Discipleship, Not Religion
From Hal Howell
Dear Charles,
Believe it or not, I just found your discussions on Christianity and read
with great interest the observations of the people who wrote and
your answers. I just want to commend you on your answers and the
attitude you exhibited.
As for me, my name is Hal L. Howell. I'm a retired Navy Chief
with both my B.A. and M.A.R. in Bible. I am currently serving as a
volunteer Chaplain at the John Middleton Unit in Abilene, TX. In
the course of the last 6 years spent in talking to men in prison,
both in classes and one on one, I have found the greatest proof of
the truth of the Gospel is in its ability to change men's lives. In
the last 4 years we have baptized over 3,000 men, and I have had
the honor of teaching the vast majority of them along with other
volunteers.
One of the things I try to stress is discipleship. I agree with
some of the remarks concerning Christianity. While the connotation
2,000 years ago was different than today.
I think we have to admit that over the last 2,000 years the name
Christian has accumulated some rather bad baggage. When a person
asks another if he/she is a Christian, inevitably the next question
is, "What kind of Christian are you?" However, as I went back to
reread the Great Commission for the umpteen-millionth time, it
finally dawned on me that Jesus did not say to go make Christians.
He said go make disciples.
Here's the point, since the very word means to follow and
imitate, one cannot be asked, "What kind of disciple are you?" One
is either following/imitating Jesus or not. Simple.
He also said that those baptized were to be taught to obey all
of His commands. As I read the Gospels, Jesus' commands have to do
with loving God, our neighbors, one another, showing compassion,
living lives where God has first place in our hearts, etc. At
Middleton we endeavor to make disciples of Jesus. This continues
with success as God blesses our efforts.
In short, what I discovered is that Jesus spent more time
teaching about how to live vice how to follow a religion. The
result is that His teaching has more to do with relationships (God
and man) than religion.
I have heard Christianity called a "Great World Religion". If
that's all Jesus had wanted to do, He could have done that without
dying on the cross. All the others you mentioned accomplished that.
So why die? He did it, as I'm sure you know, to restore a great
relationship. His resurrection from the dead is the final stamp on
that selfless act.
I also want to share a final thought on the resurrection. In 1
Cor. 15, Paul, as you skillfully pointed out, stated that the truth
or validity of the resurrection rested squarely on the historical
fact of it. It either did or did not happen.
Here is something else to ponder: What would have happened if
Jesus had not been raised from the dead? First of all, we would
have never known that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth!
Certainly, the dejected disciples would have simply gone back to
fishing (something they did even after the resurrection) or
whatever. There would have been no Pentecost, no church
established, no Apostle Paul, no Gentiles converted, and no New
Testament written. There would have been no St. Patrick to convert
the Irish. No Irish monks to copy all of the ancient writings, thus
preserving the knowledge of democracy and republic from the Greeks
and Romans. I strongly doubt there would even be an America, since
our forefathers based their idea of democracy and republic on their
classical training.
In short, the whole world has been influenced by the event of
that first Easter morning. I don't know what the world would be
like without the resurrection, but it sure wouldn't resemble the
one we live in today! Even the prison I volunteer in is different
because of the teachings of Jesus.
As for me, the resurrection is not merely an article of faith
but instead a point of fact! It is that fact which shapes my life
as I try to live for Him. I hope you find this encouraging which is
my intent. Again, I praise God for the fine way in which you
defended the faith, may your tribe increase.
Love in Christ,
Hal
PS - I use a 20" G4 iMac
(which I intend to keep from now on). Tiger seems to have made the
system much faster than Panther, which seemed to make it run
slower. I don't know what they did, but whatever it was I hope they
keep it up. I'm not adverse to the switch to Intel, but I have
decided to resign from the "gotta have the latest and greatest"
crowd. The race has become old and tiring and expensive over the
years.
Besides, Seal said it best when he pointed out how "futuristic"
the G4 iMac is "Like something out of 2001." As a fan of "2001: A
Space Odyssey", I couldn't agree more.
I forgot one more reason I like the G4 iMacs. Have you noticed
that the base resembles a certain Star Wars character? R2D2. Just
one more reason to keep my iMac.
I recently heard of an upgrade for the earlier G4 iMacs, which I
think is great. Do you know of or have heard of any upgrades for
the 1.25 GHz G4 iMacs in the making? If you have any influence in
that direction I think it would be a great way to keep these
systems going for some time.
Take care,
Hal
Hi Hal,
Thank you for your excellent comments and observations. I agree
with you enthusiastically about the paramount importance of
discipleship and the historical significance of Christ's
resurrection. I have long contended that what we take for granted
as Western civilization is profoundly based on Christian ideas and
the sociopolitical influence of the Christian church down through
the centuries. The world would be a very different place had Christ
not risen from the dead.
And you are right also that Christianity is more than a religion
(that is, a set of rules, rituals, and formulae for proper living).
Jesus Christ claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, which
- if true, as we Christians believe it is - amounts to much more
than another religious system.
Shifting gears, if you are a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, you
might enjoy reading this essay of mine on the topic: Revisiting
Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in Its Eponymous
Year.
I'm interested to hear that Tiger has speeded up your iMac. It
had the opposite effect on my 550 MHz G4 upgraded Pismo PowerBook and had a pretty much
neutral effect on my 700 MHz G3
iBook until I updated to OS X 10.4.2, which did speed
things up. I suspect the explanation in all cases would be
respective video support specifications of these machines, but I'm
hoping for an improvement when I eventually update the PowerBook to
10.4.2 (a printer driver issue is the holdup).
And finally, with regard to your question about G4 iMac
upgrades, this a Daystar press release may be of interest:
- Daystar announces last stages of development for its 700/800
MHz to 1.35 GHz Upgrade for the iMac Flat Panel Systems
Daystar Technology, an Apple Authorized Reseller and Mac Technology
Integrator, announced today, that it is completing development of
its iMac Flat Panel CPU Upgrade. The iMac Flat Panel CPU upgrade
dubbed, "MAChSpeed iMFP G4" is scheduled to ship later this
month.
Like the MAChSpeed G4 Pismo and Lombard upgrades, the iMac Flat
Panel upgrade will be a full system upgrade, requiring the user to
send their system to Daystar for installation. Daystar uses the
latest model CPUs in order to provide perfect quality and long-term
reliability.
Pricing and final specifications are expected to be announced
closer to the actual product release date of July 28th.
Additional features include:
- Xbench Scores jump from low 70s to over 130, surpassing the
fastest iMac G4 every shipped.
- Factory installation via Apple Certified Technicians.
- Effortless shipping with Daystar's custom boxes and prepaid DHL
shipping options.
- Compatible with any Mac OS since 9.2... Including Tiger
10.4.1.
- Supports dual boot systems
- Includes XLR8 MAChSpeed Control for exclusive G4 performance /
compatibility.
- All upgrades warranted at speeds sold, with Daystar's exclusive
90/720 warranty program.
- "It is incredible to see a 700 MHz iMac, jump to lightening
fast response on Tiger - even a complex content search completed in
seconds", said Gary Dailey, president of Daystar. "Now users can
get state-of-the-art speed, in one of Apple's classic
designs."
For more information, visit http://4daystar.com
Charles
Reluctant Cultural Warrior
From Stephen Pruett
Dear Charles,
I just came across your responses to emails on Christianity. As
a research scientist who is also a traditional Christian, I have
had many occasions to address similar questions and comments from
anti-religious scientists (including one Nobel laureate). Your
responses are excellent.
However, on one issue I have recently begun to change my views
to some extent. I have been an enthusiastic cultural warrior since
reading Francis
Schaeffer in the early 80s. I still admire his writings,
but I am concerned that the culture wars, or at least the way
traditional Christians are fighting them, may be
counterproductive.
The Bible says,
- "9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with
immoral men; 10not at all meaning the immoral of this
world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you
would need to go out of the world. 11But rather I wrote
to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother
if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler,
drunkard, or robber - not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it
not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God
judges those outside"
-
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
It is difficult to reconcile this with our penchant for judging
our culture and trying to use the secular political system to force
our moral code on people who have not accepted the basis for that
code (Christ). I am all in favor of engaging people in respectful
discussions and trying to persuade them that Christian moral
positions are rational and would result in as near as possible to
an ideal world.
However, when Christians become too entangled in politics, we
inevitably begin to consider those who oppose us as enemies, and
they regard us similarly. How can we then effectively share the
gospel with them? I have often puzzled over Paul's assertion that
he would go so far as to act weak (spiritually, I assume) in order
to reach the weak.
I wonder if he meant that he went out of his way to avoid being
perceived as personally morally superior? It seems that in fighting
the culture war, we Christians have done just the opposite.
Finally, the ultimate consequences of winning or losing the
culture wars suggest to me that the wars may not be worth fighting.
If we (Christians) win by having conservative judges appointed who
allow more expression of religion in schools and other public
places and reverse Roe v. Wade and by passing laws or a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, we will still not
have changed the minds of the people who oppose these views. Worse,
we will be much less likely to be able to effectively present the
gospel to them, because they will feel we are already forcing our
morality on them.
To be sure, I agree with the ends, but I am unsure about the
means. We need to be acutely aware of the situation in Europe,
where Christianity has been largely abandoned, in spite of being
the official state religion in many countries. The past abuses of
power by the church and its association with the government in an
insipid, institutional way - but without the passion expressed by
Jesus - have relegated the church in Europe to the status of
irrelevancy.
I agree that at present the balance is too far in the direction
of knee jerk exclusion of religion from the public square, but I
would be even more concerned if we went too far in the other
direction. Suppose we lose the culture war and the present trend of
exclusion of religion from the public square becomes complete and
support of gay marriage and abortion become official government
policy, and the schools are mandated to teach not just tolerance,
but support for all manner of lifestyles.
These occurrences would distress me, but I really do not fear
them. As a parent, I have been active enough in the moral and
religious education of my children that I have become convinced
that virtually any negative influences of our culture can be
overcome or avoided. In fact, it seems that one of the factors in
the remarkable spread of the Christian faith in the first century
was the emptiness of the people and the inadequacy of the religious
or philosophical answers of the day.
Losing the culture war would put us back in that position, which
might be what is required for a resurgence of Christians who really
act like Christians and thereby attract people to Christ. It seems
to me that the only way to really win the culture wars is not to
defeat our enemies, but to convert them. This will not happen as
long as we regard them as enemies. I have more than a passing
suspicion that the Christian dedication to the culture wars is as
much about pride and simply wanting to win as it is about our
concern for our culture. For all these reasons, I have become at
best a reluctant cultural warrior.
I am sorry this communication is so long, but if you find the
time to wade through it, I would appreciate your thoughts on
it.
All the best,
Steve Pruett
Hi Steve,
You have an interesting point, and I don't entirely disagree
with you on principle, but the problem is that there has to be some
sort of moral code underlying civil law and public mores. In our
culture, that has traditionally been the principles articulated in
the Christian Bible, and that motif has worked pretty well. Not
perfectly, by any means, but arguably better, I would contend, than
any other system that has been tried in human history. The culture
wars, as I perceive them, are resistance to the aggressive push of
secular humanism to replace the traditional Christian based
underpinnings of our society with something other.
Politics is essentially a process of imposing a particular point
of view about how things should be ordered. In that context, the
assertion that Christian values are biased while secular humanist
values are somehow "neutral" is a sophistry. Unless we are to
descend into anarchy, certain moral views are going to be reflected
in civil and criminal law - and thus imposed upon factions in
society that don't necessarily agree with them. That goes for
either the values of Christianity or the values of secular
humanism, or any other set of moral values that might gain
ascendancy.
Particularly given the foundational status of Christian values
in our culture, I think their place of primacy is worth defending,
ergo rationale for participating in the culture wars. I am a
traditional Anglican, and there is imprimatur for this in the Book
of Common Prayer baptismal vow in which one affirms "manfully to
fight under [Christ's] banner against sin, the world, and the
devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto
his life's end"
One of the most eloquent apologetics for this perspective I've
ever run across was written by First Things magazine editor
James Nuechterlein more than a decade ago in an editorial entitled
"Life At The Intellectual Barricades," about the necessity of
participating in the culture wars. Here are few excerpts:
- "It would be disingenuous of us to pretend to an attitude of
disinterestedness and neutrality in the culture wars that rage
about us.... Ideally of course, conflicts of ideas should be
carried on with civility and decorum, with assumptions between the
combatants of mutual respect and good faith... The polemical
instinct natural to politically engaged intellectuals needs to be
tempered by regular reminders of provisionality and
fallibility....
"But however regretfully, it is indeed a culture war in which my
colleagues and I find ourselves engaged, and it is worth
emphasizing that this is not a conflict of our making....
"This is no rarefied battle of the books, no mere esoteric
disagreement among obscure scribblers. Ideas, as they say, have
consequences, and it is our entirely sober judgment that in this
war of ideas the fate of the American experiment in ordered liberty
is itself at stake. We make no claim concerning the motives of our
radical adversaries, but we do not hesitate to insist that their
ideas range from the merely silly to the deeply pernicious. We take
no particular pleasure in engaging the militant feminists and
homosexual activists, the Nietzschean deconstructionists and
relativists, the enemies of traditional morality and religious
faith; indeed the ongoing conflict with our various utopians and
Gnostics is a dirty business from which no one emerges with
entirely clean hands or uncoarsened sensibilities. But we persist
in our struggle because we think it is our simple duty to do so,
and we frankly do not take it well that so many of our fellow
intellectuals - who if they cannot join us in the struggle could at
least offer moral support - prefer instead to strike ostentatiously
Olympian poses above the fray and to chide us for our combative
ways....
"Precisely because we know, with the writer of Hebrews, that we
have here no abiding city, we are from time to time tempted to
retire from the fray, to set our minds on higher and better things.
But the evils of this world, so far as it is given us to discern
them, are to be resisted, not merely endured. And there is, we
pray, a measure of honor and dignity even in our grim vocation. So
restraining our naturally irenic impulses, we return to the
struggle with all the courage, wisdom, and ingenuity we can muster.
It is, to repeat, a matter of duty."
I agree with him.
Charles
From Stephen Pruett
Charles,
Thanks for your informative response. I agree that Christians
are obligated to try to improve our culture, which most often will
involve attempting to incorporate moral principles consistent with
Christ's teachings in public law and policy.
However, my concern is that many, perhaps most, Christians have
become so focused on secular mechanisms and on open war (including
explicit characterization of opponents as enemies) that we no
longer view our cultural enemies as potential converts.
I suppose the crux of the issue is the balance between vigorous
participation in secular politics and even more vigorous emphasis
on the power of spiritual change in individuals to change the whole
culture. At the moment I think the balance may be too far in the
direction of secular war. Anyway, I found your comments very
interesting and had not previously thought of the matter in the
ways you describe.
By the way, I also enjoy Low End Mac and your work on that
site.
Best regards,
Steve
Hi Steve,
I entirely and enthusiastically agree that the central objective
is to convince and make converts of our ideological adversaries in
the culture wars, and that without the power of spiritual change in
individuals to change the whole culture, the whole exercise would
be ultimately futile. After all, even St. Paul was at one time more
than a rhetorical enemy of Christianity.
There is a delicate balance to be struck between staunchly
defending and advocating Christian principles as the primary
foundational anchors of our civilization (which is indisputable,
historical fact) and maintaining a benevolent disposition towards
those who are aggressively attacking those principles in the
culture and not coming across as self-righteous. A difficult
challenge for sinful humans.
Thanks for reading,
Charles
The Hard Road to Christ
From Terry Otness
Wonderful topic, Charles. Thank you for reaffirming my faith -
Thanks be to God!
Its wonderful to read testimony to our shared Lord and Saviour
in one of my favorite Mac publications. God has gifted you with the
ability to put our shared faith in a logical and sensible fashion.
I thank you for articulating it so well.
Like, Mr. Jobs, I was raised Lutheran but didn't even finish
confirmation. I took the hard road to Christ, but it was my path.
The journey, even as it continues back on the right path, still
continues with its hardships, but I know in the end what glory
awaits.
I'm so glad for your testimony, I think it will bring perhaps
many who've wandered off [the path] back on it. Perhaps even Mr.
Jobs as well. What a fine catch for our Lord. Just as all who have
strayed or haven't yet heard The Word, will be when they finally
acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
I appreciate especially how you responded to the presumed
arrogance and superiority our non-Christian brethren think we have
for them. You put that forward very well indeed.
Thanks for your witness.
Terry
Hi Terry,
Thank you for your kind comments. If I have not been a not too
disastrously clumsy an apologist for the Christian faith, and my
musings do encourage anyone to investigate it more thoroughly and
open-mindedly, that would be wonderful.
But ultimately, everyone has to make their own decision. The
best we can do is to try and help make it an informed decision,
emphasizing that Christ rejects no one - but individuals have the
sovereign free will to reject him.
Charles
Anguish of Teen Suicide
From John Peter Gabriel Kaytrosh
Mr. Moore,
I have long been an avid reader of your columns at both Low End
Mac and MacOpinion, and you have been a great model to work by in
my time at both TheMacMind and Apple-X. I certainly enjoyed
your article about Steve Jobs'
commencement speech at Stanford, your perspective as a member
of another sect of Christianity being very interesting to me,
raised Roman Catholic my whole life.
It is also unsurprising that our culture's repressed fear and
dread of death often resurfaces in destructive and dysfunctional
modalities, ironically a "culture of death" (as Pope John Paul II
called it). Many contemporary socio-cultural phenomena - abortion,
euthanasia, teen suicide, and violent entertainment - are
essentially death-cults, attempts to facilitate an illusion of
control over human destiny. But the more we deny our sinful and
morally compromised human condition, the tighter a grip sin, evil,
and delusion exert on us.
Personally, I am pro-life and always have been. (I should say,
however, that this stems out of my belief that abortion is a human
rights crisis and my belief of what God wants for his people, and
not from the RCC's specific position on the issue.) I have honestly
not considered the issue of euthanasia enough to form an opinion on
it.
However, I question the next subject you list with abortion and
euthanasia - teen suicide. Speaking as an individual who has had
far too much experience with this issue (along with self-injury,
medically unrelated but often found in the same individuals who
contemplate suicide). As a teen and one who is in a high-risk group
for teen suicide, I question your description of it as a "death
cult".
A cult, death or otherwise, is a following, a group. Those who
commit suicide as teens are usually part of anything but a
following or group. Teens who take their own lives usually do so
out of the feeling that they are alone in the world - teen suicide
is anything but "cultish" - it is one of the most solitary
activities a person can do, the pinnacle of loneliness in the
world. As Christians, we believe that God is with these teens. I
do. And I'm sure you do. However, they don't.
Teen suicide is also far from an attempt to control human
destiny. Teens are brought to this point by feeling that their life
is not important to anybody - that there is no plan for them. Above
all, teens who are victims of suicide deserve our compassion above
all.
Respectfully,
John Peter G Kaytrosh
Hi Mr. Kaytrosh,
Thank you for your comments. Believe me, I am not insensitive to
the painful realities of teen suicide. A young person very near and
dear to me has recently weathered a stretch of serious suicidal
self-destructiveness and is only still with us by, I believe, the
grace of God. Happily, I can report that she is doing much better
recently.
I also had a good personal friend, in whose home I had been a
guest and who was on the surface a wonderful, witty, delightful
fellow, who committed suicide some years ago.
So I would surely not want to leave the impression that I am
callous or uncompassionate toward the very real anguish and
suffering that so many young people experience nowadays in our
increasingly dysfunctional culture, which actually was the real
point I was trying to make.
I do believe that our culture has become "death-cultish",
although in some instances those most radically affected will be
persons who fall by a cultural wayside.
When I made my comment, I was more in mind of instances like the
Columbine duo and the tragic cases of youngsters who apparently
copycatted Kurt Cobain's self-termination, some in group
settings.
With regard to your observation about my being a member of
another sect of Christianity, I am Anglican Catholic, a member of
the Traditional Anglican Communion, and personally a very big fan
of Pope
Benedict XVI since long before he became pontiff. The TAC
has been in talks with the Vatican toward the objective of full
restored Communion, and doctrinally we are not very different from
Roman Catholics.
Charles
Christianity and Genocide
From Valjean
Charles:
I appreciate your insights on Mac stuff and Christianity.
You do well standing in the gap for the faith, and your remarks
following the Steve Jobs' speech were eloquent. One charge against
Christians that came up in the "mailbag" dialogue always
rankles:
- "In general, they create more havoc in the world than anybody
else. It is the so-called Christians who killed Jews, Gypsies, and
others by the millions."
The greatest slaughters of man by man has been perpetrated by
regimes that sought to eliminate Christianity - most notably
Communism in the former Soviet Union and in China.
Between the two, most estimate over 100,000,000 deaths by direct
means. The number of deaths easily doubles when adding in those
starved as a result of failed agricultural policies. Of course, I'm
leaving out places like Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, and most of
the Eastern European bloc nations when under Soviet influence.
I'm guessing the writer was hinting that Nazism claimed to be
"Christian", but (as you pointed out) claims of Christianity must
be measured against the teachings of Christianity. Hitler was no
Christian. The greatest per capita genocides of our day seem to be
taking place in Africa under Islamic regimes.
It is clear that people - even Nazis, Communists, and (dare I
say it) Islamists - are far safer under governments abiding by
Christian principles than under the alternatives.
Blessings,
Valjean
Hi Valjean,
Yes, you are correct. Some horrible things have been done in the
name of "Christianity", but they pale in relative terms compared
with atrocities perpetrated under other ideological banners.
Hitler, for example, was a wannabe Teutonic neo-pagan who hated
Christianity.
It is estimated that Hitler deliberately slaughtered somewhere
between 6 million and 12 million people, which is mind-numbingly
horrific, but not nearly so much as communism's 20th century body
count.
The Soviet Union murdered some 20 million people. China's
communist dictators slaughtered an estimated cumulative 60 million.
Ho Chi Minh killed 850,000 Vietnamese in "education camps".
Cambodia's Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people - 20% of his
countrymen. In China, dissidents still rot in concentration camps
known as "laogai". North Korea's madman dictator Kim Jong-Il
starves his people and threatens to unleash nuclear war.
The 1993 Act of Congress authorized by President Bill Clinton to
construct a national monument honoring the victims of communism
cites "the deaths of over 100 million victims in an unprecedented
imperial communist holocaust."
Writing in the Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rauch cites an
address by the University of Pennsylvania historian Alan Charles
Kos in which the latter observed:
- "The West accepts an epochal, unforgivable double standard. We
rehearse the evils of Nazism almost daily; we teach them to our
children as ultimate historical lessons; and we do every victim. We
are, with so few exceptions, almost silent on the crimes of
communism. So the bodies lie, unmentioned, everywhere."
What is the reason for this deplorable state of affairs? In
part, it's capitulation to pseudo-intellectual bullying. The
self-styled intelligentsia that dominate literary, academic, and
entertainment/media circles continue to heap scorn and derision on
anti-communism, caricaturing it as a neo-McCarthyism and ridiculing
those they stereotype as imagining Communists lurking under every
bed. These pink demagogues have been at least morally lobotomized
by immersion in a tight culture of snobbish ideological
indoctrination and peer pressure, and they propagate and perpetuate
the dynamic at the academic level by exploiting their bully pulpit
from which to essentially brainwash young people at an
impressionable time in their lives, and I mean in grade schools as
well as universities.
His methods were questionable, but old Joe McCarthy wasn't
entirely mistaken. As Rauch contends, "Communism, not Nazism or
racism or whatever other ism you please, is the deadliest fantasy
in human history."
Of the 19 countries rated "Worst of the Worst" in the Freedom
House 2005 global freedom survey, only one, Belarus, was
ever majority Christian, and it's been run by communists or
communist sympathizers for nearly a century.
On the other hand, of the 89 countries rated "Free", a
preponderance are majority Christian by history, culture, and
tradition. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Charles
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses
will not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your
message not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters
may be edited for length, context, and to match house style.
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
