Just today, thinking about all of this,  I found an article by Tim Keller, “Preaching in a Post Modern City.” He gives an interesting perspective on how we live and fail to live gospel centered lives. He talks about how we become the  changed people that we desire to be and are supposed to be. Speaking about virtue he says,” it particularly grows by a faith-sight of the glory of Christ and his salvation.” I believe that to be true, that seeing Jesus is powerful and causes us to move. He also says, “Is [the gospel] basically about what I must do, or basically about what he has done?”

Hamel’s main point is that our world is changing very quickly.  The postmodern American culture has become increasingly hostile toward the church – not toward God and spirituality, but to organized religion in general and especially toward the attitudes and behaviors of evangelical Christians. This point has been made before by many others, and it is not really in dispute. If you have read the book UnChristian by David Kinnamon, you already know the spiel. Using quotes and statistics from Kinnamon and the Barna Institute, he shows that the church has a huge image problem today, especially among young people, and it’s getting worse.

How are churches responding to this sea of change? Drawing upon his own insights from management and organizational psychology, Hamel argues that the response of local churches and denominations is woefully inadequate or nonexistent. As a whole, our churches show all the unmistakable signs of a company that is doomed to fail because it is stuck in the past and clinging to an outmoded business model.

Hamel freely admits that a church is not the same thing as a business. The true Church, the Body of Christ, is going to survive one way or another. But the local congregations and organizational bodies in which Christians worship and serve are in a dangerous position, because they lack many of the self-correcting mechanisms found in the marketplace.  If a business or corporation underperforms, it will eventually be forced to change by angry shareholders or be taken over by a more dynamic and vibrant company. But a church or ministry that refuses to change can keep chugging along for years, run by leaders who become increasingly out of touch but answer to no one, until the whole enterprise becomes socially irrelevant.

One sign of danger is the stunning disparity between how evangelical Christians are perceived by others and how they perceive themselves. Consider this statement:

Christian churches accept and love people unconditionally, regardless of how people look or what they do.

Nearly 80% of pastors agree with this statement, but only 20% of outsiders (non-church members) agree. That’s a ratio of 4:1, an enormous gulf that shows Christian leaders are  truly out of sync with the people that they are supposedly trying to reach.  We might rationalize this by saying, “If only those people knew us personally, if they could see who we are and what we do, they would like us.” But that is simply not true. Most non-believers in America do know who we are. The data indicate that they know us personally; they have come to our churches, have heard the gospel that we preach, have understood the message, and have rejected us.  As David Kinnamon has said, “…outsiders’ perceptions of Christianity reflect a church infatuated with itself.”

Hamel argues that the greatest enemy of a church is not a hostile cutural environment but the organizational inertia that keeps it from adapting to a changing world.  He predicts that the vast majority of churches in existence today will fail to reinvent themselves when necessary and will eventually wither and die.  Yet pastors, church leaders and members will rarely acknowledge this. We live in denial, unwilling to admit that there is a problem until a crisis comes and it is too late. 

I believe that Hamel’s analysis is spot-on. Change is difficult for any organization, but especially so for a church. In a church environment, we are much more prone to cast issues in terms of moral and spiritual principle (right versus wrong) than in pragmatic terms (what works). Now I am not arguing that Christians should be pragmatic. We follow a crucified Lord who often calls us to lose in this world and to count the loss as eternal gain. But I have seen firsthand how difficult it can be for Christian leaders, virtuous and faithful people whom I admire, to vigorously defend their local traditions and refuse to entertain the possibility that things are not going well.

Hamel says, “Every organization is a bundle of habits.”  If you check in to a hotel room, you will inevitably find that the small bottle of shampoo has been placed by the sink, even though we do not wash our hair in the sink. Why do hotels do this? Just because. That’s how it’s done, and no one seems to question it. As Christians, there are certain timeless truths that we cannot change. But regarding how we “do church,” shouldn’t be willing to examine any of our local practices and change them as much as necessary to better serve God’s kingdom? All too often, we seem to be worshiping our local traditions when we should be worshiping the resurrected and living Christ. It is especially tragic when the attitudes and practices to which we cling are precisely those that offend people and drive them away.

How much should churches and ministries be willing to change? As much as is necessary to serve God’s kingdom. Here I believe it is critical for Christians to differentiate the timeless truths taught in Scripture from the extra baggage added by their own communities and cultures. Hamel does not attempt to do this because, as he freely admits, he  has no pastoral or theological training. Personally, I believe that this is the point on which all of us — pastors, elders, and all members of a church — need to do some serious soul-searching, reflection and repentance.  All too often, Christians have been willing to argue, divide, sacrifice our lives or even kill one another (figuratively or literally) over beliefs and practices which, when viewed from the standpoint of God’s eternal kingdom, are truly not important. As Mark Driscoll has said, we need to wisely and prayerfully distinguish between matters that we are willing to die for, matters that we are willing to part ways over, matters that we are willing to argue about, and matters in which we should just tolerate a diversity of opinion.  Clinging to non-essentials can keep committed church members happy as their organization slowly withers and dies.

Now picture the quintessential American Thanksgiving dinner.   A dining room filled with  colonial furniture.  A table that could have been decorated by Martha Stewart. Well dressed aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents sipping from wine glasses. Before they start eating, someone suggests that they offer a prayer.  The room is filled with an uncomfortable silence.  They know they should be thankful for all that they have, but like most of us they take their fortunes for granted.  Waves of white middle-class guilt wash over them.  Finally, one brave person clears his throat. He offers thanks for food, for friends and family, for health and wealth and times of peace. And everyone responds with a hearty “Amen.”

This classic American Thanksgiving prayer and the prayer of Ricky Bobby are eerily similar.  And something about them is equally troubling.  The circumstances that we enjoy are so comfortable and fortunate compared to the way people have lived in other places and times. Many have endured poverty, sickness, war and oppression. Yet they had rich experiences and meaningful lives.  Many of them were quite happy, even happier than us.  So when we give thanks for the things that make life better, did those things actually make life better?  Are those the things that truly matter?

For a fresh perspective on the meaning of Thanksgiving, a good place to look is the book of Psalms.  Psalms span the full range of human experience.  The emotions expressed in Davidic psalms do not always correspond to the circumstances of David’s life.  Were the psalms he composed when he was a king any happier that those he wrote when he was a lowly shepherd boy?  Not really.  Some of his most triumphant and praise-filled songs were written in times of hardship and war.  And during periods of success and prosperity, he often expressed frustration and agony.  Psalms show that there is a spiritual component to life that transcends our possessions and circumstances.

In Psalm 33, the author is praising and thanking God – not for anything that God has given him, but for the goodness of God himself.  Consider Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.”  At first glance, this is what I thought it meant: God’s people are fortunate because they are God’s heirs; he has written them into his will as his beneficiaries.  But what the psalmist is actually saying is that God’s people are his portion and inheritance.  God is rejoicing because he has acquired us.  He is literally thanking himself for us.

What a strange and magnificent thought.

As we celebrate this great holiday, as we reflect on the blessings we have received, we should also consider God’s unfailing and unmerited love. We are his most treasured possession.  We are his blessing and his joy. If there ever was a reason to be deeply grateful, I think this just might be it.

I’ve been trying to figure out what’s wrong with the Christian church these days. Some of my friends see  back-biting, infighting, inter-church animosity. Others see a lack of church growth. I suspect they are mostly concerned with the lack of growth in numbers, which I agree is serious.  But that is a sign of the lack of inner growth, which is my main concern. 

Here are some trends that get me riled up.  Why do churches reject glorious old hymns, preferring anything written less than one year ago if it features drums and syncopation? Why are we so quick to jettison 2,000 years of Christian culture and embrace the latest fashions and trends of the world?

Why do Christian publishers rewrite the great old books with less actual thought and content?

Why is so much programming on Christian television and radio so specious, shallow and melodramatic?

Why do we make our services flashy and slick but muzzle the preachers, restricting them to a secondary role, like a quick half-time show?

Why do people not really do the work of the church, but content themselves with talking about it and analyzing it and writing about it ad nauseum? (Perhaps I’m shooting myself in the foot here. But I am also learning that this problem we see from various angles is nothing new. It has a diagnosis. Bear with me.)

In short, “Where’s the beef?” What we have is a deluge of milk. Even in my own church—which I regard with special fondness for its depth of Bible study—many sermons are written not to provide rich nourishment for hungry souls, but seemingly to entertain them, to make them laugh.

I think this is simply a lack of maturity. We are remaining as children. Here is what Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes in The Basis of Christian Unity. He is discussing Ephesians 4 regarding what leads to spiritual maturity (and thus to unity) within the church. He comes to Paul’s words in verses 14-15:

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him that is the Head, that is, Christ.

Here is what Lloyd-Jones writes:

The apostle says that we must “be no more children.” It is interesting to notice what he says about children. What are their characteristics? They are unstable, fickle, ignorant. They like novelty, dislike work, but like play. They dislike being made to think and to reason; they like entertainment and excitement. Children, unfortunately, are very susceptible to showmanship and to that which is plausible and meretricious. These are their obvious characteristics. But, above all, they are liable to be deceived by that which is false.

When I look at young (and some older) Christians, many of them are about showmanship, not content. They want to play more than work. They want to rock and roll, not worship or lead others to worship. Reasoning and study are as foreign to them as hard labor. In short, the church as a whole seems to be getting younger, not maturing. And why shouldn’t this be so?  It is their expressed goal to draw the young and focus on the young, to supplant the old with the new. They jettison anything that smacks of maturity. It reminds me of the angry mobs who devastated old churches during the Reformation, smashing anything that was carved or decorative, just because it was the trend.

Youth has almost become an idol. We kneel before the young people as “the next generation” and are even willing, it seems, to compromise the gospel itself to draw and hold the attention of the young. Instead of promoting maturity, we dumb down our worship and sermons to the point of providing only what infant Christians can accept.

Although serving our youth is a noble goal, such over-emphasis—giving young people exactly what they desire—is a common parental mistake which promotes selfishness and narcissism. It may cause the mature to regress or seek another church.

I’m not saying that “old wine is better” just because it’s old. In the Christian life, we need a healthy respect for both the old and the new. We need both milk and meat. Or do we want to remain as children? Peter says that pure spiritual milk helps us grow up in our salvation [1Peter 2:2]. But Jesus didn’t just serve milk. He offered his flesh and his blood, the bread and wine which symbolize our sanctification, worship and spiritual sustenance [Jn 6]. And Paul made it clear that we need to introduce solid food into our spiritual diets. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4:

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?

That was the situation in first-century Corinth. And it also seems to describe us today.  We are worldly, not mature. We want to enjoy, to play, to compete with the next guy (or gal) or the next church. We collect toys and spend our days in fantasies rather than in mature work. As someone once told me, “The church is so worldly and the world is so churchy that you can’t tell the difference anymore.”

Growing up, like being born, is never easy or painless. For the mother, it is sheer agony. And some babies (especially boys) almost resist being born. They want to stay someplace cozy and warm. After being born, some resist being weaned from milk to solid food (again, we noticed this in our boys).

Like the boys in Peter Pan, we resist the discipline and self-denial of growing up. It seems that our whole Christian culture is stuck in Neverland.

What is the solution?  Just grow up. This answer is not likely to be popular. But it’s what Peter and Paul both said.  The job of parents is to ensure that this happens. Spiritually, we are all children of God, if indeed we have been born again. That means we have to grow up.

Preachers, teachers, Christian leaders and parents: Let’s stop pretending that to remain as children is okay. Jesus didn’t denounce Pharisees as “old wineskins” because they were mature. He did so because they thought they were spiritual when they were not.

Let us, therefore, forget what is behind and press on toward the goal: that we may become like Christ, and that we may finish the race, win the prize, and win our world for His kingdom. This isn’t a matter of more education or sophistry. One doesn’t become strong by reading muscle magazines, but by hitting the gym, exercising, sometimes getting really sore or even injured. We can’t win a race by analyzing it from the sidelines, but by long hours of training and sweating and not giving up.

Spiritual maturity doesn’t come to Huck Finns who live for themselves and the next adventure. It comes to those who deny themselves, take up the cross and follow Jesus.

Less is not always more. Especially when it comes to clothing on a Friday night. More and more college women are wearing next to nothing in an effort to stand out and “look hott.” Instead of rejecting the sex-symbol stereotypes about women in the media and pop culture, young women are reinforcing them.

Why do college women feel compelled to party every weekend (and even some weeknights) in clothes that disrespect their bodies and minds? This perpetuates an unbecoming value system. The media have created an idealized role, and young women are embracing it. The trend toward skimpy outfits affects all women, even those who are not participating in it. They are being forced by retailers and their peers to choose from limited clothing options. In this progressive age, we have supposedly empowered girls by offering them anything they want. But in reality, “it’s a world designed by media and marketing executives that targets children as consumers, channels girls’ desires, and entices them into predictable types” (Lamb, Sharon & Brown, p. 9).

The mold we provide for young women is a distorted one. We give them a false choice: They can try to get attention from men by wearing something provocative and inviting, or they can hold on to their dignity and go unnoticed.  Those who choose to dress and act with self-respect are ostracized. 

Looking sexy is not as simple as retailers would have us believe.  On most women, the typical clubbing dress – which, depending on the person, could also pass for a blouse – looks unsophisticated and trashy. I would count the number of scantily clad drunk and sober women I see, but they all seem to blend together. If the goal is to be noticed, then why have all these party outfits become the same: lascivious and tasteless? They blur the line between sexy and slutty. Can’t a woman be attractive without showing inappropriate amounts of skin? Without a doubt.  But campus cultural norms discourage us from exploring more interesting and modest options. The current wardrobe mentality is not progressive but restrictive

America is a free country, and every person has the right to wear pretty much whatever he or she wants. College is a time for experimentation and free expression, but those things can be achieved without sacrificing self-respect.

When you play into a stereotype, you are affecting others. What to wear is more than a personal decision. It creates a mindset, an unspoken competition, between college girls to outdo one another. The subtraction of fabric from an outfit seems to add a bit of confidence to the girl who wears it.  But from this female’s perspective, revealing clothes are a sign of insecurity and desperation. Why do women feel they have to do these things to win approval from the opposite sex?  Aren’t we just empowering men to discriminate, discount, and disrespect us?

Catcalls in a girl’s direction may impart a sense of satisfaction and pride. But that feeling doesn’t last.  When it fades, all that’s left is a desperate desire for more. This kind of attention can easily get out of hand. I am not saying that victims of sexual assault are at fault. No way. However, a study conducted by Burkhart and Stanton in 1988 showed that “…victims [of sexual assault] tend to be female, have low self-esteem, follow the traditional feminine sex roles, have had previous encounters involving sexual coercion or sexual assault, and have a high status within their peer groups” (Ottens & Hotelling, p. 122). This discovery is truly frightening.

Greek life is a hotbed of parties and social functions fueled by sex, drugs, and alcohol. Too many intentional “wardrobe malfunctions” occur in those settings. When young women who attend Greek parties are described as sorostitutes, something is seriously wrong. When did looking like a prostitute become attractive or even acceptable? Women are voluntarily broadcasting their desperation. If a woman does not intend to hook up with someone – if she is just wanting to look cute and have fun – then her appearance is sending the wrong message.  She is announcing to the world that she doesn’t respect herself. And if she doesn’t respect herself, how can she expect others to respect her and take her seriously?

Appearance says a lot about our values, morals and preferences. Apparel is a quick and easy way to categorize a person.  Our conscious and unconscious fashion decisions say more about us than we fathom. It is unfortunate, but true. We ought to be more intentional about the images we project. Society has already objectified young women; why should we carry it even further? Although it may boost our self-esteem to be noticed by the opposite sex, other things are important too. Dignity, for example.

Here is a modest proposal. Perhaps we can gain respect, positive attention, and confidence in a more dignified manner.  Perhaps we can take the initiative to break out of the stereotypical and narrow wardrobe choices being offered to young women today.

Lamb, Sharon, and Brown (2007) Packaging Girlhood Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers’ Schemes. Boston: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Ottens and Hotelling (2001) Sexual violence on campus policies, programs, and perspectives. New York: Springer.

[Editor's note: This article was written by a graduate student at a medium-sized private university.  The original post can be viewed at Susan's blog.]

I lucked out with having one of the most amazing, personable departments ever. Most students tell me about how apathetic, cold, and sometimes even spiteful their professors can be. I realize that I am blessed. God blessed me with the BEST professors and advisors- we’re talking incredibly accomplished people in their field, Harvard Ph.D’s who are on the frontlines of social science, medicine/epidemiology, public health, and political science research. Not only are they accomplished, but they are NICE!

They sit and ask me how I’m doing. They invite me for lunch or cocktails. They send me funny cartoons or political comics or youtube clips. They range from age 35-72 years, yet they are the same in that they’re humorous, intelligent, witty, and kind! A few of them have been teaching for 45+ years; when they’re teaching, it’s not abstract and theoretical- they draw from rich life experiences as they recall memories of the civil rights movement, traveling for days with the freedom-riders, getting arrested and beaten by sheriffs and cops, living in South Africa and Thailand and doing medical research, etc etc. Amazing.

The chair of my department never acts stressed or too busy to talk to you, even though she is one of THE busiest people I know, with her hand in dozens of major research projects going on in the tri-state area and nationwide. She even sat with my grad cohort for hours last semester doing reviews and prepping us for the comprehensive exam. She has reviewed my writing samples, personal statements, etc. for Ph. D programs. Who does that??

It’s also in the little things. Take my one professor for example. I have had him for 3 classes since undergrad. He has to travel back and forth from school to D.C. to work on government projects dealing with terrorism and policy in the Middle East. He is single-handedly organizing huge research database consortiums in the area. Yet he goes above and beyond what a typical professor should do.

—————————————————————

Some examples:

1.) His office is across from my advisor’s office, and he overhears me discussing my research proposal with her. He goes to his bookshelf, digs out some books, then walks over to her office, knocks on the door, and hands me the books, which are so relevant and helpful to my research that I’m actually stunned that he understood exactly what I needed from the little snippet of conversation.

2.) He reads the rough draft of one of my final papers, writes out a page of constructive feedback, then later emails me with several citations of research articles that will help me with the paper. (I have never ever had a professor do this- actually look up resources to help a student) I end up getting an A.

3.) He knows that we are strapped for cash, so for classes, he hands out the syllabus to us a week before the class starts, with the ISBNS of the books we need so that we can order them ahead and get them for a discount. In another class, he mass-orders one of the books in bulk for us so that we don’t have to pay full price.

4.) He is not my advisor, yet he sits down with me for hours explaining to me the Ph.D application process and comparing and contrasting different programs, what they are looking for, what the faculty is like, the admissions process, and details of his own student experience (University of Chicago and Harvard.)

5.) And just yesterday, he reviewed my entire proposal and wrote out pages of feedback, advice, and resources for my project, especially for the methods. He bullet-pointed lists of contact people, databases, different analyses to use, and other topics of inquiry. (Keep in mind that he is not my advisor and we are in completely different fields of interest.)  The feedback was so in-depth, specific, focused that I felt SO encouraged and practically glowed while I was reading it. His final sentence: “This proposal is as professional and as thoroughly researched as any thesis proposal I’ve read at this school. I’ve written a lot here- not because I think your project is flawed, but the opposite: your proposal is so good that I want to take the time and give you whatever help I can to make it even better. You’ve got a real chance here to have a fantastic thesis. Good job, Susan.”

6.) When my professor got a new car, he was thinking of selling his old car, which was still in good condition and ran well.  However, he opted out of selling it and wrote an email to all the grad students in our department, telling them the specs of the car and offering the car- free of charge- to the first grad student that responded with a witty limerick.   He ended up giving his old car to one of my classmates, 45 minutes after he sent the email.

—————————————————————–

I can’t explain what those words mean to me after such a strenuous time. I know it sounds cheesy, but I almost cried. I have been really overwhelmed and also less than confident in my abilities, and I really feel God sent him to encourage me. You have to realize that this behavior is not normal for the average professor.

I was trying to think of why it is like this. I realized that I’m in a small private school that cares about brand-name stuff and reputation, so they court the best academics they can get by offering more academic freedom and decent salaries. BUT my school is nowhere near as competitive and cutthroat as the big names (at least for sociology), and the department is small enough that people can make relationships. Obviously there are trade-offs in the situation. But it’s a nice balance.

I’m sorry this is such a long post but I cannot express how thankful and impressed I am. My heart still feels so moved when I think about it. Thank God for sending such admirable, inspiring, and uplifting people in my life! They lead by example through their life and their accomplishments and how they treat people, and they have such a real and authentic shepherd’s heart. I really hope I can be a mentor like this one day. Thank you God !

A majority of Korean-Americans identify themselves as Christian.  If they attend church on a weekly basis, one would assume that they did so because of their faith.  But faith is not the sole reason that Korean-Americans spend their Sundays in God’s house.  Upon their arrival in America, many Koreans speak very little English.  One of the few escapes from this strange new world in which they are submerged is the church.  Church becomes a place not only for prayer but a haven where Koreans can feel comfortable, surrounded by people who resemble them.

About 40% of Korean-American Christians became Christian after their arrival in United States.  The church became an important place for social gathering. It makes us wonder how many of these “conversions” are real. Do they see themselves as Christians because they began to identify with a new social group? Or did they truly see the light through the preaching of the gospel and having their hearts changed by God?

This purpose of the immigrant church – as a comfortable home away from home – has certainly increased church membership, but it may also have hurt the church.   As Korean-Americans assimilate into American society, Korean churches have begun to emulate some of the bad habits of majority white American churches. Too many churches in America have been teaching a watered-down version of the gospel in order to appeal to a wide audience.  I wonder if this gospel preached today has any relationship to the actual word of God.  Youth pastors focus on entertaining the service attendees.  They want to hold the attention of their listeners, make them laugh, and give them a good time.  Pastors try to make their sermons memorable.  But are they actually preaching God’s word?   Although the sermons may be entertaining, many pastors’ concerns lie in keeping the adults, especially parents, coming back.  The church needs tithes and offerings of loyal families.

In my opinion, the problem with many self-proclaimed Christians in the Korean-American community is that they do not know God.  Not in the least bit.  These people know something about God, but they do not intimately know him.  They know that He created the world in seven days, that he descended into the world incarnate, that Jesus Christ his only Son died on the cross to forgive us of our sins.  They know the story of Noah and the ark and how God flooded the world.  They know that God spoke to Abraham and Moses and many others.  But do they know why Jesus Christ died on the cross?  Do they know why the only man of flesh and blood ever to have led a sinless life was crucified and died for the hundreds of generations into the future?

They would probably respond, “Jesus died to forgive us our sins.”  But will they go beyond this well-known answer and ask, “But why, really? Why did God have to sacrifice His only Son to forgive our sins?  Why not just forgive us?”

One answer is, “Because He loves us.  He did it out of love for us.”  True. But this is not quite the whole answer.

It says in Proverbs 17:15, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”  Had he simply justified and forgiven our sins, he would have been sinning against Himself.

In Old Testament times, people would sacrifice animals to appease the wrath of God.  In order to appease His own wrath, God needed to sacrifice His only Son, Jesus Christ.  Romans 3:23-25 states, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.  This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”

Thus, the response, “He loves us so much that He wanted to die on the cross to forgive us for the overwhelmingly countless number of times we have sinned against Him every day of our lives,” is not quite right.  The little-known truth is that if Jesus Christ had not died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, we would not be the wretched, sinful creatures that we are now.  We would not be here at all; we would have been already struck down by the wrath of God.

The sad reality is that many Korean-American Christians, and many in the majority of white churches as well, are oblivious to their ignorance.  It is not that we are content with knowing nothing about God.  The issue is that we think we do know God.  We listen to sermons once or twice a week, and that is the limit of our learning.  We bring our Bibles to church so we can follow along with the readings and participate in Bible study.  But nobody seems to read the Bible outside of church anymore.  We are too busy to sit down and spend our oh-so-valuable time immersed in the Bible and engaged in a conversation with God.  Some have designated a regular “quiet time” session to remind them to pick up the Bible and read. These people are trying to close the gap in their relationships with God.  But the terrible truth is that those who do not schedule a quiet time are probably not reading the Bible at all.

Christianity in the Korean-American community seems to have lost its purpose.  The church is meant to be a house of worship. It should be a place where believers gather to praise God’s name in fellowship. If it loses its God-centeredness and becomes solely a place for social gathering, then the church is no longer the church.  Churchgoers wear a mask in church and remember not to curse, lust, lie, hate, stress about money, inundate themselves in alcohol, or poison themselves with drugs.  But as soon as they step outside of church, that Sunday mask disappears. Such people have not seen the Light. Darkness and Light cannot coexist.  A true Christian must stand out from the world, not fade into it.

As the saying goes, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”  A true believer is a disciple of Christ on the outside and on the inside.  “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?  My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?  Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water” (James 3:11-12). Without the inner transformation that comes from intimate personal knowledge of God, the form of Christianity practiced in the Korean-American immigrant community – and in any other community – is just bringing people together to see new faces and have a jolly good time.

Source of photo: www.christianphotos.net

Christians of different denominations read different Bibles.  The collection of texts known as the Bible has changed over time.  The earliest Christians had the Old Testament, some letters from the apostles and oral tradition. A list of 22 books of the New Testament appeared in the Muratorian Canon around AD 180. In AD 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed 27 books. A Latin edition of the Bible called the Vulgate appeared in AD 383 and became the standard for the Western world. In addition to the 66 books found in the current Protestant Bible, the Vulgate also had the so-called deuterocanonical books and apocrypha. Some differences persist today. For instance, the Ethiopian “narrow” canon includes 81 books.

When Christians say that the Bible is the Word of God, which Bible do they mean? Which books do they include? And in which languages? Hebrew? Greek?  English?  For example, it is well known that in the final chapter of the gospel of John, in which Jesus repeatedly asks Peter, “Do you love me?” there are multiple Greek words used for love. This subtle wordplay is absent from English translations.  So how precisely is the Word of God conveyed?

And what about the earliest Christians who did not have the Bible? Were they non-Bible-believing? Were they any less Christian than the believers of today?  Or were they more Christian than modern believers, because they participated in composing and compiling the Bible?  Recognizing the necessity of a biblical canon, they identified the four gospels that we now accept and separated them from the apocrypha. Although they did not have our Bible, they seem to have been guided by the Word of God. Where was this Word found?   In oral tradition?  If so, is this tradition still available today?

My purpose in raising these questions is not to diminish the Bible’s credibility. I am only pointing out that, when someone claims to believe in the Bible, issues of truth and authority are not automatically resolved.  Saying “I believe” is not always enough; sometimes this must be made more precise. Instead of dodging these difficult questions, we ought to be willing to face them and, in doing so, admit that our best answers might not be completely satisfactory.

The Bible is understood differently within different traditions and cultures. In some Protestant traditions, for example, it is believed that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was a young man. Some Catholics believe that Joseph was an older man and that Mary was his second wife. This latter view reconciles the Catholic tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity with the existence of Jesus’ brothers who are named in Matthew 13:55.

Some Christians may think that Jesus is unknown to Muslims. But the Koran describes more miracles performed by Jesus than the New Testament does. Before attempting to “enlighten” Muslims with our Christian interpretations of Scripture, perhaps it would be useful to first learn something about what they believe.

Tragically, the question “Which tradition is the best one?” has provoked arguments and religious wars.  Coming back to our simple example, one may ask: Which Christian is correct?  The one who believes in young Joseph, or the one who believes in old Joseph?

It seems to me that, regardless of what one believes about Joseph, the one who is correct is the one who takes up his cross and follows Jesus (Matthew 16:24).  It is important to study the Bible.  It is even more important to obey its teachings.  Biblical knowledge does not change a person’s soul until it is actually put into practice.  In Matthew 19:21, Jesus said to a rich young man: “… go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  I know exactly what Jesus said. Yet for some strange reason, I am in no great hurry to start doing it.

What is a Bible-believing Christian?  In my humble opinion, it is one who actually obeys the Bible and one who actively follows Christ.

Skepticism is the philosophy that casts doubt on everything.  Skeptics may say that all religions are the same.  But they do not think that all of them are true.  They probably think that none are true.  To them, religions are metaphors for some grand, overall truth, but what that truth is, they cannot say.  They might say that they believe in God.  But to them, God is vague and unknowable.  Many skeptics claim to have faith.  But their faith has no defined object.  They place their faith in faith itself.

Modern skeptics view history, religion and politics in terms of power struggles between groups.  They say that objectivity is impossible, because each group has its own point of view.  History books were written by the winners, not the losers, so history is subjective and unreliable.  They say one can never know what really happened in the past, because alternative viewpoints have been suppressed.  North American and European traditions are automatically suspect.  Eastern religions are way cooler, not because they are any closer to the truth, but because they are exotic and less familiar.

About three-fourths of Americans today call themselves Christian.  But skepticism is found on every street corner, in every church, synagogue and mosque.  It’s as ubiquitous as Walmart.  This is McFaith, the generic belief system of America.

Skeptics can be outstanding people.  Many whom I know are compassionate, thoughtful and honest. In their kindness and affinity for others, they put many committed Christians to shame.

Although there are skeptics whom I admire, I am dissatisfied with skepticism. Why would someone become a skeptic?  Not because it’s logically consistent.  “Everything is subjective” contains a glaring contradiction.  Each of us perceives the world through lenses of culture and experience.  But this does not imply that reality is unreal.  It does not make every observation an illusion.  If someone says that everything is subjective, he is claiming to see these things rather objectively.  He is claiming to stand on solid ground apart from those personal points of view.  How does one achieve the objectivity to make such a profoundly sweeping statement?

Skepticism is marketed as open-minded and tolerant, but I personally find it condescending. Consider the claim that all religions are the same.  Jews, Christians and Muslims worship an all-powerful creator.  Beyond that, however, the differences are stark.  Christianity asserts the divinity of Christ, which Muslims and non-messianic Jews flatly reject.  If the overlap among religions is so huge and obvious, then why haven’t their adherents realized it yet?  Why aren’t religious leaders working to merge all faiths into one?  Who is the better judge of the true character of a religion: one who truly believes and practices it, or one who observes it superficially from a distance?

To claim that those immersed in their religions cannot see with the clarity of someone on the outside — especially when that outsider happens to be you — isn’t a convincing argument in my book.

Skepticism is the religion of rich white men.   Yes, in the recent past, Christians from Europe and North America exported their culture to other parts of the world.  And the Christianity now practiced in the United States is mixed with contemporary American values (e.g., individualism and consumerism). But this was not always the case.  During its first 1,000 years, Christianity was based in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.  And today, while Christianity is waning in the west, churches are exploding in Latin America, China, and sub-Saharan Africa.  The “average Christian” today is dark-skinned and poor.

While developing nations send pastors to the United States, the moguls of Madison Avenue and Hollywood export sexually explicit images and western-style consumerism to the rest of the world.  Who are the real imperialists now? 

Skeptics deny the possibility of miracles.  “Miracles can’t happen,” they say. “Why not?” I ask.  “They just can’t,” is the reply; “Miracles are not reproducible in a scientific experiment.”  Well, that’s why we call them miracles, no?

Many who claim that miracles are impossible seem unaware of how aberrant that belief is relative to what people have thought in other places and times.   This mindset is rooted in the period known as the Enlightenment, in the empiricist philosophies of Hume and Kant. Thomas Jefferson took scissors to his New Testament and cut out every miraculous element. I’ll bet his slaves at Monticello wouldn’t have done that. Again, it’s the religion of the rich white man.   

Of course, people in other places and times also believed that the world is flat.  That idea was overcome by a steady accumulation of evidence, much of it gathered by rich white men.  But the impossibility of miracles is a different matter entirely.  That is a faith-claim that can never be proven. A computer scientist living in the 21^st century is in no better position to judge that matter than an illiterate peasant in medieval times or an Australian aborigine in 6,000 BC.

When I call skepticism the religion of the rich white man, I do not intend it as a slur.  Using race, ethnicity or economic status to discredit someone’s views is morally offensive and intellectually lame. My purpose is to challenge the idea that all faith is the byproduct of culture.  Christianity is expressed by individuals within cultures.  But the gospel of Jesus — his message of the kingdom of God — is not a cultural construct at all. The teachings of the New Testament, when properly understood, affirm every culture and challenge every culture.

If you feel that I have mischaracterized your views, then you are probably correct.  The skeptic I have described is partly a straw man.  People are complicated. Their belief systems do not fit neatly into predefined categories. Yet I do have some understanding of American skepticism, because I was once a young American skeptic.

I distinctly remember, back in my freshman year in college, how intoxicating it was to voice skeptical opinions and be welcomed by new friends into the ranks of the enlightened.  I remember the heady feeling when it first dawned on me that now, as a skeptic, my belief system was the greatest because it encompassed all others.  I could now respect all religions of the world without actually having to learn about them, because I had figured out on my own that none of them were true.  And I had accomplished all that by the age of eighteen!

After a brief flirtation with skepticism, I decided instead to believe in Jesus. How and why this happened, I cannot say.  It was not an entirely rational process, but neither was it irrational. Within a year of this uneventful conversion, my friends began to notice that I was different.  Instead of pontificating that all religions were the same, I began to show disdain for anything secular and non-Christian.  I demonstrated that religious people and skeptics are equally prone to arrogance and hypocrisy. I hope I have made progress in that regard. While my beliefs and convictions have become stronger, I hope that I have also grown in the capacity to question myself, to personally admit that I could be wrong, and to consider that my own culturally-bound expressions of Christianity may be inadequate.

There is still one question I cannot resolve: How can people of different faiths, who hold different world views and core values, live together in peace, love and mutual respect? Christianity as a religious movement has failed to provide an answer.  Skepticism hasn’t answered it, either. The idea that you can eliminate conflict by negating all claims of absolute truth is ludicrous.  People who hold different views may interact peacefully in their communities and workplaces.  But often they do so by avoiding politics and religion.  When a polarizing issue comes up, they just “agree to disagree.”  Setting up boundaries and keeping your distance is not the same as acceptance, communication and friendship.

No system of belief can unite people of different beliefs.  But there is a person who, more than any other, broke through these barriers when he interacted with people.  Jesus made claims that are stunningly absolute:  “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  I have heard young people describe these words as “presumptuous,” “arrogant” and “ignorant.”  But Jesus himself was anything but.  He showed respect, understanding, compassion and love toward everyone he encountered. If claims of objective truth are dangerous and repugnant, how could they coexist with this beautiful mind and exemplary life?

Of course, some will claim that the New Testament was fabricated by clerics in the second century. But I would say that skepticism was invented in the 18^th century by those rich white men.

When you hear the word faith, what comes to mind? The term is notoriously hard to define.   All of my life I was told to believe in God.  But I never could understand how to have faith.  I saw it as blind action with no rhyme or reason.  Like pushing all your poker chips into one big pot, hoping that your cards are better than the other guy’s.

Faith requires taking chances and making hard decisions.  But it is not picking a course by saying eeny meeny miney mo.  Nor is it connecting to God in prayer, meditation, or reflection on a passage from the Bible. Those are the outward actions of someone who already has faith.

The state of mind that we call faith is hard to describe to one who does not have it. To develop this state of mind, you engage the two opposing forces that interact in you and pull you in opposite directions. Some people call them positive and negative, up and down, right and wrong.  One author called them “the performer” and “the critic.”  I would call them the spirit of God and the influence of Satan.  Whatever their names, they reside in you at every moment.  They motivate your thoughts, words, actions, and emotions. They force you to pick one direction or another.

The negative side places doubt to distract you and bring you down.  Impulses of selfishness, lust, greed and hate, if acted upon, will ultimately lead to death.  I know that this is true.  At times, I have allowed myself to listen to the negative side. I was always striving for more, never satisfied, always tearing myself down.  I called myself stupid when I didn’t get good grades.  I was never strong enough, fast enough, talented enough.

For whatever reason, I branded myself a failure. Thinking this way did not work. It never made me better, stronger, faster or smarter. Those feelings and thoughts still come.  The evil one brought me down and has power to bring me down at any moment if I choose to act on sinful and self-destructive impulses. When I dwell in the dark side of my heart, the darkness only grows.

The positive side works in a similar fashion. Faith starts as a tiny seed, a positive thought, a word, feeling or idea. If dwelt upon, it develops into other thoughts and eventually it becomes a dominant force. This is the state of mind that, over time, becomes the foundation of good character. The seed must be nurtured and allowed to grow.

The best explanation of faith that I have heard comes from an author named Napoleon Hill.  He wrote:

Faith is the eternal elixir that gives life power and action to the impulse of thought.

Faith is the starting point of all the accumulation of riches.

Faith is the basis of all miracles and mysteries that cannot be analyzed by the rules of science.

Faith is the only known antidote to failure.

Faith is the element, the chemical which, when mixed with prayer gives one direct communication with infinite intelligence.

Faith is the only agency through which the cosmic force of infinite intelligence can be harnessed and used.