relationships. Too many no longer “flee” immorality; we “pursue” it. The prevalence of sex outside of marriage certainly hurts the case for marriage.

Couples living together (cohabitation). The woman Jesus encountered at the well lived with someone “not her husband.” Not widely practiced in biblical times, it is widely practiced today. Couples who live together do so for a variety of reasons. Some fear marriage because they have too few solid role models; some believe (in spite of contrary statistical evidence) living together provides a test of compatibility. Living together does require commitment, but of a different kind and a lesser degree than marriage. Cohabitation certainly undermines the case for marriage.

If by holding to the traditional view of marriage I only mean I am against gay marriage, I am missing much of the picture. To be consistent, I must also recognize these other aberrations against traditional marriage. But divorce, pre-marital sex, and cohabitation are largely accepted by our culture (and too-much accepted within our churches), so we don’t see a cultural backlash against them. We’ve knocked many pillars out from under traditional marriage; gay marriage is but one problem. It simply draws fire whereas the other issues do not. Perhaps they should.

I do not hate gays, any more that I hate divorcees, those who give in to sexual sin, or those who live together. What I stand for is God’s ideal, for marriage, for strong families, for purity.

The Roasting of Chick-fil-A (Part 1): Am I really a bigot?

Someone recently called me a bigot – repeatedly – because I hold the same views about marriage as those espoused by Chick-fil-A executive Don Cathy. Am I really a bigot just because we disagree about an important issue?

Here’s the problem (ok, here’s just one of many problems related to this issue). If I hold an incorrect and belittling view about a person or a group of people because of an error in my thinking, then I could well be a bigot. The dictionary uses words like “prejudice, hatred, intolerance” when defining the word “bigot”. But, if I hold a correct view based on what is right and wrong, then I am not a bigot. The question then becomes. "What is the standard to decide right and wrong?" And that answer is not simple. We accept what culture says is right or wrong, what our conscience says is right or wrong, what some outside source says is right or wrong, or some combination of these. And since we will not all agree on the standard, we certainly shouldn’t expect to agree on the answer!

Personally, I accept the Bible (an “outside source”) as my standard of right and wrong. Some people will reject my conclusions at this point because they do not accept the Bible. That’s okay – my point here is not to convince someone about the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. And some may accept the Bible but disagree with my interpretation. That’s okay, too. I’m willing to listen to other interpretations, but be aware that I came to my conclusions after a lot of study over a lot of years!

Let me jump back a few generations. In the not-too-distant past in America, you would often hear “Racially mixed marriages are wrong”, particularly marriages between whites and blacks. Are the statements “Gay marriage is wrong” and “Racially mixed marriages are wrong” functionally equivalent? If the second statement reflects prejudice and bigotry, does the first as well?

To answer this, let’s see what the Bible says. In three different passages, we find a definition of marriage. The author of Genesis, after describing the creation of the man and the woman, says this: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24, NIV).  Later, Jesus responds to a question from the Pharisees about divorce with this challenge:  “Haven’t you read … that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” (Matt. 19:4-5). And when Paul describes marriage, he quotes Genesis:  “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Eph. 5:31, NIV). Both Jesus and Paul viewed the Genesis description of marriage as the standard and the ideal. Each of these three references clearly says a male (singular) and a female (singular) unite in marriage and become one flesh.

Now, let’s go back to the two questions. A racially mixed marriage does not contradict this description of marriage in any way. The race of the male and female is not addressed in these passages at all. Nowhere does the Bible teach the inferiority of any race. In fact, the equality of races among Christians is explicitly stated when Paul says “There is neither Jew nor Gentile … for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 2:28, NIV). If I hold the view that racially mixed marriage is morally wrong, even if I am completely convinced of the truth of this view, I am basing my beliefs on the erroneous view that races are not equal despite the teachings of the Bible. I should very well be labeled a “bigot”.

But the second case differs greatly. In the case of gay marriage, something does not, in fact, fit the description. The sexes of the two partners are clearly defined in the passages! “A man” (male) unites with “his wife” (female). In this case, I am basing my belief that gay marriage is wrong on what I understand the Bible says about marriage. At this point, we are left with four options: (1) reject or ignore what the Bible says (and, if you are a Bible-rejecter, we’ll have a difficult time coming to agreement on the issue of gay marriage!), (2) redefine what the Bible says based on culture, (3) change our understanding of the text after careful study reveals we’ve interpreted it incorrectly, or (4) accept what the Bible says, convinced we’ve interpreted it correctly. I think this last option fits my understanding of marriage. I believe in the traditional view of marriage – the uniting of one man and one woman. If you think the Bible teaches otherwise, I am willing to listen. But don’t try to sway me with emotions, opinions, or generalities. If I am wrong, show me from the text.

Sometimes, we must draw a line in the sand and say “this line marks the difference between right and wrong!” I do not hold my view despite the teachings of the Bible but because of the teachings of the Bible. Since I believe the Bible is inspired by God, I believe it defines the ultimate standard for right and wrong. I should not therefore be labeled a bigot – especially by other Christians. Name-calling does nothing to advance a discussion.

Keep in mind that holding this view says nothing about how I should respond to gay people (I should treat them in love), how our government should respond to the issue, or the wisdom of the “where and when” I (or anyone else) should state these views about marriage– that is the stuff of other posts. I am simply defining what I believe about marriage and why I hold that belief. And, just like the Chick-fil-A executive, I have the right to hold this view and state my views, especially in a country based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and “tolerance”.

I can hear a thousand questions in response to this post, such as: Aren’t there exceptions in the Bible? What about polygamy? What about the beliefs of those who don’t believe in the Scriptures? How should we treat gay people? Don’t they deserve to be happy? How should I respond to those with whom I disagree? Should we “impose” biblical standards on our culture? Shouldn’t I be more tolerant of other views? What about other situations that don’t seem to fit the biblical definition of marriage, such as divorce or cohabitation?

All great questions (he says modestly about his own post). I don’t have space to answer here, but I will! Watch for “The Roasting of Chik-fil-A (Part 2)”!

For Whom Should I Vote?

Let me disappoint you early. I am writing neither a diatribe against any candidate (incumbent or otherwise) nor a letter of support for any candidate. Instead, I want to think a bit about how and why we should vote (and yes, I believe every Christian eligible to vote should vote).

First, beware of three lines of faulty logic about voting (I’m sure there are more):

(1)    “I am not going to vote because…” I’ve heard Christians give two different reasons for this conclusion. First some say,” we are “only passing through this world, so it really doesn’t matter”. Second, some say, all the candidates are “evil” so they would only be voting for the lesser of two evils. Here’s the problem with these conclusions. While it is true we are “only passing through”, we should still be good stewards of this world while we are here. None of us knows when Jesus is returning, so we need to care for our world as if He is not returning soon. I want my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms I enjoyed. And it may be true that we perceive our choice as “the lesser of two evils”. The error in choosing not to vote if I perceive all my choices as bad is that I have indirectly cast a vote for the greater of two evils. If I vote for the “lesser” I at least offset a vote someone else cast for “the greater” of the two evils. I must admit that sometimes I have voted against Candidate A more so than for Candidate B. So, in my oh-so-humble opinion, neither reason to forgo voting holds up logically.

(2)    “My vote doesn’t count.” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this. And in many elections, that may be the case, but sometimes a single vote does matter!  In 2011, a coin flip decided the winner of a council seat for the small town of Rock Hall, MD, after two candidates tied in the election. In 2004, only 133 votes separated the winner and loser of the Washington gubernatorial election – roughly four votes per county. The ballots were counted three times. The first and second count showed one candidate the winner; the second recount resulted in the other candidate being declared the winner. So, your vote might not make a difference, but then again, it might! (Want to see more close election results? Visit  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results)

(3)    “The government will / should _______” (you fill in the blank). I’m not sure where the thinking originated about the government giving money and I don’t know why anyone would think a government-run program will be fiscally sound. As I write this, the national debt nears $16 trillion dollars – or over fifty thousand dollars per citizen. They government spends more each year than it takes in, meaning, the deficit is getting larger. Try that with your personal checking account! The vast majority of federal revenues come from taxes – money out of our pocket. You might argue, “Raise corporate taxes!” – but that just takes money out of our pockets indirectly – the corporation must pass on its costs to the end-user. The bottom line is this, no government can supply “free” anything; the only money it can spend comes from revenues it takes. I’m not denying we have problems like poverty, college education costs, medical care, and a host of other issues that need to be addressed (which I won’t address here). Just don’t get sucked in to the line that “the government will provide / fix” because to do so, it must take from its citizens before it can “give” anything.

Second, remember that as Christians, we have dual citizenship – and our primary address is not this world. While we are to be a good stewards of this world, our greater purpose is to be “ambassadors for Christ”, representing and promoting God’s purposes first and foremost. Back in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan asked the question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” I would change the question today to “does our country (city, county / parish, state) promote morality, justice, mercy (defined biblically) more than four years ago?” I’ll admit different people will define and weigh aspects of morality, justice, and mercy differently, so I’ll leave the terms vague for my purposes here. Ask, does the candidate promote biblical principles, even if he or she doesn’t know they are “biblical” (Prov. 16:12)? Keep in mind, someone who is not a believer can still promote biblical principles and someone who is a believer can promote non-biblical issues. And the primary issue should not be pocketbooks or tax rates.

Third, Paul write “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” (1 Timothy 2:1–2). I think a “quiet and tranquil life” includes the freedom to practice our faith without interference. On a grander scale, is the government keeping its nose out of places it should not be? Again, I’ll leave this undefined here, but, government bureaucracy tends to be less efficient and compassionate than other means for those tasks outside the government’s legitimate roles.

So, vote – even if you feel your best options is for “the lesser of two evils”. Even if you don’t think your vote matters. Vote for the candidate that best promotes morality, justice, and mercy – based on his or her track record, not based on campaign promises. Vote for the candidate whose policies best promote the freedom to practice our faith. Take advantage of the privilege we have to influence who occupies governmental seats, with a view towards kingdom purposes. 

VOTE!!

Kony 2012 - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I must confess – I really don’t have “good, bad, and ugly” to write about, but I thought the title might get a few more people to read this. My motives are not pure! Maybe that’s the ugly part. Let me say up front – this is not an evaluation of the Kony2012 campaign (but please, don't stop reading!). Instead, I want to reflect on some ideas prompted in my thinking by the campaign.

First, we live in a very messy world. A world largely ruled by unbelievers. A world with many evil people. A world that will not experience full healing until the return of Jesus. Kony is but one man in a long list of cruel men in Africa who have ruled or created havoc across the continent (think of people like Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Félicien Kabuga).[1] In fact, Kony may not even be the worst figure in recent African history![2] In saying this, I am not denying the horrors that have occurred at the hands of Kony and his people.  Abducting 66,000 children since 1986, and committing who-knows-what horrors certainly qualifies him as heinous and worthy of justice (although I must admit, I’m a little uneasy about what “justice” at the hands of a Ugandan and/or Congolese army looks like). However, we must not think the battle is done should Kony be eliminated. He is only one of many problems we must face.

Second, the makers of the Kony 2012 video make two statements (well more than two, but only two that I’ll mention) about Kony worth noting: “Nobody knows him”, and he’s “not important enough” to garner U.S. attention. The first statement is generally true (I’ll come back to the second later) – few people knew about Kony. But that is likely true of the vast majority of “international villains”. Of the four names I listed above, you probably knew the first two, fewer of you knew the third, and I suspect very few knew the fourth! (By the way, Kabuga is “accused of bankrolling the Rwandan genocide, inciting bloodshed through his radio station and even supplying the machetes and hoes used in the massacres… of more than 800,000 Rwandan men, women and children in 100 days.”[3]) I decided to look up a “World’s Most Wanted List”, a list once headed by Osama bin Laden. Not surprisingly, the internet provided several such lists; the most recent that I read listed Kony as number seven, Kabuga as number six[4]. I knew only one of the remaining eight names, and that is only because of his association with bin Laden. So, saying that most people did not know about Kony is true, but that should not surprise anyone, nor should it necessarily serve as an indictment against anyone. Sadly, we live in a world with too many bad-actors to keep up with them all.

Third, how rapidly the video went “viral” demonstrates how easily we can stir passion about an issue. But, passion must be balanced with knowledge. I am reminded of how often things get spread that, upon some investigation, turn out to be fraudulent, out-of-date, or incorrect on some level. In fact, “Snopes.com” and other websites exist to help us discover the “real”, the “false” and the “partially true”.  So, we should absolutely stir and act on passion, but we must do our homework first. Check the information before passing it on. Make sure as best you can that it is solid and current. For example, where is Kony now – Uganda or someplace else, as best as we can determine? Is “International Children” a solid agency? Whether they are or not does not change my point here that we should check them out, as we should any agency we don’t know. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who passed the video on knew little or nothing about them.

Fourth, I heard many respond to critics of the project with the sentiment “doing something is better than doing nothing”. Sadly, that is not always the case! For example, giving money to a need is sometimes helpful, but sometimes counterproductive. Simply giving money away may develop a sense of entitlement in the recipient and may not really solve the core problem (see, “Welfare System, United States”).  I am not saying we should not give money to causes, but we need to give money, training, equipment because it helps, not just because it makes us feel better to do “something.” Doing a “right” something is the key. True compassionate care focuses on the needs of others,

Fifth, the campaign should make us evaluate how we expend our energy and resources. I should be generous with my time, money, and talents, but I’m limited in what I can do. The world has far more needs than any one person or any one ministry can address. How do I decide what to address, what is “most” important? What is most important: Justice against Kony? Or against Kabuga? Or against the abortion doctor down the street who takes who-knows-how-many lives? Or against the Mexican drug cartels just across the border? Or compassion for the homeless man in the shelter? Or mercy for the remote village that desperately needs a water well? There is no right or wrong answer – all these needs, and more, are important. How you prioritize them shows something about the passion God has given you. And remember to be gracious to those whose priorities and passion are different in kind or intensity than yours!

Sixth, the video forces us to think about when America as a nation should insert herself into the affairs of another country. The Kony video asserted Kony “wasn’t important enough” to garner U.S. attention. I’m not sure that is a fair statement. Fundamentally, should the U.S. actively pursue every evil actor in the world? Opinions about when the government should get involved run from never getting involved outside of the United States to getting involved on every front. Most of us lie someplace between those extremes, and we won’t always agree. I suspect that some of the same people who say we should help pursue Kony are the same people who argue we should not have done xxxx (you fill in the blank).  

I hope Kony is brought to justice. I hope the campaign challenges us to think “outside the box”. Whether or not we agree with it individually, I hope it forces us to carefully think about our own convictions. And I hope each of us acts upon the convictions we hold, for the glory of God.

---

    [1] I’m not singling out Africa, per se. I mention it simply because it is Kony’s turf. Obviously, countries on other continents have faced (or are facing) the same sort of cruelties!

     [2] For more on recent African history, read Martin Meredithe, The Fate of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence (New York: Public Affairs,Inc.,2005)

     [3] See footnote four below

     [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/the-worlds-most-wanted-list. Accessed March 26, 2012

Passion!

Kony 2012.

A week or so ago, almost no one who reads my blog would have knowledge of Joseph Kony.  Now, almost anyone with Facebook (and probably almost everyone else) has heard of him and the campaign of one group against this man. Why the change of awareness? Why did this group’s video go “viral”? Because of passion![1]

Passion. What is it that drives you? What, if you could spend your time focusing on one thing, would be “the” thing?

For believers, Jesus makes clear what the focus of “the” thing should be: “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness…” (Matt. 6:33), “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matt. 22:37), and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:39). In other words, our primary passions should be for people and for God’s purposes. Our passion should be in line with Kingdom purposes (I’m not using “kingdom” in this post in a technical sense. While discussions of “how, when, where” of the kingdom are worthy discussions, they are not germane to this post. By “kingdom purpose”, I simply mean does it align with God’s purposes and principles?)

What might be the specific focus of our passion?  This is not an exhaustive list, but we might feel passionate about:

Abortion (protecting the unborn)

Children’s ministry

Defense of marriage

Evangelism

Inner-City ministry

Missions

Politics (positively influencing politics)

Prison outreach

Sanctity of marriage

Sexual purity

Single’s ministry

Social justice

The poor and/or homeless

Youth ministry

And the all-inclusive, “things such as these” 

My personal passions focus around teaching God’s Word (here and abroad), helping men walk in sexual purity (largely, a lost art in our culture), and protecting the unborn.

As believers, we need to avoid two traps with our passions. The first trap: We are not passionate enough about the right things.  We effectively put kingdom purposes in second (or third or…) place. My life, my comfort, my pleasures (among a host of other things) can become my primary passion. Many of the issue we become passionate are not bad, in themselves, however, they can squeeze out kingdom issues. For example, I love to fish. I enjoy few things more than standing in a river, sitting in a boat, fishing for bass or trout (or any other fish, for that matter!). But if fishing drives my schedule and my calendar (not the occasional planned trips, but as a rule), then I am probably not passionate enough about the right things. 

How can you tell if kingdom issues are secondary for you? Ask yourself two questions: (1) “Is what I am passionate about a biblical issue?”, and (2) “What am I doing about the kingdom issues I say I am passionate about?” If the answer to the second is “almost nothing”, then you know it is really secondary in your life.

A second problem: We become too passionate about our passion.

              Yep, too passionate.

Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in our passion that we think it ought to be everyone’s passion. Not only should it be everyone’s passion, but they should be equally passionate about it. And sometimes we minimize the passions of others (“mine is more important than yours”). “Too passionate” almost always takes a critical view of another’s view. Let’s see what “too passionate” might look like. So as to not step on any toes by using real examples, let’s call one passion “crickets” and another passion “frogs”:

“Everyone knows there are more crickets than frogs. Frogs are important, but we really need to focus on crickets. It has a bigger impact.”

“You don’t have the same passion for frogs as I do; therefore, something is wrong with your thinking.”

 “This church doesn’t have enough of a passion for crickets. I am passionate about crickets, therefore, your ministry is wrong” (or, in another version, “therefore I am leaving the church”).

“Jesus spoke a lot about frogs. Therefore, that ought to be our passion.”

We might not say things so blatantly, but you get the idea. If my passion becomes the mark for measuring the validity of your passion, I’ve become too passionate.  Be passionately passionate, but be careful not to become too passionate!

No one person can be passionate about everything and God may give you a passion for a “bigger” issue than He gives me. No one church can adequately address every need. But all of us can – and should – be passionate about something in God’s program. Passions are a lot like spiritual gifts – some seem more significant than others, but that’s only illusion. Just as each individual spiritual gift is important for the body as a whole, so is each kingdom-purposed passion.

Put this in action. Find your kingdom-purposed passion. Chase it. For the glory of God

-          Ask yourself, “What kingdom purpose(s) am I passionate about?” If nothing comes to mind, ask God to give you a passion. Ask a church leader to help you find your passion.

-          Get involved regularly in some capacity pursuing your passion. I have a friend who moved to India to pursue his. Your involvement might not be as drastic (but you never know where God may lead!), but get actively involved.

-          Encourage others to find their passion.

-          Encourage others as they pursue their passion.

-          Help develop a ministry within your church that addresses your passion.

-          Partner with others. For example, your church might not have an inner-city outreach program, and might not have the resources to develop an effective program. Without leaving your church, find an inner-city program you can get involved in.

Find your kingdom-purposed passion. Chase it. For the glory of God!

---

     [1] By the way, this post is not about Kony, I will write about that topic in a later post. I need to do a bit more research before writing!