There was an article yesterday by Michael Coogan on CNN’s belief blog. The title of the article was “Bible has some shocking ‘family values’”. I was rather intrigued by this title and immediately recognized that it was meant to grab one’s attention and suggested that something about the Bible’s “true” family values would be revealed in the article that you wouldn’t hear any Christian professing as biblical family values. This simply wasn’t the case in the article. Yet, it was still a scintillating piece which I would like to address because the author got a few things out-and-out incorrect concerning the Bible and the principles contained therein.

He starts out with the statement: “When talking about so-called family values, pastors, popes, and politicians routinely quote the Bible as if it were an unassailable divine authority—after all, they assume, God wrote the Bible, and therefore it is absolutely and literally true.” There are a number of disturbing remarks contained in this sentence. First, he hints that family values are something that people don’t understand or which don’t truly exist by referring to them as “so-called.” The second major problem is his straw man tactic. He paints everyone that would call his/herself a Christian with one broad stroke. It is true that there are some Christians who would fall into the belief that the Bible is absolutely and literally true, but this does not characterize all or even most.

Let me explain. Most Christians are not complete bumbling idiots as he ever so slightly indicates by writing, “But that [God writing the Bible] is a misconception. As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings”. We know that the Bible was written by human beings. The doctrine concerning biblical inspiration does not revolve around God himself penning the Bible. We understand that it was penned at the hands of men. When most Christians speak of inspiration it is in terms of God inspiring those human authors. This, we believe, was accomplished by God in a fashion that was not God dictating what to write, nor was it God possessing the authors so as to remove their individuality and humanity from the process, nor was it free reign to write their own thoughts or opinions. Rather, it was a process where God used human authors to convey his message. This is expressed in 2 Peter 1:20-21, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” So Mr. Coogan is completely off base in his statement that the biblical authors’ “writings reflect their own views and the values they shared with their contemporaries.” In fact, the authors’ own views regularly stood in stark contrast to their contemporaries.

The article continued down this road of biblical unfamiliarity by stating that Jews and Christians have traditionally agreed on the Bible’s authority in principle but not in practice. Citing as an example of this agreeing in principle but not practice, Mr. Coogan references slavery stating it is “a divinely sanctioned institution.” I’m not sure how he came to this conclusion. Perhaps it is because of the regulations the Bible places on slavery. Surely he does not take the Bible’s directives on how people should address slavery as its creation and/or stamp of approval upon it. Perhaps he misunderstands slavery allowing our American conception of it to skew his opinion. The most common form of slavery in ages past was indentured servitude. This occurred when someone sold themselves into slavery as a way to pay for a debt they otherwise had no other means of repaying. The other way slaves came about was through the conquering of another nation. These forms of slavery were around long before the Jews became a people or the biblical directives were given. The Jews understood slavery all too well being slaves in Egypt before becoming a sovereign nation. In fact, God reminds them of this fact as a means to understand the regulations placed upon them concerning slavery (Deut 24:22).

Furthermore, he suggests that the Bible addresses women as men’s property and upholding the practice of polygamy. Neither of these are accurate. The Bible does contain clear gender roles, but in no way does it place women in the position of property. Neither does the Bible condone polygamy. One could say that it condemns it (Deut 17:17). Even though this directive is aimed at the king, he was to be an example for the nation.

In short, he is advocating a discarding of the Bible’s “shocking” family values by recognizing “that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.” Instead, Mr. Coogan advocates that we “attempt to determine what its [the Bible] underlying values are.” What does he consider these to be? He pronounces that the Bible’s underlying message is: “Equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.”

That sounds really good though. I don’t think any Christian would disagree with that statement on the surface; however, it is couched in an article that is clearly dismissive of the Bible and aimed at bringing Christians into compromising on their convictions. Not too mention this is not in hopes of bringing the two opposing views some honest common ground, but to get Christians to completely abandon their views to embrace those opposite their own using thoroughly deceptive, misinformed points and straw man tactics.

When one begins to survey those topics which polarize the public forum, there are few that have remained as charged as abortion. Likewise, I don’t think there is such a widely debated issue that is not fully understood by those on either side of the fence. Because neither side understands all of the intricacies involved, it quickly becomes oversimplified and the impact it has upon all those involved is understated. This, in my opinion, is where the greatest injustice has been done in regard to abortion. Abortion is a very complex topic. It involves mothers, fathers, children, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. Furthermore, it involves many complexities. Some of these are because options such as adoption are available. It also concerns the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the mother and father and those deeply connected and involved with the mother and father.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to address every subtlety due to the vast nature of this issue. Neither is it my goal in this post to argue for a specific position as being more right/wrong. I simply want to bring some awareness to the profound nature of this subject and spark some discussion that will lead to both sides better understanding one another. This is in the hope that we might be able to reach some common ground and quit treating those personally facing this in their life as though they are objective subject matter available to use as ammunition in the continued war which we have created.

How do pro-lifers oversimplify and understate?
This side of the fence is often characterized as the religious, right-wingers who protest and picket in front of abortion clinics. It is certainly true that a great many of those who hold to this position do so for religious reasons. Because this is the foundation for their view, they often make the mistake of painting this as simply a matter of “the sanctity of life.” The war cry was quickly stereo-typed as “abortion is murder.” When pressed about possible instances where abortion would be acceptable, the standard canned response seems to be, “There is never a time where it is ok to take a life—period.” This is a huge oversimplification when considering possible reasons for abortion.

When a woman is raped and then is impregnated by her attacker, it takes a callow individual to tell her she has no option but to carry the child to term and love the child with everything she has. A woman in this instance has gone through something which is emotionally traumatic on a level that those who have not experienced cannot fathom. Hear me out, I am not saying that this is a green-light instance for a woman to get an abortion, but I think those in the pro-life camp are displaying a callous heart when we don’t even consider the woman’s emotional state in a situation like this. Would it not be better to help her deal with the emotional trauma from which she is suffering? Doing so would bring more positive results (adoption?) as well as help her heal. All too often, what seems to be the prevailing story in this situation is those in the pro-life position simply state that she would be murdering this child and sinning if she has an abortion. Now some of you in the pro-life position are getting angry with me as you read this, but stop and take a breath for a moment. I write this because I used to be one of those who would have told her those very things. I would’ve heralded “abortion is not an option under any circumstance.”

I have since softened my approach. I still do not agree that abortion is okay, but I have been able to gain some understanding into the pro-choice position. For example, there are very rare instances where carrying a child to term would place the mothers life at risk. One of those instances is a condition known as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy.” This is where the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the fallopian tube. If left untreated, the embryo will continue to grow and eventually rupture the tube. When this occurs the woman is in serious danger of dying from the hemorrhage. Another condition which would place both the mother and the child at risk is preeclampsia. When a couple is faced with this, it is a hellacious decision. One that I know (as a parent) is not easily made. Why do I say this? Because it is a decision that results in the ending of a life. Either they decide to follow thru on the oversimplified pro-life position and not have an abortion and the mother dies (and possibly the child as well) or they end the child’s life saving the mother’s life. It is a no win situation for those parents and the public sector seems to forget this fact.

However, I also realize that not every person who could be categorized as pro-life hold to the extreme which has been painted. It still remains, however, that the vast majority of the pro-life camp does not give any consideration beyond that of preserving the life of the unborn. We must begin to move beyond seeing that as the only thing at stake here—it is much deeper than just the unborn child; it involves real people, facing real decisions, which affect more than just the unborn.

How do pro-choicers oversimplify and understate?
The biggest way in which those advocating this position have oversimplified the issue is by deeming it simply as a “woman’s choice.” This statement is naïve at best because it is not just the woman involved. There is, at least in the beginning, a man involved as well. It is ridiculous to me that when a child is born the father has rights to the child and the major decision which affect that child’s life, but when the child is in the womb a woman can abort the child even if the father wanted to keep the child. An even greater hypocrisy lies beneath the surface of the “woman’s choice” statement—partly because what is hailed as giving much support to the woman’s choice position is contained in two concurrent decrees from the Supreme Court. In the first of two decisions, Roe v. Wade determined that the fetus is not person and, therefore, not entitled to constitutional rights. This decision also determined that States cannot regulate an abortion during the first trimester for any reason, but could regulate the second trimester to protect the health of the mother and during the third trimester states could regulate/prohibit abortions to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus (save threatening the health or life of the mother). The second decision by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton outlined what constituted the “mother’s health”. It defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This expanded the “right to abortion” for almost any reason.

Consider this. A pregnant mother in her third trimester, one week away from her due date can go and receive an abortion because the fetus is not considered a person as defined in the above Supreme Court decision. However, if she were to wait one week and give birth to the child, she could no longer terminate that life because it is now considered a person. Does one week make that drastic of a difference in the development of the fetus? Of course not, that child could be born a week early and be completely healthy and survive outside of the mother. Here is the oversimplification. It is difficult by any means to try and define the point at which the developing embryo should be considered a person. My opinion is that the Supreme Court did not wish to delve deeply into the matter as they are supposed to interpret the law and not get into ethical considerations; so they simply took the plainest definition of personhood available to them—at birth. That, after all, is when we receive a certificate of live birth and are eligible for rights as citizens.

Even though we have made great advancements in the medical field, we are still learning a lot about the entire process of pregnancy. This is a difficult point, but one which is of extreme importance. We must begin open, honest discussions about when personhood begins. Why is that so important you might ask? Because history bears out that in order to oppress a group or mistreat them in any way, you must first deny them personhood. The slaves in America were not considered to be persons, but property. Native Americans were not considered persons, but savages. The Jews during World War II were denied personhood, leading to their horrific mistreatment. So the matter of personhood concerning the unborn is one to which we must give complete diligence because the unborn cannot plead their case. Before we can begin to move this discussion forward, however, we must remove all of the appeals to emotion, the politically charged language, and our own personal biases from the arena and begin to look at the issue honestly. Only then will we as a society be giving a fair handshake to the unborn. Always remember, you were a fetus at one time as well. Would you have wanted someone to plead your case openly, honestly, and fairly?

Likewise, those in this camp have understated the serious nature of the abortion procedure chalking it up to a routine medical procedure. As anyone who has undergone surgery knows, any invasive medical procedure brings risks with it regardless of how small the procedure. Abortion is no different. In fact, abortion is very invasive and traumatic on a woman’s reproductive organs. If you do not know what is involved in the abortion process during the three different trimesters, please take a look at this video. The video is produced by an OB/GYN to tactfully demonstrate what is truly involved in an abortion. This is also why the Supreme Court made the following statement:

“The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed.”

Both sides of the camp are guilty of making grievous errors when addressing abortion. I’m not claiming that I have the answer, but I am willing to talk about the issue with an open mind and to think through the issues surrounding it logically and reasonably. That is my hope for you after reading this—that you would be willing to modify your opinion as you learn more about abortion from engaging others in productive discussions.

This is a subject of which has only grown in furor between those who support homosexuality and alternative lifestyles and those who oppose them. The battle lines have been drawn and you are either on one side or the other. It appears as though the middle ground has been ripped out from underneath the general public. Both sides have painted the other in the worst possible light, erected their straw men, and created an arsenal of red herrings. Where does this leave the average person who doesn’t necessarily feel a strong inclination to one view or the other? Often it leads to a rash and uninformed decision. So is there a way to a middle ground on this issue? To that we now turn.

The paint brush is broad when it comes to both sides, but I think that is truer of those who oppose homosexuality. They are often labeled as homophobes, oppressors, and religious zealots. While this is certainly true of some on this side of the fence, it is certainly my experience that this is not the case with the majority of those who oppose homosexuality. However, I don’t think Christians truly know how to appropriately respond to homosexuality in the culture. I think this is because they feel as though the homosexual community is cramming this lifestyle down their throats. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between doesn’t matter because that is the perception. So the Christian community in general responds in kind rather than being able to take a moderate approach to addressing this issue.

What are some ways Christians can better approach this topic? For one, I think we need to quit thinking that we have a right to tell homosexuals how they can or cannot live their life. What Christians are called to do is speak the truth in love. We are honor bound by the Scriptures to tell homosexuals that the life they are choosing to live goes against God’s Word and desire for their life, but we are not required to make them abide by it. However, I think Christians are completely justified in asking homosexuals to be sensible when expressing affection in public, just as I would like for heterosexual couples to do. I am not trying to advocate some sort of double standard. I find it extremely distasteful to see a heterosexual couple being overly affectionate by doing things like making out in public. In the same way, I don’t like to see homosexual couples doing this either. In my observations, it seems as though homosexual couples are more prone to these types of inappropriate displays of public affection. Again, that is just my opinion.

Many times, the homosexual community also feels put off by the religious side of the culture because they do not feel welcome. We as Christians are called to love homosexuals. What do I mean by this? If you are having a barbecue at your house, don’t be afraid to invite someone who is a homosexual. Their presence there is not going to cause you to sin by osmosis or anything. It allows you to demonstrate that you appreciate them as a person and care about them and, therefore, builds a relationship and a foundation for future discussions about their lifestyle without their feeling as though you are judging them.

This has been born out in past discussions I have had with homosexuals. They understand our religious convictions, but they see an incongruity with what we claim to be and how we live out those claims. Imagine Jesus for a moment. Think about the short glimpse we have into his life as recounted in the gospels. He regularly reached out to those who were considered to be on the fringe of society although he didn’t give approval of their sins either. For example, when Jesus encountered the woman at the well she was certainly a social outcast for many reasons. She had been with many men and was living with a man out of wedlock at that time. This was utterly and completely unacceptable in that society and often resulted in a type of shunning by the community. She was also a Samaritan while Jesus was a Jew. These were two groups diametrically opposed to one another and they didn’t acknowledge the other even when around each other. This is reflected in the woman’s question to Jesus after he asked her for a drink of water. She asked him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” Even though the social convention was such that he should have avoided her, Jesus used it as an opportunity to reach out to her with the truth.

I think this is where we are at as a society. Both sides have allowed the social convention shape the debate and prevent the two sides from engaging in a productive discussion to reach a middle ground where we can coexist with one another while respecting each others position.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. However, do not use this as an opportunity to bash or advocate a position as this will result in your comment being deleted. I want a productive discussion and not more of the same rhetoric.

What are some other ways Christians can reach out in love without compromising on our own position? What are some things homosexuals can do to promote a healthier interaction?

I am looking to begin a new series to help spur me back into the habit of more regular posting on my blog. So, with that goal in mind I began thinking of topics. After considering many different subjects on which to write, I decided to settle upon something a little different but still in line with the general goal of my blog.

There are a lot of issues that we as Christians face every day. Some of these issues seem to catch us by surprise and we don’t know how to respond. Other times, we don’t want to offend or seem as though we are pushing our views on others. As I began thinking of ways we can all better engage the culture around us and spread the Gospel faithfully and truthfully, it occurred to me that Christians frequently remain silent on these issues. This made me begin wondering why this is so often the case. One reason that came to mind was that I think we often lack some much needed clarity and perspective on these issues. So rather than speaking up because they don’t know the facts surrounding the issue, we choose remain silent.

I have several ideas already of topics to cover in the posts to come. But now I would like to get some input from all of you. What are some issues where Christianity clashes with the broader culture and you don’t really know much about either sides position?


Topics:

• Homosexuality
• Abortion

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling today that should interest religious groups operating on college campuses in particular and in a broader context as well. The Christian Legal Society was denied official recognition by the University of California’s law school in San Francisco.

What was the deciding factor in the Supreme Court’s ruling—the school’s policy concerning campus organizations. It essentially limits official recognition by the criteria that groups may not reject anyone because of sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other criteria protected under federal and state law.

The main point of debate is whether or not it is discrimination to preclude individuals from membership based upon sexual orientation. This is a point on which the Supreme Court’s decision did not specifically address. The group is distinctly a Christian organization and therefore, should have no appeal to those of other religious beliefs or those with sexual orientations contrary to the groups expressed beliefs. My question is this, if this were a Muslim, Jewish, or etc. group, would the decision have been the same? I venture to think not.


I would like to hear your thoughts on two points:

(1) Do you think it is discrimination for this group to limit membership to those of like belief resulting in non-heterosexuals being precluded from membership?

(2) Do you think this a serious blow to religious expression?

I have seen a lot on the Internet of late about Christmas. One of the hot topics is the origin of the Christmas tree. What bothers me most about a lot of what I have read is that many people appear to simply throw assertions out with nothing to support their claims. Such as this comment by @Deathiepants, "Come on, let's be honest. A Christmas tree is just an Asherah pole anyway." No support given to support the claim, just the assertion that Christmas trees are Asherah poles. I read a Jewish cite condemning Christmas and Christmas trees. I even read an article from a Christian claiming that the entire tradition of Christmas is pagan and that God commands we not celebrate it at all. That being said, there are a great number of websites that cite credible sources regarding the origin of the Christmas tree—an excellent example is History.com.

There is no hard evidence which reveals exactly how the tradition of bringing an evergreen tree indoors and decorating it became intertwined with the Christmas celebration. There are a few facts that seem to indicate it came from a Germanic background. In this tradition, the evergreen tree was decorated with apples to recall the Garden of Eden and were popularly known as “Paradise Trees.” However, there were also traditions from many different cultures that would bring boughs of evergreen branches into their homes during the winter. The best explanation seems to be that the tradition was born out of Queen Victoria’s urging of Prince Albert to decorate a tree in 1848. This appears to be one of the singular acts that brought the Christmas tree into mainline Christmas tradition.

The claim that Christmas trees are really just Ashera poles bothers me because it is an assertion with no support. What is interesting is that many of those who claim this look to the Bible to try and claim support. The passage they regularly cite is Jeremiah 10:2-5, which reads:

This is what the Lord says: Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.

At this point, the claim is along the lines of “God condemns the putting up of pagan (Christmas) trees with this plain Bible command!” So does the Bible condemn Christmas trees? Well, when one takes this passage in context that is not what God was condemning at all.

The cultures around the nation of Israel (and even Israel at times) would create gods to worship. One of the typical methods of doing this was to cut a tree down from the forest and carve it into the rough shape of the idol they were making. Then, they would cover the idol with gold or silver. This is similar to our modern day gold plating. It is cheaper to use an inferior metal for the bulk of something, and then cover it in a coating of the more expensive precious metal. Can you imagine trying to build a seven-foot statue of Zeus from solid gold to be placed in all of the temples erected to worship him across the Greek and Roman empires? It would be nearly impossible to locate that much gold and keep people from trying to steal the statues. Neither could many other ancient cultures when creating the images they worshiped. The wood served as the bulk of the idol while the precious metals and stones were then fashioned as a covering.

This is clearly seen when you look at some of the other biblical passages that address using trees to make idols. Isaiah 41:7 mentions the craftsmen “nailing down” the idol so it will not topple, just as it is in Jeremiah 10. A much longer treatment is given in Isaiah 44:12-20. In fact, the Bible uses sarcasm when condemning idol worship in this passage. Another place that mentions them using silver and gold when fashioning their idols is Isaiah 46:5-7 where individuals weigh out gold and silver and hire a craftsman to fashion a god(s) for them to worship.

It is abundantly clear that Jeremiah 10 is not condemning Christmas trees. What is being condemned is idol worship. There is no doubt about this when one considers the other passages mentioned. Besides, if they were worshiping the tree itself, why cut it down? Why not simply go out into the woods and worship the tree in all of its glory as many of the nature religions do?

At this point, I must tell you that I am not condoning nor condemning the practice of putting up Christmas trees. I can tell you that real Christmas trees smell great, but I hate having to clean up all of the needles left behind when it is time to take them down. What I can say is that Christmas trees most certainly have some roots in pagan worship practices. The choice to place a Christmas tree in your home or not is a choice that your family will have to make. I only wanted to make it clear that the Bible does not expressly forbid Christmas trees. I think that there would still be nay-sayers if Jesus’ birth was celebrated almost any other day of the year. Somewhere, someone would find some connection to a pagan celebration and then explain that we shouldn’t celebrate the birth of Jesus.

As for me and my house, we will most certainly celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior. For without the advent of Jesus, there could not have been the greatest gift of all time—salvation.

Back to "Christmas: Separating the Fact from the Fiction"

There was an article in New York Magazine last month that addressed the topic of abortion. Specifically, the question was about whether or not America really has a pro-choice majority among its citizens. I would recommend that read the article and then stop by Al Mohler's blog and read his response to it. You will thoroughly enjoy both articles and learn a lot about the current debate around abortion.

Hanukkah or Chanukah is the Jewish festival of dedication. It is also known as the festival of lights. It is celebrated from the 25th of Kislev to the 3rd of Tevet. It is one of the more widely known Jewish holidays in North America because of its proximity to Christmas. However, there is still a lot of confusion by those outside the Jewish faith as to exactly what Hanukkah is and what it celebrates. Hanukkah is a festival that stems from an event in history known as the Maccabean Revolt. Antiochus IV was the ruler of the Seleucid dynasty, which was part of the remnants of Alexander the Great’s empire. Antiochus began taking great measures against traditional Jewish practices by outlawing Jewish rituals and ordering them to worship Greek gods. In 168 BC, Antiochus seized the temple and dedicated it to the worship of Zeus. At this point, it is said that Antiochus offered a pig on the altar of the temple. This sparked a revolt by the Jews that eventually succeeded in 165 BC. Upon recapturing the temple, the Jews cleansed the temple and decided to hold a ceremony to rededicate the temple to the service of the LORD. The Talmud records that at this point there was only enough oil to light the menorah for one day. The menorah, however, miraculously burned for eight days.

Hanukkah commemorates this miracle at the rededication of the temple with an eight day celebration and a special menorah with eight branches—one for each day of the celebration (see video below).



This is where many people’s knowledge of Hanukkah ends and where the questions begin. For this reason, I decided it most appropriate to seek out and ask these questions to a Jewish Rabbi. So I would like to introduce you to my guest, Rabbi Leonard Zukrow of the Temple Beth-El in Pensacola, FL. My questions are bold and italic, while Rabbi Zukrow's follow in normal font.

Should we call the candelabra a menorah or a hanukkiah?
The menorah is a seven branched candelabra that stood in the Temple. The Chanukah menorah, known in Hebrew as a Chanukiah is eight branched to mark the eight days of the festival. There is one additional candle known as the “shamash” which is the “helper” candle used to light the other candles.

Has the celebration of Hanukkah changed over the years?
Yes, as is the case with most Jewish festivals. We retain the core practices – in the case of Chanukah – lighting the chanukia – and we build upon and expand the observance through foods associated with the festival, songs, stories, images, and new innovations that enrich our observance.

Is gift giving part of the Hanukkah celebration?
Yes, it was a custom to receive “Chanukah gelt” – a silver coin. In North America within the “season of giving” associated with the Christmas season, gift giving has expanded with the celebration of Chanukah. Traditionally and in Israel the practice of gift giving takes place at Rosh haShanah (The New Year) and Purim (The Feast of Esther).

What is the purpose of the gifts and what is the manner in which the gifts are given? For example, does the value or number of gifts increase or decrease each day?
Again, the practice of gift giving is more an American practice and it has evolved to gift giving on each night of Chanukah. Today, many families are forgoing gifts and offering contributions to various causes and organizations in place of personal gifts.

How much of the American celebration of Christmas do Jews participate (Christmas trees, Santa Clause, Christmas lights, etc.)?
There are accounts of Jews who participate in Christmas, most common is having a tree. Those Jews who do this see the tree and the Christmas season as a secular event. As a rabbi, I want Jews to celebrate Chanukah and as a rabbi, I want Christians to truly celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. I fully support putting Christ back into Christmas, observing Christmas in church and at home. As Christmas moved into the public square it has become more secular and national, and less religious.

Is it appropriate for me (a Christian) or someone of a different faith to wish a Jew “Happy Hanukkah”?
Yes, it is welcomed. I do not have an issue with wishing you a Merry Christmas. The holiday you celebrate IS Christmas. However, I and most Jews and those who do not observe Christmas seek acknowledgement for who we are and that we are unique.

What do you feel is the most misunderstood or misrepresented aspect of Hanukkah?
That it is the “Jewish Christmas” because of the shared season and calendar. Chanukah is not a biblical holiday, it is a celebration of an historical event, similar to our Independence Day of July 4th. July 4th is a unique American festival, we mark it and have our traditions associated with it – however, for the rest of the world July 4th is another day on their calendar.

Is it okay for Christians to celebrate Hanukkah? Why or why not?
Chanukah is more like a Jewish independence day for its time, it celebrates a return to the practice of Jewish ritual life at the Temple. The Maccabees were a priestly family – they fought to re-establish the rituals of Jewish sacrifice at the Temple. Non-Jews were not obligated nor permitted to offer sacrifices at the Temple. Thus, one could assert from a limited perspective that Chanukah is a Jewish festival for Jews. There is a wonderful story of non Jews in Montana who all engaged in lighting menorahs in support of the Jews of their town who were being persecuted by anti- Semites. When non-Jews light a menorah for this purpose most Jews would welcome this.

I would like to thank Rabbi Zukrow for his willingness to participate and answer my questions. I would also like to thank everyone who submitted questions to me about Hanukkah. Hopefully everyone now has a better understanding of Hanukkah, what it celebrates, and how it is celebrated.

It seems to me that the attacks on Christianity today come with greater frequency and greater fervency than I have ever before seen. There are attacks from the “New Atheists.” There are attacks from “science.” There are attacks from the pop-culture. The list could go on, but what is surprising is the veracity of those attacking. It seems that those opposing Christianity are no longer satisfied with simply stating their problem with the Christian faith and then leaving it at that. No, they would prefer to see the Christian faith exterminated. As though it were a rat infestation at a restaurant. However, these attacks have almost always existed since the dawn of the Christian faith. One of the pot shots that have somehow managed to survive through the decades is that the Church has always opposed science and tried to suppress its advancement. A very common example of this today is the notion that the mid-evil church believed that the earth was flat. The common story told in school textbooks is that this is why Christopher Columbus’ voyage was opposed; they were afraid he would sail of the edge of the earth. However, this is a fraudulent myth that has no place in history textbooks. There were no serious scholars (secular or religious) that believed the earth was flat during the Middle Ages. Matt Flanagan has posted an excellent article on his blog MandM that goes through the details of this myth and exposes for the propaganda that it is. I highly recommend following the link over to his blog and reading the entire article.

Before I can answer the question of whether or not Christians should celebrate Halloween, I must tell you about the holiday and its meaning. Halloween originates from the ancient Celtic celebration known as Samhain (pronounced sow-in). This celebration marked the end of the summer and the beginning of the winter. It was celebrated on the winter solstice, which was usually on or around October 31st.

The Celts believed that on this night, the barrier between the spirit world and the physical world became extremely thin. So thin, in fact, that spirits could “cross over” into the physical realm. Because the spirits were believed to be wondering the physical realm, it was also believed that this time brought with it an increase of magic. The Druid priests would practice divination and make predictions about the next year. These predictions would then be spread around the village that night. This has been suggested to be a possible origin for the modern tradition of telling ghost stories on Halloween.

Huge bonfires were lit around the villages in order to scare off those spirits that might be evil or have malevolent intentions. It is believed this tradition brought about the association of bats with the holiday because mosquitoes and other flying insects would have been attracted to the light of the fires and these insects would have attracted bats. In addition to lighting the bonfires, the villagers left food and sweets on their steps for the spirits that would be wondering the night.

As the Roman Empire grew, it would eventually come to encompass the Celtic regions. The Romans were notorious syncretists—meaning they would combine the religion of other nations with their own religious beliefs. At almost the same time of year, the Romans held their own celebration to the goddess Pomona—the goddess of gardens and fruit. The apple was often used as a symbol of Pomona. As the Romans began combining their harvest festival to Pomona with Samhain, the tradition of candied apples and bobbing for apples began to take shape.

The changing and molding of Samhain didn’t stop there. Pope Gregory III is believed to be the originator of the celebration known as All Saints Day, which is celebrated on November 1. Pope Gregory had an interesting philosophy when it came to dealing with pagans and attempting to convert them. He is often credited as saying, “If you come across pagans worshiping a tree, do not cut the tree down and tell them their error. Rather, consecrate the tree to Christ and urge them to continue meeting there.” All Saints Day was also known as All Hallows Day and, therefore, October 31 became All Hallows Eve. It was only a short trip from All Hallows Eve to Halloween.

Halloween in America, however, has had plenty of ups and downs. It basically went extinct during the Great War. However, it came back with a fury in the 50’s and 60’s. This also marked the commercialization of the holiday in America. Costumes, candy, and decorations are all items most Americans deem essential to properly celebrating Halloween. The selling of these items makes Halloween only second to Christmas in terms of revenue and retail sales.

So has Halloween become and innocent night of fun? To many Americans that is certainly the case. Most people don’t know the origins of Halloween and to these people it is simply a night to let loose and have fun. However, some of the traditions ingrained into the very essence of Halloween go against the very core of the Bible.

In the Old Testament, Leviticus 19: 26 and 19:31 expressly forbid participation in acts of divination, witchcraft, or magic: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 likewise condemns these things:

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so.

The New Testament also condemns these actions in Galatians 5:19-21.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 are among other passages that condemn participation in witchcraft, sorcery, divination, etc.

Here lies the crux of the matter. To participate in the full celebration of Halloween is for a Christian to align his/her self with that which is opposed to Scripture. Going back to Pope Gregory’s quote might help clarify what I mean. It is usually most unhelpful to chop the tree down because those who worshiped it will view you as hostile and refuse to listen to anything you try to tell them. However, simply consecration the tree to Christ means nothing to them. If a Christian truly wants to change them, he/she must get them to abandon the tree of their own accord and accept Christ.

I think this is the spirit of many Halloween Alternatives that churches now offer. However, I think many churches fail to demonstrate and offer Christ to those who attend these events. The population simply sees it as an endorsement by churches of the holiday. In other words, people often see this as the church in essence saying, “If you can’t beat ‘em, might as well join ‘em.”

At the same time, I think it is a huge opportunity to demonstrate the love and care of the local church to the community and to offer a safe way for families to celebrate the holiday together. Our church does offer a Halloween Alternative and has for years. While many other churches in our area also offer alternatives, our church’s is quite different. It does not attempt to simply Christianize the holiday. We simply make an atmosphere that people will enjoy, while extending an invitation to attend our church and purposely sharing the gospel in several ways (actively and passively). I am not declaring that this is the only way to handle Halloween as a Christian, but I believe it is one of the best ways to honor and glorify God on a night that represents so much of what is opposed to God. I think this principle is also demonstrated in the Bible.

When the Apostle Paul entered Athens, he spent time observing their culture. He observed how and who/what they worshiped. After he had taken time to understand their beliefs, he didn’t go to them and begin declaring that they worshiped gods that didn’t exist (i.e. chopping down the tree). However, he also didn’t go in and simply tell them that they had the wrong name (i.e. consecrating the tree to Christ). He used their own beliefs to begin sharing with them the gospel.

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you—Acts 17:22-23, NIV.

So should Christians celebrate Halloween? If that means that they participate in the “spirit” of the holiday, absolutely not. However, to condemn those who celebrate it because they do not know Jesus Christ or what the Bible has to say about it is wrong. Christians are supposed to be representative of Chris and beacons of light. Halloween is a celebration marked by darkness and we should be reaching out with the true light—Jesus Christ. So find a way to be a messenger of light without participating in the darkness.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light…Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible…Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil—Ephesians 5:8-16.

What are some ways that you or your church reaches out with the gospel on Halloween?

In my previous post, I covered a few points about the documentary titled “Discovering Ardi” that aired on the Discovery Channel this past Sunday evening, October 11, 2009. In that post I gave a brief summary of the research that has taken place over the roughly 15 years since its discovery. The documentary was two hours in length and probably could have covered all of the information in about one hour. That aside, the first half of the documentary details out Ardi’s discovery and research while the second half is mainly devoted to Ardi’s public relations preparation.

The research team hired J.H. Matternes to sketch out Ardi’s skeleton. One problem here is that they don’t have a complete skeleton. They have a partial skeleton which lacks most of the central structure. The hands feet and skull comprise the majority of Ardi’s fossil remains. There is only part of the pelvis and essentially no upper torso fossil bones. This means that Mr. Matternes had to fill in the gaps when he was creating the sketch of Ardi’s skeleton. This is where some other statements in the documentary bothered me.

Owen Lovejoy, the project biologist made a statement concerning J.H. Matternes, which is as follows:

He is the equivalent of a super-computer, into which years and years of primate structure have been poured and recorded and out of which comes an almost perfect image.

Following this comment by Lovejoy, Matternes said, “My job is to interpolate from what is there and what is missing.” Then Lovejoy adds:

We can take something like a partial foot and describe and interact with him (Matternes), as to what’s present, what’s missing and then based on our joint anatomical knowledge, replace the missing part.

What really bothers me about this is that an hour was just spent describing how Ardi was completely astounding in physical structure, that she was unlike anything they had before seen. Matternes and Lovejoy may have years of familiarity with primate anatomy, but they are completely unfamiliar with what Ardi’s missing skeletal anatomy might have been. It seems to me that they assume too much in their ability to “fill in the gaps.” For example, if Ardi’s feet would not have been discovered, would they have sketched them the same? Almost certainly not. I understand their desire to try and complete the picture, but the statement that Matternes can produce “an almost perfect image” and that using their knowledge they can “replace the missing part” is going beyond what the evidence can bear.

Then there was an interesting point brought out towards the very end of the documentary. Owen Lovejoy stated:

As we track humans back through time into the fossil record and all of our individual special characteristics begin dropping out, when you get to the very bottom, it is simply bipedality that becomes the defining character of being human.

He also noted that bipedality “is a terrible form of locomotion.” Owen Lovejoy is most certainly correct that bipedality is not the fastest or most efficient method of locomotion. The documentary really emphasized bipedality as the defining characteristic of humans also. What really bothered me is the lack of honesty in this statement. Humans are not the only animal that walks upright on two legs. Therefore, the statement that bipedality is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is simply not the case. What about Ostriches. Do they not use bipedality as their form of locomotion? Emus, closely related to Ostriches also use bipedality as their method of locomotion. Kangaroos use bipedality as their primary form of locomotion. There are other animals that use bipedality at times, such as penguins when they are on land. Before someone comments on this, I also realize that humans are the only animals that walk completely upright, but we aren’t the only ones that use bipedality.

One question that I know many people are asking is why did it take them 15 years to release this information if it was so revealing and ground breaking? The answer is not extremely simple. One reason is the public relations campaign that had to be prepared. They couldn’t simply release the research. They needed accompanying sketches and digital renditions of Ardi in her habitat.

Another reason is the condition of the bones. They were so fragile that the researchers removed them with clumps of dirt in plaster molds. Then in the controlled setting of a lab, they slowly and carefully removed the fossil bones from the dirt. After they were removed from the dirt, they then had to be reconstructed because of the poor condition of the fossils. The article published in the 2 October 2009 edition of Science. written by Ann Gibbons noted this very problem:

It was the find of a lifetime. But the team's excitement was tempered by the skeleton's terrible condition. The bones literally crumbled when touched. White called it road kill. And parts of the skeleton had been trampled and scattered into more than 100 fragments; the skull was crushed to 4 centimeters in height. The researchers decided to remove entire blocks of sediment, covering the blocks in plaster and moving them to the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa to finish excavating the fossils.

In short, the fossils are in such bad condition that many researchers are skeptical that it can be claimed with any measure of confidence that Ardi walked bipedaly. Ann Gibbons notes this point too in her article, “However, several researchers aren't so sure about these inferences. Some are skeptical that the crushed pelvis really shows the anatomical details needed to demonstrate bipedality.” Who are these skeptical researchers? Paleoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia; Paleoanthropologist William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York; Paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

If that’s not enough to make someone skeptical, then consider this tidbit also from the Science article:

By March of this year, Suwa was satisfied with his 10th reconstruction. Meanwhile in Ohio, Lovejoy made physical models of the pelvic pieces based on the original fossil and the CT scans, working closely with Suwa. He is also satisfied that the 14th version of the pelvis is accurate.

They went through 14 versions of the pelvis and then want everyone to believe they have solid evidence that Ardi represents the connection between humans and chimp/ape primates. I think Ardi is destined to go the way of Ida as far as sensational “missing link” claims are concerned.

I was finally able to sit down and watch the "Discovering Ardi" special last night. It was a very interesting documentary on the work that was accomplished over a period of more than a decade. There were several things which were discussed or stated in the documentary that I would like to address. Before I get into those things, a little background on this discovery is in order.

The full name of the fossil discovered is Ardipithecus Ramidus. It was discovered in Ethiopia in the Middle Awash area. They began discovering some teeth and small bone fragments from many different individuals. How they determined they were different individuals was not mentioned in the documentary. Then they began to discover fragments from the same individual. All of the bones were extremely fragmented and very delicate, to the point that the researchers cemented the bones together and lifted them out in plaster castes. Several years of excavation were conducted before recovering all of the bones which comprise the partial female skeleton that is the current topic of discussion. The researchers then began the painstaking work of removing the bones from the surrounding matrix (dirt) being careful not to damage the bones. They also transported the bones to Japan where they were scanned by a CT machine allowing them to create extremely accurate digital renderings of the bones. The researchers then hired J.H. Matternes to create full-scale reproductions of the fragments. Matternes then drew a complete skeleton followed by a skeleton covered with muscle and then skin, hair, etc. Owen Lovejoy, the project biologist then went to a company to have them create digital videos of how Ardi might have walked and moved through the terrain.

I must state that I think the researchers were very thorough in their work. From watching the documentary, it did not appear that this was hurried or that they were looking to make this “the missing link.” However, some statements made in the documentary caused me to question their conclusions. First, project paleontologist Tim White stated:

“Hominids are incredibly rare. They were rare on the landscape. They had very long life-spans, so few of them die and end up with carcasses on the landscape. They are very smart, smarter than most mammals so you don’t find very many of them trapped in the sediments. So they are extremely rare.”

Few of them die and end up with carcasses on the landscape. ..I don’t think he really thought through his statement here, because I’m sure that he would agree if I asked him if all animals eventually die. This puts one hole in his statement concerning why hominids are rare. They didn’t keep living forever or we would be finding them alive today. To be fair, I don’t think that is exactly what he meant. However, the point is still the same—it doesn’t matter if they lived 150 years or 50 years, they would all eventually die. He also claims that they were smarter than most mammals. The problem I have is that this is an assumption inferred back onto hominids because we as Homo sapiens are extremely intelligent and Tim believes that we evolved from hominids. Please hear me, I am not arguing against the point that we evolved from hominids, but I am arguing against this intelligence assumption. We don’t know how smart they were because it cannot simply be inferred from brain size.

The bones did not contain any material useful for dating the bones themselves. To explain how they dated Ardi to 4.4 million years ago, Yohannes Haile-Selassie a project paleontologist explained:

“We don’t really date the bones themselves, so we rely on geologists to give us dates for the rocks that are above and below the fossils that we are finding.”

How do they date these rocks? There were two volcanic rock bands, one above and one below the location they discovered the fossil. They then take samples from these bands and measure the amount of argon gas built up in the rocks. From this they can determine the age of the rocks. I am not familiar with this type of dating. It sounds very interesting and I will be researching this and learning more about it. One interesting point however, the two different tests came back to essentially the same date. At this point, I would think they might have asked to have the tests repeated because there was a lot of sediment between the two bands, several feet of sediment.

I will continue to make more posts on this documentary and fossil find. If you weren’t able to catch the special when it aired this past Sunday night (October 11, 2009), the Discovery Channel has the entirety of it on their website in small clips.

Click Here to Read Part 2

The Discovery Channel is going to be airing a program titled "Discovering Ardi" this Sunday evening at 9:00 PM ET. This is the latest fossil hailed as evidence shoring up evolution and one more piece of the puzzle from apes to upright bipedal humans.

Obviously I am not posting a critique of the show as it has not yet aired, but I wanted to make all of you aware of it in case you might be interested in watching it. I am recording the show to watch later that evening or Monday evening and I will post my own thoughts and reflections on it after I have a chance to watch it. Look forward to some possible discussion on it with all of you.

Last week I posted “Jedism: Latest Up and Coming Religion?” It was somewhat of a funny tongue-in-cheek post. I would like to address an anonymous comment that was left which stated:

There was an article last week in the Huffington Post by Jay Michaelson titled Will Spirituality Ever Be Serious? It is an intriguing piece that deserves looking at in full. The purpose of this article by the author is to point out two reasons that spirituality is viewed in a poor light and then offer some ways to correct this.

First, I need to point out that Jay Michaelson makes a distinction between spirituality and religion. Most Christians wouldn’t really see a difference between these two. From what I read in his article the difference between the two mainly seems to revolve around the notion that religion requires some form of regular attendance at a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc. Whereas a spiritual practice is something an individual can practice completely on their own. Remember, these are not necessarily his definitions of the two, but that are what I gathered from reading his article.

The first reason he gives for spirituality not being taken seriously is this that “spirituality makes claims to transformation” and he defines transformation as “a growth beyond one’s previous limits.” The problem that he sees is very often that this transformation is really nothing more than a way to please one’s self. In other words, a person deludes his or herself into thinking they are doing this spiritual thing to grow spiritually when all they are truly doing it for is to enjoy one’s self. The second problem that he noted with current spirituality is that it often times “involves a lot of hoo-hah.” Interestingly, he doesn’t just dismiss hoo-hah in spirituality, but criticizes those who “rush to supernatural explanations for entirely natural phenomena.”

Following his diagnosis of these two problems of “messy thinking and self-aggrandizement,” he offers four tips to help bring some seriousness back to spirituality. The first tip he gives is that there must be an understanding that “spiritual work is part of being a well-rounded person.” Part of his explanation of this seems to imply that a person cannot be well rounded if they lack spirituality in their lives.

“If we are serious about spirituality’s worth, then we should be serious about doing it” is Jay Michaelson’s second tip. He believes that people should be as serious about their spirituality as they are about going to the gym; that spirituality is not to be viewed as a hobby.

His third pointer is that “spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity should be allies, not enemies.” In other words, one should be intellectually honest about their spirituality. This means that those who are spiritual should critically evaluate claims from gurus and holistic healers.

His last big piece of advice is that those practicing spirituality need to realize that “the self is the object of the practice.” He likens it to going to the gym; the body is the focus of the workout so people go to the gym even when they don’t feel like it. So to should people practice their spirituality even when they don’t feel like it.

Now, there are some things to note about his article. One thing to take away from this is that spirituality is alive and well in America. There seems to be a pervasive understanding that religion is dead in America and that all too often makes Christians squirm mish. It is very easy to begin a discussion about spiritual matters because a lot of people are still “spiritual” although they may not be religious. I think that Christians will begin to have much more success in their talks about Christianity if they would first begin by only talking about spirituality. After the discussion progresses enough, then one can lead into Christianity in particular.

Likewise, many people believe and want to be better people (a.k.a. well-rounded). If this is why they pursue their particular spiritual practice, push them on this a little. Ask them how that’s going for them? Ask them why that matters? What goal do they have in mind by becoming a better person? Most likely, these will all be difficult questions for them to answer.

And there are a couple of ways to build common ground. He points out that spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity should coexist. I think most Christians would agree with this statement. We see no conflict between spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity. In fact, most Christians I know desire for their to be unity in these two areas because it brings a peace to one’s mind about their beliefs. If we read in the Bible that things were one way and then observed that they were not so, then that would cause doubts and an unsettled faith. His last point can also be used to build common ground. Not because we believe that self is the object of practice, but because we believe that one’s faith/spirituality should be taken seriously.

There was only one thing I really took exception with in his article. About half way through the article, he seems to imply that “fundamentalists” are not taken seriously because they too “interpret their experiences incautiously.” My first problem is with his use of the term fundamentalist. This is a term that seems to be thrown out there a lot in the mainstream media and I think that the understanding of the term by non-religious people is far different than what the term actually means in religious circles. For example, anyone who believed that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven is labeled a fundamentalist by the mainstream media. However, this is almost a universal belief of Christianity—regardless of denomination. Fundamentalism in Christianity is one who believes a particular point of doctrine is essential to salvation. For example, there are some that believe that a person is not saved until they are baptized. This is a “fundamentalist” view. Likewise, there are some that believe only a certain translation of the Bible can be used because all other versions are heretical; this is a “fundamentalist” view. So there is a vast difference between what Christians label as fundamentalists and what mainstream media labels fundamentalists.

I am not so naïve to believe that there are not Christians who do interpret their experiences incautiously, but I do not think that Christians as a whole make this mistake. Any more than I would look at spiritualists who lack a real commitment and then cast all spiritualists in that light. Furthermore, even if the vast majority of Christians did this; it does not make the claims of Christianity false.

The Pew Forum on Religion released the results of a new pole they conducted concerning the topic of abortion. The results are very interesting and give some insight on how Christians can better conduct themselves in the debate over abortion. One of the more interesting points of the article was:

This is the religion better known as the Jedi Church. You read that right--like Luke, Obi-Wan, and Yoda were in Star Wars. I came across this interesting fact by reading an article in The Sun and The Daily Mail that reported the founder of the Jedi Church in England was thrown out of Tesco (supermarket chain in Europe) because he refused to remove his hood.

I almost didn't believe that this could be true, but it is. The Daily Mail article reports that the Jedi Church has an estimated 500,000 followers worldwide. That number doesn't put it on par with Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc. but it is still a pretty significant number.

I stumbled upon something truly interesting as I browsed the website of the Jedi Church. Attempting to answer the question--Is the Jedi religion fiction?--the website boasts:

There is a lot of buzz in the media about a study recently released by Trinity College. The report is titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population.” The study reports that 15% of America’s population claims no religious affiliation. One other important note about the Nones is that they are not overwhelmingly atheists as many might suspect. Rather, the majority of Nones (59%) are agnostic or deists. This means that many in this group will profess a belief in God, but do not attend any organized faith services.

Some might be wondering where the motivation for this study came from. It grew out of the study by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) released in March of 2009. An interesting point in this study by Trinity was their effort to try and determine the religious upbringing or lack thereof of the Nones. They discovered that roughly 73% of the Nones were raised in religious homes—that is homes where both parents identified with the same or different religions, but both parents were religious.

This brings up two concerns. It could be concluded from this study that religious parents are not passing on their faith. Is this because the church has failed to teach them how to disciple their children? Is this because the parents are living hypocritical lives? Is this because the parents didn’t discuss opposing and critical viewpoints with their children? There is not way to know the answer to these questions for sure, but it can be taken as a warning sign to parents today. These are important thing to do with your children. It is important that if you profess the Christian faith that you live it out at home just as faithfully as you do “at church.” It is important to teach the soundness of the Christian faith and not feed them doctrines without the foundation for them. If we fail to do these things, we are only setting our children up for failure in regard to faith. Is it possible that so many walk away from “church” is because we are leaving them spiritually bankrupt?

There are a lot of people who believe in God—82% of Americans and 51% of the Nones. Yet, FACT2008 reported that the American church is in decline. How can it be that a large section of Americans believe in God but the church is shrinking? This is the second concern. This points out the obvious fact that there is a disconnect between the church and the majority of Americans. We need to be asking what has caused this disconnect and what can we do to correct the problem? Has this occurred because the church has become outdated and irrelevant to the culture? Has this occurred because we are not discipling our congregations? These are the kind of questions that need to be asked.

What do you think about these concerns? Do you think parents have dropped the ball (or what ways do you think you as a parent can prepare your children)? What do you think churches can do differently to begin reaching the public again?

Related Links:

• The Pew Forum
• Fox News
• Ed Stetzer
• USA Today

There has been a lot of buzz in my local community of Santa Rosa County (and nationally) about the ACLU lawsuit against the school board and the charges brought against Frank Lay and Robert Freeman. There has also been a lot of misunderstanding about what the “Consent Decree and Order” consists of in regard to school officials and students leading in prayer. I have already written two posts on this matter regarding the original lawsuit and the hearing against Lay and Freeman. In this post, however, I want to actually address the Consent Decree alone. I still think the decree is good in its overall goal, but I think there are some areas that need to be challenged and refined. I have read the Consent Decree in its entirety, unlike many in the community who have voiced opinions about it. It is available for anyone to download and read by clicking HERE and HERE. Likewise, I am sure that you can obtain a copy of the decree from the Santa Rosa County School Board because they are required to distribute it to all faculty members and include it in the Student Code of Conduct manuals until January 1, 2015. I originally understood that this decree would not infringe upon the students’ right to express their religious beliefs and practices, but after reading the details of the Consent Decree I believe there are a few points that do infringe upon the students’ rights as well as those of the faculty.

The first place I believe the decree needs to be challenged is: Permanent Injunction 5. Prayer at School Events, (e) “If a School Official elects to review or may by policy review the content of a student’s or any other person’s planned address during or in conjunction with a School Event, then School Officials shall prohibit the person making the address from offering a Prayer.” I do not believe that this is in line with the U.S. Constitution that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” I believe this is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of the students. Now, what should be clarified at this point is that students should not be selected to make such a speech based upon their religious affiliation. In other words, if the valedictorian wants to offer a prayer in their speech at graduation, then they should be allowed to do so regardless of their religious affiliation. I understand this point in the consent decree. It would be all too easy for school administrators to use students as “surrogates” to promote religion. They could select only those students they knew would offer “Christian prayer” and therefore exclude prayers from other religious groups. I would not want that to take place either, but I don’t want to prohibit a student from sharing their belief with other students.

Second point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 5. Prayer at School Events, (h) “To the extent that School Officials permit a person during or in conjunction with School Events to give an address that a School Official can or does shape, review, or edit for content, substance, message, style, or theme, then School Officials shall instruct the person that the person’s address must exclude Prayer.” This is essentially the same order as above except that it applies to speakers other than students, so my complaint would be the same. Speakers should not have their religious liberties restricted as long as they are not chosen as a speaker based upon their religious affiliations.

Third point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 6. Religious Services (Baccalaureate), (c) “School officials during or in conjunction with a School Event shall not require or encourage students to attend any Religious Service, including Baccalaureate. School Officials shall prohibit a school band or choir from performing at a Religious Service, including baccalaureate. Provided however, that individual students, in their personal capacity, may not be prohibited from such performance.” This I think needs to be rewritten so as not to “prohibit” students from these performances so much as to prohibit the requirement of students in the band or choir to perform at these events. For example, if the band at the local high school is asked to perform at baccalaureate, then they should be free to do so provided that members of the band are allowed not to participate without repercussion(s).

Fourth point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 8. Promotion of Personal Religious Beliefs, (a) “School Officials shall not participate in any way in a Prayer with students during or in conjunction with instructional periods or a School Event. During or in conjunction with a School Event, School Officials shall not offer a Prayer, recite a Prayer alongside or with students, or posture in a manner that is likely to be perceived as an endorsement of the Prayer, e.g. bowing their heads, kneeling, or folding their hands.” This also seems to infringe upon the rights of the school faculty. I have a problem with them inciting religious practices, but if the valedictorian prayers during his/her speech and a school employee shares that belief, then they should not be prohibited from joining in that prayer—that’s ludicrous. Likewise, if a teacher is overseeing the Fellowship of Christian Students (FCS) and during that meeting the students lead in prayer (without input from the teacher), that teacher should be free to join in that prayer. I believe this point of the injunction goes too far.

Fifth point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 8. Promotion of Personal Religious Beliefs, (e) “School Officials shall not orally express personal religious beliefs to students during or in conjunction with instructional time or a School Event…” I think this point needs to be further clarified. If a student asks a teacher about his/her personal religious beliefs, the teacher should be able to explain their beliefs without offering an invitation to join their faith. Likewise, this could even be relevant to the lesson in a class such as East and West Heritage or a class that covers the major religions of the world from an unbiased viewpoint. As it currently stands, a faculty member would not be allowed to answer a question about his/her personal religious beliefs even it was as simple a question as, “Are you a Christian?”

An important note is that these points of the Consent Decree can be challenged and changed without nullifying the entire decree. From Other Orders, 14 “…If any court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision contained in this Order, or any part thereof, cannot be enforced, the parties agree that such determination shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of the Order.” This means we can challenge and refine the decree to protect the students’ rights to religious expression while also protecting them from being coerced into participating in the religious beliefs of school officials.

I also understand that the Consent Decree is “designed to ensure that the School District’s practices and policies do not violate, either currently or in the future, the First Amendment rights of students in the School District,” but I believe that it does just that in some areas and; therefore, needs to be challenged on these points in a legal proceeding. I also believe that if the faculty will use some common sense, they will know whether or not they are violating the law regarding religion in schools. I also believe that the school officials need to comply with the decree as long as it does not violate their religious beliefs; the only area I believe this might be the case is being forbidden to bow their heads, etc. when a student is leading in prayer. I think school officials have every right to express their faith in this was as long as the student initiated the prayer without any coercion.

I have already asked about the Consent Decree in another post, but after hearing all the facts and being able to read it for your self do you think the Consent Decree should be thrown out all together or challenged on some points? And if so why and/or what points