Some people afterward had some questions that told me that a point I made was unclear.  I always want to be clear and here it looks like I failed.  We should understand the difference between touches that are sexual and touches that are affectionate.  What makes the difference?

Intent.

What is your intention?  Intent can make hand holding sexual.  Intent can make a kiss affectionate.  (Note: in America, we are socialized that kisses are for family only.  You see famous people try to imitate the European custom of the ‘cheek kiss’ but by and large America has not embraced that paradigm.  In other words, in America most people are going to interpret kisses as sexual.)

You need to know and check yourself.  If your intent in the hug is sexual, you need to avoid it.  Some people can hug and it be purely affectionate, some can’t.  This leads us to another point.  We have to labor as hard in protecting other peoples’ hearts as hard as we do our own.  If you are a ‘hugger,’ that does not mean that others have to share that.  If someone has a much higher threshold of contact intimacy than you, you must respect that.  Let me put it to you like this- you have no right to initiate sexual contact with someone who doesn’t want it.  “But it’s just a hug!!”  To you, yes.  To them?

Affection is a needed part of human interaction.  8-10 meaningful touches, right?

The Gospel assumes you’re dead.

There is NO SUCH THING as a salvation message that is not saving you from something.  If it is not saving you from something then it is not a salvation message.  Call it anything else- infomercial, birthday card, documentary, summer blockbuster.  But not a salvation message.

Many have tried to recast the Gospel message into things like a ‘moral influence’ message or a ‘moral governing’ message.  The problem with that is that the earliest Christian gravitated toward a title for Christ that places on the Gospel message certain requirements.  The title?  Savior.  For Jesus to be a Savior then the message of His works must, even if just tangentially, have a salvation aspect.  (Note- I think the salvation aspect is central, just making a comment on those that want it totally removed.)

And further along the presupposition trail- if there is a salvation aspect, then there has to be a problem.  A problem that will, well- the opposite of ‘save,’ us.  Destroy.  Kill.  Damn.  Undo.  Whatever.  Its something that we have to be ‘saved’ from.

There, in all its glory, is the issue.  You have to be dead before the Gospel can save you.

Now, don’t get me wrong here.  I can’t take time off work.  I am all for the little guy, but am not going to become one myself.  I can’t take time off work.  I don’t think that I am going to be using my vacation time for it either.  I need that time to rest so as to be able to do my work well.  Same with my sick leave.  I need that time to manage my health.  But don’t worry, I am here for you little guy!

Also, weekends are mine.  ESPECIALLY during football season.  There are only 12 Longhorn and 16 Cowboy games a year.  That is not too much to ask.  Little guy understands.  Yep, I am a social activist.  Big Time!

Also, money is tight right now.  I mean, I can pay my bills and all but the rest is ‘claimed,’ if you will.  You know, movies, dinner, etc.  I’m sure you get it.

Can someone really call themselves something when they hold NO RESEMBLANCE to the thing itself?  Shakespeare said the rose would smell as sweet if you called it by another name- but his point was that it would still be a ‘rose.’  You can’t call a pile of poop a ‘rose’ and expect the smell.   It just doesn’t work that way.

I don’t understand these people who reject almost EVERY single distinct Christian thought, yet call themselves ‘Christians.’  If you don’t like Christianity’s distinctions, why call yourself one?  It makes no sense.  I’m sure that it is part ‘social construct’ and part ‘self preservation.’  They like the trappings or pleasures of Christianity without any of the duties of Christianity.  If doesn’t work that way.  Call yourselves ‘theists’ or ‘monotheists’ or ‘badaplapbadians’ (I made up that word).  But ‘Christian’ does and must come with certain assumptions and requirements.

This ‘calling oneself Jesus’ follower with no regard to Jesus Himself’ is not new.  Not at all.  In fact, Jesus had to deal with it Himself.

In John 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000.  A well-known miracle story.  The people come and, in one of the weirder sentences in Scripture, try to ‘make Him king by force.’ (Does that mean “You’re King and we are going to revolt against Rome” or “You’re King!”  “No, I’m not!”  “Yes, you . . . are.  Say it!”?)  Jesus then tells them they are just following Him because they ate their fill.  He then tells them that to have any part of Him they will have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, abhorrent to the Jews.  It proves His point because most of the crowd, called by John Jesus’ disciples (meaning not just people who had shown up.  These were ‘followers.’) leave and, to quote John again, ‘no longer walked with Him.’

They liked the bread.  They liked the idea of Him being King.  They didn’t like the “I am God and will tell you things that you might not understand.  But you need to obey and believe.  Why?  See point ‘a.’”  They wanted to be ‘Christians’ in name, comforts and relationships but not in obedience to the Word.  They were ‘social activists’ with no time or money to give.

Don’t get me wrong here.  It is very important to note that the Bible itself (Rom 14, for example) says that Christians can disagree about a wide variety of topics and that BOTH sides are still Christians.  What I am talking about here is not disagreements about certain doctrines or practices.  At the same time, Paul would say to some who disagreed about crucial doctrines that they were the voices of Satan, dogs who he wished would emasculate themselves.  So what boils down to ‘can disagree’ doctrines and ‘can’t disagree’ doctrines?  I think I will post more about that later- but we will start here.

The Gospel.

If ever there was a ‘can’t disagree’ doctrine, its this one.  When Paul writes his most punishing critiques of his opponents, its not about ‘drums in worship’ or ‘topical vs. exegetical’ or ‘abstain from drinking vs social drinking permissible.’  It’s when the Gospel is at stake.

Then, when that is the topic, there is no quarter.  No prisoners.

Someone who says “I’m a Christian, but I think all ways are valid.”  No.  Jesus directly refutes that.

Someone who says “I’m a Christian, saved by grace.  But you have to make sure you do ‘x’ or it doesn’t count!”  No.  Paul directly refutes that.

Someone who says “I’m a Christian, but I think that you can live however and just know that you are forgiven.”  No.  Jesus and Paul directly refute that.

All of this to simply say- a Christian is a Christian.  Someone who says they are a Christian but isn’t a Christian . . . wait for it . . .

isn’t a Christian.

Hypocritical?   You decide.

The same reviewer called ‘WALL-E’ one of 2008′s best.  No disagreement here.  But to say that the movie wasn’t eco-propaganda is foolish at worst and deliberate at best.

The same reviewer puts ‘Avatar’ in his top films of ’09.  ‘Avatar?’  You mean James Cameron’s ode to panentheism?

It’s sort of like when ‘The Passion of the Christ’ came out.  I remember, vividly (oh how I wished I’d saved it!) reading in the NY Time’s movie review the (different) reviewer BLASTING P. o. t. C. because of it bloodiness.  ON THE SAME PAGE, the EXACT SAME REVIEWER could not stop praising Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ movies as ‘stylized violence.’

I don’t want to be one of those believers who bemoans not getting a fair shake in our society.  Christ said we’d be hated.  What do we expect?  That is not my point here.  My point is that it used to be that meaningful dialogue happened when you were exposed to different ideas, interacted with them, and accepted or jettisoned them by evaluation.  It is becoming more and more socially unacceptable to put out an idea with the point of converting, at least if they are the wrong ideas.  Didn’t like the movie’s message?   Then attack the idea, not the sharing of the idea.

Freedom of speech means nothing if there are no ideas being spoken.

http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/story.html?id=2613155

My first question is- did this reviewer have an equal reaction to ‘Avatar?’

They do both believe that grace is not enough to save- so he’s got us there . . .

So it is not that McLaren wants to question things that bothers me.  I do think that the large majority of ‘questions’ are really Socratic in nature.  That is, they aren’t really questions but wanting to smuggle in teaching without appearing to do so.  No, its the stance that he takes here (and that Rob Bell has taken in interviews) that if someone disagrees with them, it is because a) they are too mired in their worldview or b) they have too much to lose by admitting that they are wrong and the book is right.

a)- this is the height of postmodern ridiculousness.  So, I am too mired in a worldview to see they are right, but they aren’t too mired in their worldview to be wrong?  Postmodernism- “there is absolutely no absolute truth!”  “I am outraged that there is such a thing as outrage!”

b)- Most of those who would disagree don’t have book deals or national speaking tours.  Having removed himself from the majority of Christendom, who really has the most to lose?  If McLaren were to lose his group of followers, where would he go?  My point is not to attack his motives, though he seems willing to do so to those who critique him, but to show the ‘two-sidedness’ of the point.

The method is called ‘ad hominem.’  It means to attack the people rather than their points.  Rather than dealing with the points someone made, you discredit them and then you don’t have to deal with anything.  Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses say that every other group of Christians are under the power of the devil- thus ANY point they make is invalid.  It’s a splendid way to isolate yourself from critique.

More to the point- why did He make a universe that is ’cause and effect’?  There are seemingly inviolable rules governing us that boil down that that maxim.  Even the ‘first’ law of physics contains it- a body at rest or in motion will stay at rest or in motion until acted upon by another force. (Please- no physics corrections!  I know I’m dumb!).  The point is that the law is there- cause and effect.  It’s in our physical laws, our chemical laws, our energy laws, even our relational maxims.

Dwelling on this nature of the universe has lead some to despair.  Without a transcendent God it hope in, some philosophers see this cause and effect nature and determine that there is no reason to live.  Everything we do will be determined by the causes that preceded us and there is nothing we can do about it.  But it is precisely this lack of transcendence that traps them in hopelessness.

God created this universe. He created it for His glory and it will accomplish that purpose.  Cause and effect are for our good.  How?  Next time . . .