Nov 25, 2012

Mormonism’s “God In Embryo”: The Doctrine Of Man Becoming God

“[I]n his mortal condition man is God in embryo. . . . [A]ny individual now a mortal being may attain the rank and sanctity of godship.” ~LDS Elder James E. Talmage

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. . . . your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods” (Gen. 3:4‒5).

As the world looks at the broad “Protestant” world, it has little problem fitting Mormonism into the category. Mormons speak often of God, Jesus, and the Bible. They celebrate Christmas and Easter and speak of the cross and the resurrection. The name of their church includes the name of “Jesus Christ.” What else could one conclude but that they are a somewhat unusual Protestant group—unusual because they build temples and “ward chapels,” unusual because (at least until the current Presidential campaign) they use non-standard terminology for their leaders, such as prophet, and “General Authority” and, on the local level, “bishop” instead of “pastor,” and “elder” for young men barely needing to shave. And unusual especially because they have their own set of Scriptures that, while including the Bible (King James Version) subserviate the historic Christian Scriptures to a group of modern books (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), accepting the Bible only “as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). But surely, the world thinks, Mormonism is just another manifestation of the broad Christian movement.

But we should hardly be surprised that the world is uncaring about specifics and uncaring about the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith. From the earliest generations Christians separated themselves strongly from the paganism of the world around them, insisting that their God is transcendent and unique, the only true God, creator of all things, and in no way dependent upon another. The Apostle Paul summarized one of the earliest Christian “creedal” statements in these words:

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him (1 Cor. 8:4‒6).

Ironically, Smith turned this text into a proof text for a plurality of gods, missing the obvious context and flow of the text (something he did often). In any case, we have already heard Smith’s denunciation of the heart of the Christian faith, but what about today? Maybe things have improved? Maybe Mormonism has abandoned its pagan past?

The best way to find out is to look at what the Mormon leadership says when it is teaching its own people. In 1992 a book appeared in LDS bookstores titled Achieving a Celestial Marriage: Student Manual. It was copyrighted by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That makes it about as official as anything in print can be. This student manual was used for a decade as the study material young couples would work through as they prepared for a temple marriage, the ideal of Mormon piety. The work is amazingly forthright in its proclamations, and proves, beyond all dispute, that the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith remain perfectly valid today, at least in the opinion of the leadership of the LDS Church. At the very beginning of the book (pages 4‒5), we read some of the most frank doctrine regarding God, man, and how men can become gods. The work begins with this subtitle:

God was once a man who, by obedience, advanced to his present state of perfection; through obedience and celestial marriage we may progress to the point where we become like God.

It then provides a section of doctrinal statements before presenting a representative dialogue between an older, more mature Mormon leader and a younger Mormon man considering the centrality of “celestial marriage,” the LDS marriage ceremony performed solely within the precincts of the LDS temples. Consider well the doctrinal instruction section:

Proclaiming the divine potential within man, John Taylor once wrote, “Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck from the fire of His eternal blaze, and brought forth in the midst of everlasting burnings.” (The Mormon, 29 Aug. 1857). Elder B. H. Roberts stated, “Man has descended from God; in fact, he is the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a Child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also.” (Course of Study for Priests, 1910, p. 35).

Can you see the implications of these two statements as they relate to you and to your eternal destiny? Elder James E. Talmage did. He declared, “…in his mortal condition man is God in embryo. However…. any individual now a mortal being may attain the rank and sanctity of godship….” (Articles of Faith, p. 529). How is this possible? What course of action will bring this potential to fruition? As you study this lesson, look for the answers to these questions.

Proclaiming man to be “God in embryo” must be understood within the context of the overall LDS teaching that God is himself an exalted man. “Godship” is a rank, a status, an achievement in the scheme of exaltation, not, as it is in Christianity, a personal, self-sufficient Being who is the ground of all else. LDS apologists are quick to point to similar statements amongst Christian writers regarding man partaking of the divine nature, being made in the image of God, etc., but what is absent from the theology of all of those Christian writers is the absolutely necessary corollary, that is, a belief that God is an exalted man, himself dependent upon others. Christians have never believed, and will never believe, that God and man are of the same species. By grace men may be given great gifts and brought close to the very heart of God by the work of Jesus Christ, but that will never mean they are uncreated, independent beings. The chasm between Creator and creation is never violated.

Then the book’s conversation begins, introduced in these words:

POINTS TO PONDER

God Became God by Obedience to Law

It was late afternoon as we sat in my office, but I felt the time had been well spent. He sat silently now, obviously contemplating the ramifications of the things we had been discussing. We had talked of God, of how he had become God, and of what that meant in terms of our own exaltation. Finally he spoke.

Do not miss the assertion being made here: “God became God by obedience to law.” What law? The law that includes the eternal marriage concept as well as many other “priesthood” concepts. But where did this law come from? We are not told. If all gods have become gods by obedience to law, then law is more eternal than even the process of exaltation, and we are left without any basis for its origination. Joseph Smith Jr. did not, it seems, have the time (or possibly the ability) to think through such things, but his followers have been saddled with his system ever since, and remain so to this day. Modern Mormons, faced with the attempt of Mormonism to portray itself as “mainstream,” are trying to come up with philosophical concepts to bridge this unbridgeable gap; so far, they have not been successful. The conversation begins:

“What is this law of exaltation of which you keep speaking?”

“Well, it involves the whole of the gospel law. Everything required of us by God is associated with this law, but the major crowning point of the law which man must obey is eternal marriage. Therein lies the keys of eternal life, or, as the Doctrine and Covenants puts it, ‘eternal lives.’ In other words, an eternal increase of posterity.”

“Then what you’re saying is that God became God by obedience to the gospel program, which culminates in eternal marriage.”

The fact that Christians and Mormons use the same terms, but mean very different things by them, is illustrated here, where the Christian concept of eternal life is twisted into the concept of “eternal lives,” that is, the idea that the resurrected bodies of worthy Mormon men and women have the capacity to beget spiritual offspring. The conversation continues:

Through Obedience to Law We Can Become Like Our Father in Heaven

“Yes. Do you realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you are concerned?”

“I think so. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god.”

“Right. And it is the law that assists us in reaching that potential. It tells us what we must do to gain the ultimate freedom. In fact, it is by obedience to law that we have progressed to our present position.”

“You mean we have always been governed by law?”

The continuum of being and existence is here seen: the idea that men and God are of the same species, just at different points “along the way,” at different levels of exaltation. Such language grates upon the ear of the Christian who sees so clearly how foundationally other Mormonism truly is. But it is just here that we encounter what may be the single most amazing anti-Christian statement I have ever read in LDS literature. It is a short paragraph, but it is stunning in its teaching and implications:

“Always. You are an eternal being. You were never created and you cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, progress, and develop by obedience.

Here we have the utter negation of the most basic teachings of the Christian Scriptures. The Bible says God is the Creator of all things. Mormonism has no such God. The Mormon deity cannot create anything at all—he is limited to organizing pre-existing matter. For Christians, man is the creature of God, formed of dust and brought into existence in time. Mormonism says no. Mormonism says man is an eternal being, not in the sense that man will eternally exist, but that man has always existed, just as God has always existed, and in the exact same way (God being an exalted man). As the LDS Scriptures say, “Man was in the beginning with God” (D&C 93:29). The Bible narrates the creation of man, and gives to God ultimate power and authority over the destiny of man, but Mormonism has no such God, and hence denies this Christian teaching. Here in just a few words is the very heart of the Mormon system. Consider it well!

“Then Hamlet’s question ‘to be or not to be?’ is not the question?”

“Right, not in the ultimate sense, at least. Order means law, and that law is the law of the celestial kingdom. Any who come unto that kingdom must obey that law. (See D&C 88:24-29.)”

“But I thought godhood meant freedom. If I have to do things to become God, am I really free?”

“You have got it wrong. It was the Savior who said, ‘If ye continue in my word,’ that is, obey the law, ‘ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ (John 8:31,32.) So by obedience to law, we learn truths by which we become free — but not free from the law. Can you see that?”

Aside from the demonstration that this section was written by a frustrated BYU English student, it likewise documents that context and exegesis is not a meaningful part of LDS publications, for how one can interpret John 8:31‒32 in this way is hard to say. But it continues:

“I think so. I can be a god only if I act like God.”

“Exactly right. Can you imagine the state of the universe if imperfect gods were allowed to spawn their imperfections throughout space, if beings who did not have law under their subjection were free to create worlds?”

At this point one is left pondering such epics as the original Battle Star Galactica series (which was thoroughly LDS in orientation and authorship) with visions of “imperfect gods” spawning their imperfections throughout space and being free “to create worlds.” But this again is found at the very start of an LDS work written for LDS people and used for a decade just recently with the full knowledge and approbation of the LDS leadership.

“I guess that would be pretty disastrous. But I’m not sure I see why celestial marriage becomes the crowning apex of this progression. Marriage doesn’t seem directly related to the creation of the universes.”

“Oh, but don’t be limited by your mortal perspective. God himself has declared his own reasons for existing. Remember, he said, ‘For this is my work and my glory….’ “

“I see his purpose is ‘to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.’ ” (Moses 1:39).

Do not miss this statement, the very purpose of the LDS God is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” The Mormon deity is not only a man himself, he remains very anthropomorphic in orientation as well. Again, the Christian is left staggered not by the simple paganism of such teachings, but by the fact that anyone would dare to identify it as Christian!

“Which involves giving birth to spirit children and setting them on the road to exaltation. And if that is to be done, you must have an exalted man and…”

“An exalted woman.”

“Exactly, an exalted man and woman who have been joined together in an eternal marriage. If this man and woman were obedient to all gospel laws except celestial marriage, what would be the result?”

“They still could not be gods. Now I understand. Celestial marriage is the crowning ordinance of the gospel.”

“Right,” I said with a smile. “And with that comment I think we can end the discussion.”

And so we see the need for celestial marriage—so that we can become gods! Not exactly the teaching of the Apostles on the sanctity of marriage, of course, but again, very few outside of Mormonism itself have ever read these words, and it is not something that Mormons themselves are interested in presenting to the world in quite such an open fashion.

And so we see the essence of Mormon theology: universes filled with exalted beings, and other beings on the path to exaltation. No creator God, no creation ex nihilo, no ultimate Being. It is not a system that has much to commend it logically or philosophically, but the truly amazing aspect is that it parades under the name “Christian” in our world today. Any honest examination of the source documents of Mormonism once again affirms the startling truth that Islam is, at its basis, far closer to Christianity than Mormonism could ever be. And that is saying a lot. –Dr. James White/American
Vision

Foot Note: Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred twenty moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto and London. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than thirty years, and has two children.
 Human Planet

Why Is Only Earth Suitable for Life?

Scientists have learned that only an exceptionally fine-tuned planet like Earth has the necessary ingredients to harbor life. Additionally, our solar system and galaxy, as well as our entire universe, appear designed to support intelligent life.

The odds that such fine-tuning could have occurred by chance is not just unlikely–scientists say it is virtually impossible.

They Don’t Call These Astronomical for Nothing

An article in U.S. News & World Report remarks, “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’”¹

On Christmas Day in 2002, Jack Whitaker, of Scott Depot, West Virginia, got lucky, becoming the largest single-ticket lottery jackpot winner until that time in North America. His prize? A Powerball jackpot of $314.9 million. Over a hundred million other tickets didn’t match. What are the odds of that? (And what are the odds that within two years he would be robbed twice, face charges for attacking a bar manager, be sued for making trouble at a nightclub and a racetrack, and be arrested twice for drunk driving? Not nearly as unlikely as his Powerball winning ticket, but still true.)

If someone won even two such lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball lotteries consecutively.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.”²

Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10124, a number beyond imagination.³

To try and visualize the difficulty, imagine all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. Then encrypt one grain with a special code known only to you, and randomly bury that grain on a beach somewhere on Earth. (Maybe enjoy a vacation in Maui while you’re at it).

The chance a blindfolded person would ever discover that one grain of sand on their first pick is one out of 1020 (one chance in 100 billion billion.)

Now offer a reward to anyone who can find it on one pick, even though they don’t know which beach to scour, or how deep it is buried. But what if they did? Would anyone believe they discovered it by accident? Yet, scientists tell us that the likelihood of a big bang explosion resulting in a universe able to support life like ours is many times more improbable.

As we consider the odds for the fine-tuning of our universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet, let’s keep in mind just how extreme these odds really are. Not just one, but all of them require unbelievably precise fine-tuning. Can such precision be a result of anything other than design? Let’s take a look at why many scientists are asking this question.

Dr. Robin Collins states in The Case for a Creator, “Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge.”4 Over 35 different characteristics of the universe and its physical laws must be precisely fine-tuned for physical life to be possible.5 Following are six of those characteristics:

1. A large enough expansion rate. The birth of the universe had to begin with enough force, or life couldn’t exist. Stephen Hawking states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”6

2. A controlled expansion rate. Although the expansion rate had to be great enough for the universe to avoid a big crunch, if its outward force had been even a fraction greater, that would have been too much for gravity to form stars and planets. Life could never have been possible.7

3. Force of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, neither Earth nor our Sun would exist—and you would not be here reading this.8

4. The balance of matter and antimatter. In the formation of the universe, the balance between matter and antimatter, and the excess of matter over antimatter, needed to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.

5. The mass density of the universe. For physical life to exist, the mass density of the universe must be fine-tuned to better than one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (1060).9 Thus, the mass contained in all dark and visible matter, including stars, is essential for the existence of our universe.

6. Space-energy density. The space-energy density of the universe requires much greater precision than the mass density. For physical life to be possible, it must be fine-tuned to one part in 10120.10

According to the big bang theory, all of this minute fine-tuning was programmed into the initial conditions of the first microsecond of the explosion that began our universe. At that instant the rate and ratios of expansion, mass, density, antimatter, matter, etc., were set in place, eventually leading to a habitable planet called Earth.

In addition to the 35 different characteristics of our universe that must be just right for life to exist, our galaxy, solar system, and planet also needed to be exceptionally fine-tuned or we would not be here.11 –Y-Jesus

___________________________________

¹ Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U.S. News & World Report, special edition, 2003, 16.

² Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), 169.

³ Dietrick E. Thompsen, “The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?” Science News, August 3, 1985, 73.

4 Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 131.4.

5 Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.

6 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 121–122.

7 John D. Barrow and George Silk, The Left Hand of Creation: The Origin and Evolution of the Expanding Universe (New York: Basic, 1983), 206.

8 Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998): 461–466.

9 Ross, 53.

10 Ibid., 187.

11 Ibid., 187–193.

Rumor In The Church

After the morning sermon, the preacher told his congregation in his typical Southern drawl: "I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but someone in this congregation has spread a rumor that I belong to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a terrible lie and one which a Christian community should never tolerate. I am very much offended by the news going around, especially since there is absolutely no truth in it. Now, I want the party who started this unkind act to stand up and ask forgiveness from God and this Christian church family.”

Not a soul moved.

The preacher continued, "I assure you that whoever the person is who spread this outright lie will be fully forgiven, and the Lord will be pleased. Now, I beg that person to please stand and confess your transgression."

Again everyone was quiet until, from the third pew. there arose a drop-dead gorgeous blonde wearing a very fashionable, body-hugging outfit which fully accented a curvaceous and voluptuous figure which would stop traffic.

With her head bowed and her voice quivering, she said, "Reverend, I confess that I am the original source of the rumor, however, I would like to say that there has been a mistake and misunderstanding over what I said. I have never said that you are a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I simply told a couple of friends that you are a wizard under the sheets."

The preacher felt his knees buckle as cold sweat began to pour out of every pore, his wife completely passed out, and the entire congregation roared! -Author Unknown
3. Snapshots of the Savior—"Helper"
with Ron Halvorsen, Sr—Auburn, WA 2007

The Love Of The Father

"How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" (I John 3:1, NIV)

God gave us earthly fathers to emulate just a fraction of our heavenly Father's love and care for us. Maybe your father was faithful to this model, and maybe he wasn't. What's most important is that we learn to fix our eyes on the One who created us and who can love us, as we were meant to be loved.

Let's take a look at God's love for us as demonstrated in the parable of the prodigal son found in Luke 15. I would argue that this account is actually about the father more than it is about either of the two sons. Jesus shared this story because He wanted us to know what His Father is like. It richly portrays the love that our heavenly Father has towards us.

Christ wants us to know how God the Father feels when one of His children deliberately goes his or her own way, lives as if He doesn't exist or takes all of the blessings from the hand of the Father and then totally ignores Him. This is why Jesus tells us a story about two lost sons; one who was lost in the far country and the other who was lost at home.

The younger son deliberately and premeditatedly left home, while the father waited for him. In order to comprehend the depth of the father's sorrow here, you must understand that in Middle Eastern culture it would be unthinkable for a son to come to his father and ask for part of his estate. He basically would be saying, "Father, I wish you were dead. Hurry up and die so I can get my hands on your money."

Jesus impresses upon us how incredible, how indescribable, how inexhaustible the love and patience of God are. Even though the father is suffering in agony over the son's rebellion and rejection, he lets him go. The father could have tried to stop the boy, but he didn't. He could have sent a servant to follow the boy and report back to him, but he didn't.

But at last the son comes to his senses and returns home. The father could have told him, "You stupid, foolish boy. You caused me all this worry and pain. Now you're just slinking back to me when you're out of money and desperate." Or he could have said, "You thought you were going to be a big shot in the big city — now look at you. If you want my forgiveness, you need to prove you really mean it." But that's not what happened because it is not representative of how our heavenly Father relates to us.

The Bible says that the father "ran to his son" (v. 20). You say, "Well, isn't that sweet? Isn't that wonderful?" But there's an even deeper meaning here. In Middle Eastern culture, particularly in the days of Jesus, men never ran. In that culture, running is considered degradation.

Can you see the cross here? Remember how the Father humiliated Himself in the Son as He hung on the cross in order to provide forgiveness for sins?

What does the Father in heaven do when a sinner repents of their sin and says, "Lord, forgive me?" He embraces them and grants them forgiveness, and He puts His own robe on them. He gives them the assurance that they are a part of His family forever, and there is a celebration in heaven at the news (v. 10). Then when we join Him in eternity, He will wipe every tear from our eyes (Rev. 7:17), just as the father did for the Prodigal Son.

You — or someone you know — may be in the far country and away from God. In this state, you feel anxious and alone — maybe even fearful. I want to remind you […] that your heavenly Father is waiting for you and ready to receive you with open arms. All you need to do is surrender to Him, leave the wandering behind and come home. –Michael Youssef

Being Christian Is A Death Sentence

America needs to give shelter to persecuted believers from Muslim lands

Persecuted Christians are fleeing from the Middle East in increasing numbers. The United States should open its doors to them as a guaranteed safe haven.

America has long been a beacon of hope for the world’s refugees, and members of religious minorities in the Middle East are in increasing need of relief. They have never had things easy, facing both official and popular intolerance from the Muslim majorities among whom they live. But as the region becomes less stable, intolerance has turned to active persecution and violence.

The Christian population in Iraq is one of the most at risk. Around half of Iraqi Christians have fled the country since 2003, and those who remain expect growing challenges, given the U.S. military pullout. Christians have suffered periodic waves of violence, including bombings, assassinations and church burnings. When Iraq's government said in 2010 it would issue a license to carry firearms to any Christian family that wanted one, it was simply acknowledging the reality that followers of the faith had to arm or die.

Many Iraqi Christians have fled over the border to Syria, but the situation there is growing perilous. Syrian Christians, who make up 10 percent of the population, have tried for the most part to stay out of the politics of the rebellion. They worry that a victory by the protesters will usher in a new era of Islamist oppression, but they cannot side openly with dictator Bashar Assad for fear of reprisal should the regime be overthrown.

In Egypt, violence against the Coptic Christian minority is on the rise. Copts fear that should Islamists take power, they will see significant erosion in whatever rights they still have. The Muslim Brotherhood has attempted to ease these fears but has admitted that Copts would face a series of new restrictions under their prospective rule.

Pakistan’s 20 million Christians face a variety of threats, including forced conversion and attacks on churches and worshippers. The Pakistan Christian Congress has appealed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to award them refugee status, but the U.N. so far has been reluctant to recognize there is a crisis. In Afghanistan, the situation is even worse. Kabul refuses to admit the existence of the few thousand Christians in the country. An Afghan Christian named Aman Ali was forced to flee to India with his family after he received numerous threats on his life. He applied for refugee status but was told by an official of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that his case didn’t fit its criteria. His is one of a large number of cases of UNHCR unwillingness to acknowledge that being a Christian is tantamount to being under a death sentence.

Christian refugees from Muslim-majority countries who can reach the United States should be given the same special status that asylum-seekers from communist countries were accorded during the Cold War. Precedent exists: The definition of a “refugee-escapee” in the 1957 Immigration and Nationality Act included not only those who had fled “from any Communist-dominated, or Communist-occupied area” but also those “from any country within the general area of the Middle East, and who cannot return to such area, or to such country, on account of race, religion or political opinion.” Christians and other religious minorities are increasingly unwelcome in the Muslim world; they should be given sanctuary in America. –Washington Times/December 22, 2011

Nov 18, 2012

The True Meaning [of] Thanksgiving Give Thanks [and] Pass It On

Give Thanks To Him From Whom All Blessing Fall
Have A Happy Thanksgiving

Nov 11, 2012

Why Young Evangelicals Are Leaving Church

Republican conservatives should be worried. Evangelical churches that frequently support conservative candidates are finally admitting something the rest of us have known for some time: Their young adult members are abandoning church in significant numbers and taking their voting power with them.

David Kinnaman, the 38-year-old president of the Barna Group, an evangelical research firm, is the latest to sound the alarm. In his new book, "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith," he says that 18- to 29-year-olds have fallen down a "black hole" of church attendance. There is a 43% drop in Christian church attendance between the teen and early adult years, he says.

I'm not surprised. These young dropouts value the sense of community their churches provide but are tired of being told how they should live their lives. They don't appreciate being condemned for living with a partner, straight or gay, outside of marriage or opting for abortion to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.

This doesn't mean that they necessarily will vote for President Obama in 2012. Jobs and higher wages are their priority just as they are for everyone else; the nominee who convinces the millennials that they'll be better off financially will get their vote. But if neither party is persuasive, the former evangelicals may vote Democratic because of that party's more moderate stance on social issues. Or they could simply sit out the election.

Brittany, a 24-year-old veterinary technician, is an example of the newly disaffected. In high school, she attended a conservative Episcopal church in northern Virginia. She enrolled in college thinking of herself as a conservative and not wanting to have sex until she was married. Her views changed when she met her boyfriend. She began to question the theology of her home church on a number of social issues.

"I know I'm a Christian and believe in God, but the church hasn't helped me in my struggles," she says. "It really doesn't affect anything in life right now."

The result? "I don't go to any church." And how does she feel about next year's election? "There are many times I think I'd rather not vote at all."

In lifestyle and beliefs, she is far from an outlier. Consider the following facts about millennials in general:

• Seven in 10 millennials say sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable. (According to Kinnaman, young Christians are as sexually active as non-Christians.)

• Most women in their early 20s who give birth are unmarried.

• More than six in 10 millennials (including 49% of Republican millennials) support same-sex marriages.

• Six in 10 millennials say abortion should be legal, a higher proportion than found in the general population. A higher percentage say abortion services should be available in local communities.

Millennials also part ways with conservative orthodoxy on wealth distribution and caring for the environment. According to a report in The Christian Science Monitor, three out of four say that wealthy corporations and financiers have too much power and that taxes should be raised on the very wealthy, and two out of three say financial institutions should be regulated more closely. In addition, most say that creationists' view on evolution is outdated.

Sounds a lot like Democratic ideology to me.

Of course, every generation rethinks its beliefs and values during young adulthood. Even the most liberal tend to moderate their views once they marry, have children and start paying a mortgage. Some of them return to church, if only for the structured support of a congregation and the moral instruction their sons and daughters can receive.

But here's the thing: This particular generation is marrying later than prior generations, if they marry at all. They're having children -- and assuming a mortgage -- later. The longer they stay away from church, the less likely they are to come back.

"What used to be two or three years of dropping out is a decade or more," author Kinnaman said.

In 2008, then-presidential contender Obama received a healthy 33% of the young white evangelical vote. If he and his team offer millennials concrete ideas for improving their dismal job situation, he could repeat or even improve upon that in 2012.

So far, however, Obama and mainstream Democrats have done little to reach out to younger voters other than ease the burden of paying off college loans, a not-insignificant move. Perhaps they hold to the theory that presidential elections are the domain of the 40-plus crowd, an assumption increasingly outdated by the speed and breadth with which millennials communicate over the Internet.

In a very tight race, votes cast by this generation -- which has grown in number by 4 million since the last election -- might make the difference. Their votes will be significant for sure by the end of this decade because by then, millennials will make up a third of the U.S. adult population.

And that's a good thing. As the most diverse generation ever, they've shown themselves to be better than their elders at seeking areas of common ground and making compromises. They're also more optimistic: Despite the economic instability of their generation, more than two-thirds believe they can achieve success regardless of race, ethnicity or social class. All of us, whether we're churched or unchurched, could use that kind of faith. -By Laura Sessions Stepp/CNN Opinion/December 16, 2011

Editor's Note: Laura Sessions Stepp is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, formerly with The Washington Post, who specializes in the coverage of young people. She has written two books: "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both" and "Our Last Best Shot: Guiding Our Children through Early Adolescence." She is a consultant to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Pray And Don't Give Up

"Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." -Luke 18:1

To commit yourself to a goal or dream, you must know that all your steps will not be plotted ahead of time, but you must trust that you will find your way as you move along. To a degree, there is a tinge of recklessness in being a dreamer and a doer. There must be a willingness to fail in order to succeed. Famed athlete Michael Jordan said, "I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games, and 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." Allow God to guide you through the ups and downs in life. Learn from your mistakes, pray, and do not give up. Nothing is impossible for those who believe in God!

Prayer: Today, Lord, I rest in your abundance that continually flows in and through my life and plans. I believe your will for me is good, so I persist and will not give up.

Reflection: Do you believe in God and your dream enough to persist and push through the opposition and obstacles?

Hour of Power

Americans Curbing Behaviors That Lead To AIDS

Fewer Americans are engaging in behaviors that raise their risk for HIV/AIDS, primarily because men and women are changing their sexual activities, according to an extensive new federal report released Thursday.

The decline should raise hopes that “the messages of the public-health community have gotten through,” said Anjani Chandra, a health scientist and lead researcher of the National Center for Health Statistics report.

The report - which stems from private answers given by nearly 23,000 people - found that 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women, or 11.4 million Americans, engaged in at least one “risk behavior” that could lead to exposure to HIV/AIDS in 2006 through 2010.

Those numbers were down from 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively, or 14.4 million persons, who in 2002 reported engaging in at least one risky behavior.

The data come from two cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a massive, in-person survey taken of people between the ages of 15 and 44. To promote honesty among respondents, the NSFG uses laptops and head phones for questions about personal sexual and drug activity; only the person taking the survey knows what is being asked and answered.

The questions are about 10 HIV-risk-related behaviors a person may have engaged in over the previous 12 months.

Several categories saw no significant change: The percentage of men having sex with men stayed the same (2.1 percent), as did the number of those reporting “five or more opposite-sex sex partners” (3.9 percent for men, 1.8 percent for women.)

On the positive side, men and women reported fewer instances of sex with a “partner who injects drugs” - this figure fell to less than 1 percent for both genders - and both reported fewer episodes of “sex in exchange for money or drugs” (1.3 percent for men, 0.7 percent for women).

Women reported fewer instances of sex with “male partners who had sex with other males” - this fell from 2.3 percent to 1.4 percent - and men reported a decline in “crack cocaine use,” which fell from 1.8 percent to 0.8 percent.

Overall, though, a gender gap in HIV-risk behaviors remains, with men more often engaging in activities that could lead to infection.

“We do see that there’s lower levels of risk behaviors reported by women, compared to men,” said Ms. Chandra, noting that 8.4 percent of men reported at least one risky sex or drug abuse episode, compared to just 4.6 percent of women.

Moreover, one of the 10 “risk” factors - treatment for a sexually transmitted disease - could be seen in a positive light. Women significantly increased their reports of STD treatment, rising from 3.4 percent in 2002 to 4.1 percent in 2006 to 2010.

The results, along with recent evidence showing more regular condom use, heartened Pam Collins, program coordinator at Positive Efforts, which fights HIV/AIDS in Houston’s minority communities.

“I think women are becoming more responsible in the bedroom,” Ms. Collins said. “We teach women to have their own condoms. We teach them to be more responsible for their own bodies. So it makes me smile. I think some of our prevention messages are beginning to resonate.” -By Cheryl Wetzstein/Washington Times/January 12, 2012

Religious Beliefs Of The Pilgrims

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Puritan-leaning religious opinions were generally tolerated, but when King James came to power in 1604 the Church of England again began to root out, prosecute, and jail those who openly believed the Church needed to be purified of its false ceremonies, non-Scriptural teachings, and superstitious rituals.  Across England, small groups began to separate themselves from their persecuting Churches, to form their own secret congregations.  One such group was centered not too far from Sherwood Forest, in a small village in Nottinghamshire named Scrooby.  Led by Richard Clyfton, John Robinson, and William Brewster, by 1606 the group was secretly holding meetings in Scrooby Manor, where Brewster was employed as the postmaster.  It was not long, however, before the authorities were onto them.  The group made the decision to flee England to Holland, where they had heard they could practice their religion without the threat of jail, punishments, and fines.  After several failed attempts in 1607, they all managed to make it to Amsterdam in 1608, and later migrated en masse to Leiden, Holland in early 1609.

What religious beliefs did the Pilgrims have, that made them so intolerable to the English authorities?  The following is a list of some of the religious issues of the day, and the Pilgrims' beliefs regarding them.

Predestination

The Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things.  He also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned.  Only those God elected would receive God's grace, and would have faith.  There was nothing an individual could do during their life that would cause them to be saved (or damned), since God had already decided who was going to be saved before the creation of the world.  However, God would not have chosen blatant sinners to be his elect; and therefore those who were godly were likely to be the ones God had elected to be saved. 

Sacraments and Popery

To the Pilgrims, there were only two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper.  The other sacraments (Confession, Penance, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Confession, Last Rites) of the Church of England and Roman Catholic church were inventions of man, had no scriptural basis, and were therefore superstitions, to the point of being heretical.  The Pilgrims opposed mass, and considered marriage a civil affair to be handled by the State (not a religious sacrament).  The legitimacy of the Pope, the Saints, and the church hierarchy were rejected, as was the veneration of relics.  Icons and religious symbols such as crosses, statues, stain-glass windows, fancy architecture, and other worldly manifestations of religion were rejected as a form of idolatry.  It was the rejection of the authority of the church hierarchy, and of the sacraments, that was the primary cause of conflict between the Pilgrims and the Church of England.

Church Organization

The church of the Pilgrims was organized around five officers: pastor, teacher, elder, deacon, and deaconess (sometimes called the "church widow").  However, none of the five offices was considered essential to the church.  The Pastor was an ordained minister whose responsibility was to see to the religious life of the congregation.  John Robinson was the pastor of the Pilgrims, but was never able to get to America before his death in 1625.  The Teacher was also an ordained minister who was responsible for the instruction of the congregation.  The Pilgrims apparently never had anyone to fill that position.  The Elder was a lay-person responsible for church government, and he was also the church's eyes and ears, assisting the Pastor and Teacher in admonishing the congregation.  William Brewster was the Elder for the Plymouth church.  The Deacon collected offerings, and attended to the needs of the poor and elderly.  John Carver and Samuel Fuller both were deacons during their life.  The Deaconess attended the sick and poor, and often played the role of midwife for the congregation.  The Deaconess of the early Plymouth church is not named, but may have been Bridget Fuller.  The church building itself had no significance to the Pilgrims, and was usually called simply the "meeting place" or "meetinghouse".  The meetinghouse was kept drab, and had no religious depictions or icons, to avoid the sin of idolatry.

Infant Baptism

The Pilgrims believed baptism was the sacrament which wiped away Original Sin, and was a covenant with Christ and his chosen people (as circumcision had been to God and the Israelites), and therefore children should be baptized as infants.  This was in opposition to the Anabaptists, who believed that baptism was essentially an initiation ceremony into the churchhood of believers, and therefore could only be administered to believing adults who understood the meaning of the ceremony.  The Pilgrims, on the other hand, believed that "baptism now, as circumcision of old, is the seal of the covenant of God," and they felt that groups like the Anabaptists who did not baptize their infants were depriving Christ's flock of all its young lambs.  They further believed that at least one parent must be of the faith for the child to be baptized into the church.

Holy Days and Religious Holidays

The Pilgrims faithfully observed the Sabbath, and did not work on Sunday.  Even when the Pilgrims were exploring Cape Cod, to the Mayflower crew's dismay, they stopped everything and stayed in camp on Sunday to keep the Sabbaths.  The Pilgrims did not celebrate Christmas and Easter.  These holidays were invented by man to memorialize Jesus, and are not prescribed by the Bible or celebrated by the early Christian churches, and therefore cannot be considered Holy days.  "It seems too much for any mortal man to appoint, or make an anniversary memorial" for Christ, taught the Pilgrims' pastor John Robinson.

Marriage

The Pilgrims considered marriage a civil affair, not to be handled by the church ministers, but instead by civil magistrates.  Marriage was a contract, mutually agreed upon by a man and a woman.  Marriage was created by God for the benefit of man's natural and spiritual life.  Marriages were considered important for two main reasons: procreation of children to increase Christ's flock; and to avoid the sin of adultery.  Pastor John Robinson taught that the important characteristics to find in a spouse are (1) godliness, and (2) similarity--in age, beliefs, estate, disposition, inclinations, and affections.  In the marriage, "the wife is specially required a reverend subjection in all lawful things to her husband," and the husband is "to give honor to the wife," as the Lord requires "the love of the husband to his wife must be like Christ's to his church."

The Bible and Books

The Pilgrims primarily used the Geneva edition of the Bible, which contained a number of Puritan-tending footnotes and interpretation.  In response, King James had his own edition of the Bible translated and published in 1611 for use by the Church of England.  The Pilgrims used the psalm-book written by Henry Ainsworth, which was a more true and literal translation of the Psalms, whereas the Church of England tended to use the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter which was more poetic but less true to Scripture.  The Church of England used the "Book of Common Prayer," whereas the Pilgrims strongly opposed scripted reciting of other men's prayers.  The most commonly-owned book in early Plymouth Colony (outside of the Bible and psalm book) was John Dod's Exposition on the Ten Commandments, followed by pastor John Robinson's Observations Divine and Moral. –Mayflower History
Islamic Scholar: ‘Saying Merry Christmas Is Worse
Than Fornication or Killing Someone’

Can We Believe In A God Who Killed His Own Son?

A cousin asked for help recently. She wanted to know how to answer a friend who says he could never believe in a God who killed his own son. A relatively new believer, my cousin was startled by this objection.

Skeptics bring up this point quite often. It is, however, a fallacious one, because it is based on a false assumption. God did not just seize Jesus and kill him in the way the objection implies.

Before he came to earth as the babe of Bethlehem, the Son had prior existence as the second person of the Trinity. Along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he had co-existed eternally as part of the triune Godhead.

But even though they are distinct persons, the three share in the same divine nature. This means that each one of them is God, which is why we refer to them as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Since he is God, the Son is all-knowing. He knows not only the past but also the future. Because of this, he knew exactly what would happen to him after he came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth. He knew that he would be betrayed, arrested and put to death on the cross.

But as God, the Son is also all-powerful. As such, he could never be forced to do anything against his will. Jesus' dying on the cross was, therefore, a voluntary act. Jesus clearly declared this in John chapter 10:

"No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again."

Long before the human race embarked on its sin-ridden path, the three persons of the Trinity entered into a compact whose purpose was the redemption of sinful men. The Son would be incarnated in a human body in which he would absorb the penalty of men's sins. The Father would administer the dreadful punishment and the Holy Spirit would then work faith in the hearts of people through which they could appropriate Christ's redeeming sacrifice.

Christ did not have to undergo the agonizing ordeal. He agreed to it voluntarily long before he entered human history. The Bible tells us he was the “Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.”

Contrary to what some think, God the Father is not some cruel tyrant who wantonly killed his innocent son. Christ willingly submitted himself to the agony of death. He could have – had he so wished – avoided the crucifixion until the very last moment.

The story of his arrest shows this poignantly. When Peter pulled out the sword to defend his master, Jesus told him: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

We know from the Old Testament that angels are beings of great power. In the Second Book of Kings, for example, we read how one angel destroyed a large Assyrian army.

Twelve legions of which Jesus spoke to Peter would represent thousands upon thousands of angels. Such heavenly host would have enough firepower not only to wipe everyone in Jesus' arresting party but also every human being on the face of the earth.

And yet Jesus chose not to call upon the angels to save him from his impending ordeal, but he chose to go through it.

Jesus' death was decidedly not an act of a cruel Father, but a gesture of supreme self-sacrifice by the Son. He chose to die so that we could live.

In the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul delineates the very limit of human love: “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.”

The Apostle John tells us that God is love. Jesus showed how the love of God works in practice: Christ died not only to give eternal life to his friends but also to offer salvation to his enemies.

Greater love than this the world has not seen.

By Vasko Kohlmayer/Washington Times/December 13, 2011

Foot Note: Born and raised under communism, Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen. He has lived in several countries under various forms of government, but he still marvels at the goodness of God and the wonder of life.

He has written for a number of newspapers, magazines and internet journals. Vasko currently lives in Europe with his long-suffering wife and two beautiful daughters. He is the founder of The Christian Writers Foundation.

Nov 4, 2012

Oral Sex, Yoga, and God's Eternal Wrath: Inside the New Hipster Megachurch That Tells Modern Women to Submit

Mars Hill tries to pull a young hipster crowd to Christianity. One of their biggest draws is separate spheres for women and men.

When Jess came to the University of Washington as a freshman, she was a feminist economics major whose postcollege goal was to land a position at an organization dedicated to social entrepreneurship. Now in her early 20s and just a few years out of college, she is married, looking forward to a life as a homemaker, and involved full-time at the Seattle-based Mars Hill Church, one of the hippest, fastest-growing, and most conservative evangelical churches in the nation.

Mars Hill might as well be named Mark’s Hill, after its founder and leading pastor, Mark Driscoll. Its home campus is a 40,000-square-foot warehouse in Seattle’s Ballard district, the neighborhood where hipsters go to raise families.

The church’s blend of pop culture and strict Calvinist doctrine allows congregants to occupy a unique, rebellious niche between middle-aged conservative Christians and their secular liberal contemporaries. Mars Hill members talk about sex, drink alcohol, get tattoos, and swear. They listen to Fleet Foxes; they love Star Wars and graffiti art. They also believe homosexuality is a sin, men are meant to lead, and wives must submit to their husbands as the church submits to God.

Mars Hill is part of a movement of “emerging churches” struggling to keep Christian faith relevant in the postmodern world. They typically meet in nontraditional locations (coffee shops, concert venues, living rooms), sermonize through rock music, and connect to their congregants via Facebook and Twitter accounts. Lauren Sandler, author of the 2007 book Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement, calls them the “Disciple Generation...[an] ever-growing population of people ages 15 to 35 who are equally obsessed with Christ and with culture as a means to an evangelical end.” Cloaking the gospel in pop culture is a model most often associated with televangelists of the 1980s, like the Lakewood Church’s Joel Osteen, who modeled churches after shopping malls, playing on capitalist culture to make God’s message palatable. Mars Hill is not a commercial center, but an indie concert where the Kool-Aid comes with a PBR chaser.

A writer for the Christian blog ConversantLife.com called Driscoll, with his stocky frame, six o’clock shadow, and torn jeans, “the original cussing hipster pastor.” It’s Driscoll’s snarky straight talk about everything from oral sex to yoga to God’s eternal wrath that has ignited passion in the hearts of his millennial disciples. After Driscoll and his wife, Grace, founded the church in 1996 in their Seattle home, it grew at a rate of about 60 percent a year—all the more notable when you consider that Seattle is one of the most left-leaning cities in a state that, according to a 2004 Gallup poll, ranked as the third least religious in the nation after Oregon and Idaho (Washington dropped to eighth in 2012). Mars Hill now has more than 5,000 members, with campuses in Portland, Orange County, and Albuquerque. In the late 1990s, Driscoll founded Acts 29, a “church planting” network that trains men who wish to open churches; this led to the creation of the Resurgence, an online training resource with links to sermons, blog posts, music, and forums—essentially, a Mars Hill starter kit. Affiliates of the church are now spread out all over the world, with disciples everywhere in between.

New converts often discover Mars Hill by stumbling upon Driscoll’s sermon podcast. For evangelists, who essentially devote their lives to making Jesus go viral, social media has literally been a godsend, and it’s what Mars Hill does best. In addition to Driscoll’s podcast, the church has a presence on nearly every social media platform, from Facebook to Pinterest to Instagram, as well as a YouTube channel and an iPhone app that launched back in 2009. The church’s website has an entire music section devoted to Mars Hill’s indie worship bands; in May, Driscoll announced the church’s plans to start a record label. A church with an online presence is nothing new, but Mars Hill’s statistics would make a small media company jealous: as of May 2012, it had 43,245 “likes” on Facebook, more than 10 million views on YouTube, and 39,356 Twitter followers.

In the early 1990s, fresh out of college, Driscoll saw a problem with the state of Christianity: There were no men. In a 2006 interview with the organization Desiring God, Driscoll said, “Church today, it’s just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks, and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks.” The main reason Driscoll himself had a hard time accepting Christianity was that he couldn’t bring himself to worship “a gay hippie in a dress.” But as he read about Jesus and Elijah and Paul, the gospels started to appeal to him—and he saw a way for them to appeal to other self-proclaimed macho men. “I’ve gotta think these guys were dudes. Heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes.” This revelation became the foundation for his narrative of a masculine, tough-love Christianity. “If you want to win a war, you have to get the men,” Driscoll preaches in a 2006 promotional film on church planting called A Good Soldier.

Driscoll is more general than soldier. Heavily influenced by both Martin Luther and John Calvin, he presents himself as telling the hard truth to a generation raised with the pick-and-choose, postmodern notion of Christianity in which “the God of the New Testament is nothing but hugs and muffins, and we’re all going to go to heaven, except maybe Hitler, but it’s a coin flip for him, too.” As Sandler puts it, Mars Hill offers overwhelmed millennials “liberation from liberation.” The church’s success comes from the hyper-masculine way it brands itself not as Jesus’s religion, but as Jesus’s rebellion—not only against the stuffy Christianity of its members’ parents, but also against the free-for-all liberal culture of their peers.

That men lead the movement is key according to Driscoll, who ties myriad modern spiritual and societal problems back to the failure of female leadership. Driscoll traces his theory all the way to Genesis—in a 2004 sermon, he said Eve’s eating of the fruit of knowledge was “the first exercising of a woman’s role in leadership in the home and in the church in the history of the world. It does not go well. It has not gone well since.” What’s more, Driscoll describes Satan’s encouragement of Eve as “the first invitation to an independent feminism...the first postmodern hermeneutic.” For Driscoll, then, feminism and postmodernism are not only demonic, they are inherently linked; two revelations in the bite that led to the fall of man.

Driscoll’s views on gender roles, adulthood, marriage, and success in American society are almost identical to those in a flood of articles released between 2010 and 2011, like Newsweek’s “The Boy Crisis,” the Atlantic’s “The End of Men,” and Kay Hymowitz’s 2011 book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys. In an interview with the Christian magazine Relevant, his theory of male twentysomethings’ extended adolescence echoes Hymowitz’s: “We’re finding more women are getting better grades, more women are graduating high school, more women are graduating college, more women are buying homes, more women are doing things that are more adult and responsible.”

But unlike his counterparts in secular media, Driscoll believes that current gender discrepancies are not the result of the growing strength of women, but of the weakness of men. By abdicating their God-given role, men have allowed for the demise of the traditional family structure and the spawning of a generation of unsupervised, unmotivated, Internet porn– and World of Warcraft–addicted young adult males, melting into their parents’ couches while women blow past them to lead the nation.

As Sandler points out, Driscoll identified the “man-boy crisis” as a spiritual problem nearly a decade before secular media came to see it as a societal one. His method for addressing it involves restoring male leadership, relieving women of all financial and critical decision-making responsibility, and placing high value on marriage and children.

At Mars Hill, as in most evangelical churches, notions of gender are founded on complementarianism—the idea that men and women are equal, but have distinct and complementary roles. Both leaders and members of Mars Hill reinforce gender stereotypes and assumptions with the gusto of a 1950s-era ad for laundry detergent. Men need respect, women need love. Men are messy, women are neat. One member describes her relationship using a driving analogy, in which she drives her hot-pink car alongside her husband’s blue one, occasionally pulling behind to let him take the lead. Becoming a deacon is the highest leadership position available to women at Mars Hill, a role between congregant and pastor that exists mainly to offer support to the elders (and a word whose Greek origins literally translate to “servant”).

It’s hard to see 21st-century women signing up for this, and many of them were surprised about it themselves. Jess, who was raised in a secular family, discovered Christianity when, in middle school, she attended church with a friend’s family and found herself drawn to the warm atmosphere and sensitive discussion. When she came to UW as a freshman, hungry for community, she joined a religious group on campus but simultaneously, like many other freshmen, started going to parties and experimenting with alcohol and sex. After several months of feeling lost and unhappy, Jess tried attending a few services at Mars Hill, a church she heard about through friends. She hated the church’s ideas about women and gender roles, she hated that they told her that Jesus was the only one who knew how best to live, but most of all, she hated that she couldn’t stop thinking about it. Mars Hill challenged her and she wanted to prove them wrong, so she kept going back. Eventually, just as an experiment, she began to follow some of the church’s advice. And as she changed her actions—stopped partying as much, started reading the Bible, became less promiscuous—Jess realized she felt happier. The pastors told her that at some point she would have to make a decision: believe in Jesus or don’t. Jess looked at the community around her, weighed her skepticism against the risk of an eternity in hell, and decided to sign a covenant and become an official member of the church.

Mars Hill leaders are aware that complementarianism poses a problem for prospective female converts like Jess. A questionnaire handed out as part of a church seminar preparing couples for marriage asks women to consider the question “Does helper seem like a high calling or a diminished calling to you?”

“You’ll hear this a million times: If you don’t submit, you’re prideful and rebellious,” says ex–Mars Hill member Kailea. Though she was raised in a strict evangelical household, many of Mars Hill’s views—especially those regarding gender and homosexuality—never sat well with her. Nevertheless, Kailea started attending Mars Hill in high school, since it was the cool church to go to. “I liked that there were a lot of people smoking outside,” Kailea says. “The pastors were giving each other beer for Christmas.”

When she turned 18, Kailea became a member, along with her boyfriend, Jeff, whom she married shortly after, when she became pregnant. A year later, she became pregnant again (Kailea used birth control, despite the church’s encouragement of the rhythm method, otherwise known as “Catholic roulette”). Mars Hill’s emphasis on traditional gender roles began to strain their relationship. “[Jeff] felt like he was failing as a leader; I felt like I just couldn’t submit enough.” At the time, Kailea was working as a manager at a coffee shop and Jeff was staying home to take care of the kids. “There was a lot of pressure to change that.” The couple started going to marriage counseling with one of the pastors, who continually suggested that all their marital problems were rooted in their denial of their God-given roles. “No matter what we told him, that became what our issue was,” Kailea says.

She eventually quit her job and Jeff started working as a manager at a hardware store. Their relationship continued to deteriorate, and when she confessed an infidelity to Jeff, the church leaders took action, drawing up a “spiritual discipline contract” for Kailea. It promised, among other things, that she and Jeff would move back in together immediately, and that she would stop seeing her therapist, who was unaffiliated with Mars Hill. When Kailea refused to sign, she was kicked out of the church. The leadership posted a letter on the church’s member website asking her friends to stop contacting her, and she has not heard from a single one of them since.

Kailea’s story echoes dozens of testimonies that have been released from former Mars Hill members in the past year. In January 2012, Seattle alternative weekly the Stranger published a front-page article (“Church or Cult?: The Control-Freaky Ways of Mars Hill Church”) featuring interviews with ex-members describing abusive treatment, as well as publicizing a network of blogs in which ex-members tell their stories, disclose disciplinary documents, and speak out against Mars Hill’s practice of “spiritual abuse.” The stories repeatedly liken the church to a cult, revealing extreme manipulation and over-exercising of authority, as well as verbal assault and blackmail.

Kailea says it’s no secret that one of the church’s main draws for women is the men—what she calls “the Christian Prince Charming” and what Driscoll calls “real men.” A two-part series on the Mars Hill blog called “What Women Think of Mars Hill Men” acts as quality assurance, featuring testimonies from Mars Hill women on Mars Hill–produced males. Ashley, a single 23-year-old, says that when she heard Pastor Mark preaching to the men to grow up, get jobs, leave their homes, and then pursue women, she thought, “If the guys in this room take half of what he is saying, they’re already better than the men I’ve known.”

The catch, though, is that if you want a Mars Hill man, you have to agree to a Mars Hill relationship. “When you’re submitting yourself to God, you’re submitting yourself to something that’s in you; [but] women are submitting themselves to another person. They look at that as though it’s equal submission. It’s not,” says Kailea. Mars Hill members counter that secular culture gets their understanding of submission all wrong. In the evangelical world, submission has much more positive connotations—it is near synonymous with trust, respect, humility, and thinking the best of others. Mars Hill appeals to women to submit by first presenting this evangelical definition and then by emphasizing that submission is their independent choice; as Jen Smidt, a church deacon, puts it, “The strongest man on the planet cannot force an unsubmissive woman to be led.” By defining submission as a brave, independent choice in which women abdicate power despite their capabilities, Mars Hill gives women a new framework of female empowerment.

“There’s a narrative within the church that the women are actually very strong because they have to deny the pressure of the outside world to be independent,” said Christine Marietta, a therapist who attended the Seattle School of Psychology and Theology (which used to be called Mars Hill Graduate School before changing its name to avoid association with the growing church). Marietta attended Mars Hill several times while an undergrad at UW and now blogs frequently about women, Christianity, and Mars Hill. When Marietta writes posts that critique Mars Hill’s gender theology, she says the women react strongly, attacking her with variations of “How dare you think me weak!”

Irene is not your typical Mars Hill member. In her mid-30s, she is above the average age and she prefers traditional African-American spirituals to Mars Hill’s brand of indie folk. Initially put off by the whiteness of Mars Hill (Irene is Chinese American), she reconsidered when they opened a location in Seattle’s Rainier Beach, a neighborhood whose diversity was reflected in the congregation’s demographics. Most surprising, Irene attended the all-women liberal arts college Wellesley, and moved to New York after graduation with a group of friends, including her girlfriend at the time. Similar to Jess, Irene’s return to Christianity “was preceded by a huge kick of massive sexual liberation” during which she went out almost every night, sleeping with men and women. “I thought I had all the right ideas,” she recalls.

Also like Jess, Irene approached sex with a mentality she attributes to societal pressure from a culture of female empowerment. She talks about feeling somewhat alienated by the feminist sex-positive cultural attitude that boiled down to, as she puts it, “I’m more sex-positive than you.” For Irene and Jess, the failure of this approach in their own lives became, in their minds, the failure of postmodern feminist philosophy as a whole.

“I think a lot about how feminism has failed Christian women, or [hasn’t] reached out to Christian women,” says Marietta. “That makes a place like Mars Hill appealing, because the message of their strict gender roles is a way to rebel against the values of the women of the previous generation.”

Both Irene and Jess describe unhappiness as being evidence of a failure of their initially “feminist” way of thinking. “What starts out looking like a good plan, if it’s not God’s idea, we deceive ourselves in thinking there is going to be any salvation,” says Irene. “Life is not going to get any better because of our ideas. Women aren’t happier now.” This is submission in a nutshell—choosing to accept God’s plan rather than your own. And while those at Mars Hill might call it brave or humble or beautiful or trusting, it’s hard to see it as anything else but giving up. Because feminism has never really been about happiness, it’s been about choice. And with choice inevitably comes judgment and self-doubt: Am I doing it right? Could I be doing it better? Can I do it at all?

Jess, Irene, and Kailea are hardly the only ones looking for answers to these questions. When Sandler met Mark Driscoll in 1999, she recalls that he took one look at her band t-shirt and Doc Martens and said, “You’re one of us.”

“He was recognizing my style, but he was also recognizing my emotional searching,” says Sandler. “We’re all looking for meaning, we’re all looking for purpose, we’re all looking for lives that feel fulfilling and challenging and engaged. There are women who have tried that in other secular places and that works for them, but it doesn’t work for a lot of them,” says Sandler. “And so they look for something else.”

That’s the thing that secular, liberal Americans don’t want to recognize about Mars Hill, and other emerging churches: The line between us and them is incredibly blurry. “We have this understanding of women who make these choices as somehow just being dumb or inferior,” says Sandler. “But the reality is way more complicated and way more systemic. There is a reason this [mass-scale religious movement] does not happen in Europe.” Sandler points to the network of supportive services offered in many European countries—most notably childcare, a service the Mars Hill community offers to its members along with book clubs, communal dinners, support in decision making, and spiritual counseling. American women, by contrast, live in a cultural and political climate that is asking everything of them—successful careers, families, social lives—and giving them nothing.

 “[Mars Hill] seemed to play right into my fear of becoming an adult woman,” wrote Kaelee Bates, a founder of the blog Mars Hill Refuge, in an e-mail. “It appeared to me as an easy way out. I didn’t have to finish school or try to figure out what I wanted to do with my life. I could stay home, clean, have babies, and ignore all of [the] things I was struggling with.”

Given that ambivalence like Bates’s often leads women to join Mars Hill, it’s worth questioning to what extent women ultimately integrate the church’s doctrine into their lives. When Irene’s religious beliefs changed, for instance, she lost almost all of her friends in the gay community. Her inability to reconcile her old liberal identity with her biblical beliefs has also proved challenging in the voting booth. In 2008, unwilling to vote for either Obama or McCain, Irene selected a random candidate who aligned with her religious ideals, but she knew it was a throwaway vote: “These women fought so hard to earn me this right, and here I am not voting. It [feels] wrong.”

There’s also the question of how the choices these women have made for themselves will influence those they present to their children. For Kailea, this was what convinced her she made the right choice in leaving Mars Hill. “Your daughters and your sons, they’re never going to go in and see a woman speaking, they’re not going to see a woman leading worship,” she says. “That has to tell them something about who women are.”

And would women feel as comfortable submitting to Mars Hill if they no longer had a secular safety net to push back on? The larger cultural context continues to validate women’s abilities and remind them that submission is, in the end, a reversible choice; if Mars Hill suddenly ruled the world, it would no longer be one. When I ask Jess what she imagines a Mars Hill world would be like, she is genuinely baffled—it’s not something she’s ever thought about. Kailea, however, has: “It takes about five minutes of reading through [ex-member blogs] to see what that world would be like. It would be a dictatorship.”

It’s easy to shrug off the growing population in churches like Mars Hill and repeat the American mantra of religious freedom: “They have the right to believe whatever they want.” But that these movements are gaining momentum in conjunction with a secular discourse that inadvertently validates them is not a coincidence that can be ignored. The current social climate is pointing young people down a tunnel, and Mars Hill offers a light at the other end—and that light is blinding.

Mars Hill women are smart, strong, and in many ways pro-women, but they will most likely not be voting in favor of Washington’s marriage-equality referendum, or for legislation supporting easy access to abortions, or, when the day comes, for a female president. And for that, they are also dangerous. I feel similarly to the way Sandler writes of an evangelical woman she interviewed: “She’d make a formidable feminist, and maybe would have...if only leftists had offered the promise of love articulated within a genuine expression of youth culture.” If only the current social climate offered more support to women managing the choices available to them, if only feminism had felt less divisive, if only they hadn’t stopped trusting their own capacity to figure things out, if only they’d had faith that there would be other women—or, dare I suggest it, a government—there to support them. Not only is that a great awakening I could own and lead, it’s the only one worth submitting to.

Alison Sargent is a recent college graduate from Seattle, Washington. She would like to thank all of the women who gave their voices to this piece. –By Alison Sargent/AlterNet/October 22, 2012
What A Wonderful World
With David Attenborough -- BBC One [FULL HD]

Was Jesus Married?

Did Jesus have a secret marriage?

Mrs. Jesus

Has history been wrong for 2000 years—was there a Mrs. Jesus Christ?

According to Harvard scholar Karen King, a tiny papyrus fragment, smaller than a business card, ignites the controversy about whether or not Jesus had a spouse. In the newly publicized fourth century fragment, Jesus supposedly refers to, “my wife.”¹ Just below that phrase, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”²

Public reaction to the manuscript is mixed. According to a recent social network survey:³

    48% are skeptical
    22% are outraged
    19% are excited
    11% joke about it

“Dr. King first learned about what she calls ‘The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.”4

King believes this fragment belongs to the genre of the Gnostic writings, most of which were composed between the second and fourth centuries.

Does this mean there really was a Mrs. Jesus?

Other scholars are beginning to weigh in on the implications of the manuscript fragment. “John O’Keefe Professor of Theology at Creighton University says it doesn’t change anything for Christians. Professor O’Keefe says it’s like taking an exacto-knife and cutting a piece out from a page of a book and then trying to figure out what was in the book from that piece.”5

Helmut Koester, a professor emeritus of Harvard Divinity School, said in an interview that he heard “at least two respected scholars had doubts about its authenticity. Koester, whose speciality is early Christianity said he is “absolutely convinced that this is a modern forgery.”6

Although some scholars believe the manuscript is genuine, others disagree, arguing that “the handwriting, grammar, shape of the papyrus, and the ink’s color and quality make it suspect.”7 Whatever further studies reveal, the manuscript has reignited a controversy about Jesus that has been ongoing over the marital status of Jesus and his possible romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene.

In “The Jesus Family Tomb,” (The Discovery Channel’s TV documentary) director Simcha Jacobovici claims there is “evidence” that Jesus and Mary Magdalene indeed were married and had a son named Judah.

Furthermore, the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, and books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and The Da Vinci Code, made a secret relationship between Jesus and Mary central to their themes.

The Da Vinci Code begins with a page of facts that makes the fictional novel appear to be true in all its assertions. The book has broken all records on the New York Times best-sellers list, and has been followed by a blockbuster movie. Author Dan Brown’s clever weaving of fact with fiction has convinced many readers that Jesus and Mary Magdalene really were married and had a child (see “Mona Lisa’s Smirk”). But is this romantic assertion just hype to sell books and movies, or is it supported by historical evidence?

Mysterious Mary

Before we examine the evidence for any possible romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, let’s look into this person of Mary from the little Galilean town of Magdala. To begin we ask: What ancient documents shed light upon her character and her relationship with Jesus of Nazareth?

The New Testament gospels are the oldest written records of Mary of Magdala. In the gospels Mary is depicted as a woman who Jesus healed of demon possession. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) present Mary as a follower of Jesus who listened to his teaching, provided for his financial needs, witnessed his crucifixion, and three days later was first to see him alive.

Some have said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but neither the apostles nor the early church speak of her as more than one of Jesus’ close disciples. The idea that she was a prostitute originated in the sixth century, when Pope Gregory I identified her as both the woman spoken of in Luke 7:37, and the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair.

Although the pope’s view was probably influenced by the fact that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her, no biblical scholar is able to make the connection of Mary Magdalene with the woman in Luke’s passage. Additionally, the New Testament gospels don’t even hint of anything romantic or sexual between Jesus and Mary.

So where do conspiracy theorists get the idea? Why all the speculation? For that we turn to documents written 100-200 years after the New Testament gospels by a non-Christian cult called the Gnostics (see “Gnostic Gospels“). These writings are not part of the New Testament, and were rejected by early Christians as heretical. Those who write of a romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary cite a few passages from two of those writings, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. Let’s look at those passages.

The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)

The notion that Mary Magdalene was special to Jesus is taken primarily from the Gospel of Mary. This Gnostic gospel is not part of the New Testament, and was written by an unknown author in the last half of the second century, or about one hundred fifty years after Jesus’ death. No eyewitnesses, including Mary, would have been alive at the time it was written (about 150 A.D.). Such a late date means the Gospel of Mary could not have been written by an eyewitness of Jesus, and no one knows who wrote it.

One verse in the Gospel of Mary refers to Mary Magdalene as Jesus’ favorite disciple, saying he loved Mary “more than us” (meaning his disciples). In another verse Peter supposedly told Mary, “Sister, we know the savior loved you more than any other woman.” Yet nothing written in The Gospel of Mary speaks of a romance or sexual relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

The Gospel of Philip

The Da Vinci Code bases its claim that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child primarily upon one solitary verse in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip that indicates Jesus and Mary were “companions”. This verse reads (Note: Brackets [] appear where words of the document are missing or illegible):
    “Three women always walked with the master: Mary his mother, [] sister, and Mary of Magdala, who is called his companion (koinonos). For “Mary” is the name of his sister, his mother and his companion (koinonos).”

In The Da Vinci Code, fictional expert Sir Leigh Teabing proffers that the word for companion (koinonos) could mean spouse. But according to scholars, that is an unlikely interpretation. To begin, the word generally used for wife in New Testament Greek is “gune”, not “koinonos.” Ben Witherington III, writing in Biblical Archaeological Review, addressed this very point:
    “There was another Greek word, gune, which would have made this clear. It is much more likely that koinonos here means “sister” in the spiritual sense since that is how it is used elsewhere in this sort of literature. In any case, this text does not clearly say or even suggest that Jesus was married, much less married to Mary Magdalene.”8

There is also a single verse in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus kissed Mary.
    “The companion of the [] is Mary of Magdala. The [] her more than [] the disciples, [] kissed her often on her []. The other []…said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’”

Greeting friends with a kiss was common in the first century, and had no sexual connotation. Professor Karen King explains in her book, The Gospel of Mary Magdala, that the kiss in Philip most likely was a chaste kiss of fellowship.

But perhaps more important is the fact that the Gospel of Philip was written by an unknown author about 200 years after the New Testament eyewitness accounts (see “Is the New Testament Reliable” and “Mona Lisa’s Smirk”).

It is also important to note that, aside from this fourth century fragment recently made public by King and these few questionable passages from the Gnostic Gospels, there is no other historical document that even insinuates Jesus and Mary had a romantic relationship.

No secular, Jewish, or early Christian historian writes even one iota about such a relationship. And because this newly publicized fragment, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip were all written 100-220 years after Christ by unknown authors, their statements about Jesus need to be evaluated in context of both contemporary history and the much earlier New Testament documents.

An honest comparison between the evidence of New Testament manuscripts and the Gnostic writings reveals the following facts:
    The New Testament was written while eyewitnesses were still alive; the Gnostic Gospels weren’t (see “Are the Gospels True?”).

    The New Testament accounts were confirmed by over 36,000 external writings by early Christians; the Gnostic writings weren’t.

    There are far more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament than for the Gnostic Gospels.

In fact, there are over 5,600 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, many of which date at least one hundred years earlier than the Gnostic Gospels.

Scholars’ Verdict

But could the early church have destroyed the evidence in their attempt to rewrite the history of Jesus? Of course that’s what Jacobovici, Brown, and a host of other sensationalists are saying. But do scholars agree?

A Newsweek magazine article summarizing leading scholars’ opinions, flatly states that the notion Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married has no historical basis.9 Perhaps the Gnostics felt the New Testament was a bit shy on romance and decided to sauce it up a little. Whatever the reason, these isolated and obscure verses written 100-200 years after Christ aren’t much to base a conspiracy theory upon. Interesting reading perhaps, but definitely not history.

Regarding this latest controversial discovery, even King “cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question,” she said.10

But some remain unconvinced. Perhaps they just want to make history more interesting. Award-winning television journalist Frank Sesno asked a panel of historical scholars about the fascination people have with conspiracy theories. Professor Stanley Kutler from the University of Wisconsin replied, “We all love mysteries – but we love conspiracies more.”11

Perhaps all the hype about Jesus and Mary has more to do with antagonists to Christianity trying to humanize the man who Christians from the very beginning have called “God.” The brilliant skeptic, C. S. Lewis once believed Jesus was no more than a myth until he investigated the evidence. To see what changed his mind, see the article “Is Jesus God?”. –Y-Jesus

Endnotes

¹ Cited in NYDailyNews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jesus-married-harvard-scholar-ancient-text-papyrus-refers-wife-article-1.1162571), “Was Jesus married? Harvard scholar says ancient text on papyrus refers to ‘my wife’”, Sept. 23, 2012.

² Cited in The NewYorkTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1). “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers To Jesus’ Wife”, Laurie Goodstein, Sept. 18, 2012.

³ The Wall Street Journal, “A Married Messiah?”, p. C4, Sept. 22-24, 2012.

4 TheNewYorkTimes.com, Ibid.

5 Cited on KMTV, Omaha, Nebraska, (http://www.kmtv.com/170405046.html), Fatima Rahmatullah, “Was Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Uncovered Refers to His ‘Wife’”, Sept. 19, 2012.

6 Jaweed Kaleem, “Jesus’ Wife’ Research Leads To Suspicions That Artifact Is A Fake,” Huffington Post, Religion, Sept. 26, 2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/jesus-wife-suspicions-fake-artifact_n_1916932.html).

7 Ibid.

8 Ben Witherington, Biblical Archaeology Review, (2004), “Reviews,” 30 [3]:58-61, May/June.

9 Barbara Kantrowitz and Anne Underwood, “Decoding ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ “ Newsweek, December 8, 2003, 54.

10 Cited on KMTV, Ibid.

11Stanley Kutler, interview with Frank Sesno, “The Guilty Men: An Historical Review,” History Channel, April 6, 2004.