Author Archive for Thainamu

Personal Musings on Finding a Local Church

Published by Thainamu June 23, 2009 in Religion. 16 Comments

I’ve been in church nearly every Sunday of my life. I was taken there as a baby and I attended the morning my baby was born, squirming during every contraction. Church attendance is just part of who I am.

Six months ago I left the local church which I’d faithfully attended for several years. Why I left is not the topic of this post.  What I want to talk about is the thinking I went through to find a new church. I’ve now found a new church and have decided that, at least for now, that church is going to be my local church which I will support and become involved in.

First, a little background. I live in the southern half of the United States, in the Bible belt. In fact, I live in the Buckle of the Bible belt—there is a huge number of churches nearby in a variety of denominations, sizes, styles, color. Therefore, I had a lot of choices. The other thing I want to mention about my search for a church is that I wasn’t doing this alone. Quite probably the place I ended up would have been different if I had been church shopping only for my own needs and desires.

For me, there were Big Things, Medium-sized Things, and Little things that I considered while looking for a new local church. My list likely wouldn’t be the same as your list. Some things on my list aren’t very “spiritual,” I admit that. I’m just honestly telling what was important to me.

The Big Things

  • Are they actually Christians? And is the church not so liberal as to deny the veracity of the Bible and the basic core Christian beliefs? I can tolerate a variety of doctrines. I feel quite free to worship and fellowship with believers with whom I don’t actually agree on all doctrinal points. I allow a generous amount of latitude in both Christian belief and practice. On the other hand, I really do believe the playing field does have real boundaries, and I won’t attend a church outside of the line.
  • The place of scripture. I know that not all Christians interpret all scripture passages the same, but if a church uses anything but the message of scripture as its starting point, then what is the point?
  • Location. This was a big one for me for some very specific personal reasons.  For me, the church needed to be less than 10 miles away, and preferably less than 5 miles away.  Due to my location, there were many choices within 5 miles.
  • Does it work for my family? Because I’m not in this alone, I had to take the considerations of others into account. If I had an infant, I’d be very sure that my church had a decent and safe nursery. If I had school aged children, I’d be sure that my church had decent Sunday School and children’s education. If my husband were deaf, I’d be sure the church offered hearing aids. Etc.  In other words, it isn’t just about me. I needed to take careful consideration of those I’m connected to.

 The Middle-Sized Things

  • Style of music. Churches have fits over music styles. Churches have two services to accommodate contemporary vs. traditional church music. Or they split over the issue. In my case, music style was a factor, but not a huge factor. It turns out that the church we’ve settled on uses a mix of contemporary and traditional music, but done only with piano, no guitars or drums (both of which are fine with me).
  • Quality of music.  I have to confess that this became more important to me as we visited different places.  I found myself distracted and annoyed with mediocre musicians leading the corporate singing.  I know not every church has the native talent to be of top quality.  Even so, I personally found less than excellent musical quality to be a big downer.
  • Programs that I want/need/am interested in. Not every church can be everything to every person. Churches do tend to specialize in the programs they choose to offer, and for good reason. For instance, one church may have lots of young families and they specialize in Christian education. Another church may be located in an economically depressed area and they may specialize in a soup kitchen and after-school programs. At the risk of sounding too much like a consumer, I personally see no problem with shopping for a church that has programs that fit the needs of me and my family as long as the Big Things come first.
  • Quality of the preaching. I’m of the opinion that if a preacher is well-prepared, his or her preaching will not put me to sleep. I may or may not agree entirely with what is being said, but I can tell if a preacher has done their homework. (Preaching from the seat of one’s pants is not the same thing as spirit-filled preaching.) Also, a preacher’s education is important to me. I can hear the word of the Lord from a child or an uneducated bum, no doubt—but I want to be in a church where the pastor’s level of education is at least the same as mine, preferably higher.

 The Little Things

  • The building. For many, this would be entirely a non-issue. For me, I wanted a church with windows and a ceiling that didn’t give me claustrophobia. I appreciate religious art and religious symbols, too.
  • Size. Does size matter? Size certainly makes a difference as far as what programs are offered, and it might make a difference as to the quality of the music. But mainly, size has to do with how much one wants to be visible—it is hard to hide in a small church, but quite easy to hide in a big one.  I think size is pretty much a personal preference, but choosing a small church might combat a natural tendency to hang on the fringes.
  • Racial mix. I admire churches that can pull off a mix of ethnic groups. The church I attended before did fairly well with this, but the church I’ve recently chosen doesn’t do so well. I hope they improve.
  • Age mix. Some churches can pull off being multigenerational and actually offer meaningful programs for all ages. I don’t think most small churches can do this. And any church which keeps the age 18-34 (esp. unmarried or childless) demographic strong, must have something going for it.
  • Denomination. For many people, this item would be a Big Thing. For me, it isn’t. I truly wish the Body of Christ were not splintered into denominations, but it certainly is. I’ve happily worshiped (and worked) with believers of many denominational stripes. I feel little need to declare myself a member of any denomination. In fact, I haven’t been a full church member of any denomination ever, in spite of faithfully attending and being involved with many. My reasoning is that I would find becoming a full member to be intellectually dishonest.  To me, church membership means I agreed wholeheartedly with everything the denomination stands for; so far, I’ve not found a denomination in that category. Because of that, I’ve opted for associate membership or just no membership, in spite of being fully involved.

Some of you might say, “Well, what about the people and the fellowship?” My reply:  that takes a little time. I wouldn’t be able to choose a church based on people and fellowship because those things aren’t evident until I’ve been there a while and some time has passed.

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part IV

Published by Thainamu June 26, 2008 in Book Reviews. 4 Comments

Part 4 of 4 - Appendix on Bioethics and my reflections

Links to earlier parts of this review: Part I, Part II, Part III

Francis S. Collins ends his book with an Appendix chapter about bioethics, especially bioethics relating specifically to the rapid progress in understanding of the human genome. He talks about his first hand experience in dealing with an extended family who were part of an experiment to isolate the gene for a certain type of breast cancer. We all think that an understanding of genetics could do wonders for treating disease, but the non-medical implications that the families and doctors had to deal with in this case were considerable. For instance, should a woman have a preemptive double mastectomy if she learns she has the bad gene? Should children be tested, and what should their options be? How does one deal with “survivor guilt” when one sister has the bad gene and the other doesn’t?

He goes on to other issues that come up when we can learn about our own genetic predispositions to disease. Some examples: Who gets access to our genetic info, and what will they be allowed to do with it? Would insurance companies discriminate on whom they will cover? Will our life-style change if we learn about our own predispositions?

He covers cloning in detail, and devotes a few pages to the “when does life begin” question. He brings up a case that I personally have seen, where Christians who believe that life begins at conception turn a blind eye to the process of in vitro fertilization which often destroys embryos and most certainly leaves thousands in frozen limbo.

Lastly, he talks about the idea of “my genes made me do it.” He presents evidence that, yes, there are psychological traits that statistically do run in families, but strongly puts forth that these traits are “genetically influenced, but not hardwired.”

My Reflections on the Book
First of all, in regard to this appendix, I’ve often felt like, for several decades, humans have had the scientific and technological expertise to create situations way beyond their ability to deal with the implications of those situations. The burgeoning field of genetic medicine is just one more example of this. At this rate, I wonder what things my grandchildren will have to deal with–probably things I can’t even imagine.

I very much enjoyed reading this book and re-reading it as I wrote this review. I had known of Collins’s work for some years, so it was good to read his autobiographical story. I suppose the big idea that I come away with is that which I wrote about in part 3, my views on the creation of the world. This book has given me cause to think that maybe an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that is not literal would be possible without doing damage to one’s faith in scripture or the saving work of Christ.

Ironically, my father comes to mind. He was not a believer during my growing up and teen years (though he always attended church as a way to shut my mother up). He was not an educated man, just high school, but he liked to read the newspaper. I remember having some weird conversations with him as he read news items about finding humanoid fossils, etc. He believed the scientists, and that made him more disbelieve what he was hearing at church. He was one of those people for whom a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 was a stumbling block to faith.

A final green-light thought that reading this book brought me to: if evolution is true and continuing, I wonder what would happen if humans manipulate the world such that the unfit will survive as well as (or instead of) the fit?

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part III

Published by Thainamu June 16, 2008 in General and Book Reviews. 14 Comments

Part 3 of 4 - Faith in Science, Faith in God

Part 1 of this review may be found here and part 2 here.

The third main section of the book gets to the nitty-gritty of the current controversies that we hear so much about when Christians (or atheists) get together to talk about evolution and faith in a personal God.

Chapter 6 starts as an introduction and retells the story of Galileo who suffered under the church for daring to accept the Copernican idea of a heliocentric solar system. Collins’s point is that even though Ecclesiastes 1:5 actually says “The sun rises and the sun sets, and then hurries back to where it rises” that doesn’t mean we have to throw out either the Bible or science because it was discovered that the earth actually goes around the sun. Of course, his next point is that he thinks many Christians are doing just that when it comes to evolution.

Chapters 7-10 were the most interesting to me. They are a discourse on four different responses to the way people think about the theory of evolution and faith in God, with a chapter dedicated to each:

Chapter 7–Option 1: Atheism and Agnosticism (When Science Trumps Faith) Collins is not all that sympathetic with today’s aggressive atheists. He never speaks unkindly, but he comes down pretty hard on the likes of Richard Dawkins whom he thinks gives evolution a bad name. He points out that one of Dawkins’s favorite ploys when ragging on Christians is to set up a straw man which he then attacks with such relish that one wonders if there isn’t a personal, rather than scientific, agenda hidden in his attacks. After all, pure science would know better than to speak about a topic–the existence of God–that it cannot prove or disprove with its own methods. Collins points out that evolution has become the current touchstone of atheism after its own evolution starting with materialism in the Enlightenment, then rebellion against governmental-religious authority in the 18th century, to Sigmund Freud’s thinking that the idea of God is just wishful thinking. Collins does not put evolution in the same bucket with atheism though many Christians do.

Collins is somewhat more sympathetic to agnostics, granting that at least agnosticism is entirely compatible with evolution as a scientific theory. However, he thinks that many agnostics are that simply because they have been too lazy to make a full consideration of the evidence for and against a belief in God.

Chapter 8–Option 2: Creationism (When Faith Trumps Science) I will have to admit that this chapter may have been the most meaningful to me in some ways because I am one of many evangelical believers who was taught as a young child that if you don’t believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2, then you’re going to hell. Collins speaks to Creationists–specifically, Young Earth Creationists–with kindness and compassion and yet says their position is entirely untenable from a scientific point of view. He gets right to the crux of the matter when he says that Creationists first and foremost are serious about their faith and about the Bible, and that they are concerned that accepting non-literal interpretations of Bible would be the top of the slippery slope into disbelief. One very interesting point he makes is that the ultra literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 has arisen in the last 100 years largely as a reaction to Darwinian evolution.

I consider myself to be a strong evangelical believer, and I have a scientific mind too (though I am not a trained scientists, just an armchair one). Therefore I found this quote rather striking, seeing myself to some degree (from page 177):

Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than Creationism, is it any wonder many of these young people turn away from faith, concluding that they simply cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world?

Chapter 9–Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science Needs Divine Help) Collins points out that the Intelligent Design movement (ID) is only 15 years old and its emergence coincided with a series of judicial defeats to the teaching of creationism in US schools. Even so, Collins says that from his viewpoint as an evangelical believer and a biologist, the movement deserves a good look. Collins reviews the main ideas of ID, and talks quite a bit about Michael Behe’s work.

He ends up rejecting ID for reasons both scientific and theological. His scientific objects are that without a time machine, the idea that irreducible complexity was brought on by an intelligent creator is unverifiable. He then gives a few technical examples where irreducible complexity has actually later been proven to be reducible. Theologically, he rejects ID because it is a God of the gaps idea, where God is asked to step in in places where science has thus far failed. He also thinks that ID portrays God as a clumsy creator, having to intervene at times to fix up the work he started in the past but didn’t quite get right.

In summary, Collins says that “The warm embrace of ID by believers, particularly by evangelical Christians, is completely understandable, given the way in which Darwin’s theory has been portrayed by some outspoken evolutionists as demanding atheism.” Yet he rejects it.

Chapter 10–BioLogos (Science and Faith in Harmony) It was some years after becoming a believer that Collins came to the point where the shrill voices of the points of view of the previous three chapters persuaded him to grapple with the controversies himself. This time came when he was in the thick of studying genomes and observing how interrelated all living things were at a molecular level:

I found this elegant evidence of the relatedness of all living things an occasion of awe, and came to see this as the master plan of the same Almighty who caused the universe to come into being and its physical parameters just precisely right to allow the creation of stars, planets, heavy elements, and life itself.

His position is called theistic evolution, but he wants to call it BioLogos instead. (There may be problems with the term ‘theistic evolution’ but I doubt his new name will catch on.) He gives a list of six things that generally define a theistic evolutionist starting with an ex-nihilo creation and ending with humans who have a spiritual and moral nature.

He readily agrees that theistic evolution cannot prove that God is real–saying no logical argument can do that–but he finds this position the most satisfying way to be both a scientist and a believer in the Christian God. Again he takes up the matter of reading Genesis 1 and 2 as some kind of figurative language instead of as “an elementary textbook of astronomy, geology, biology and anthropology.” And while he does posit a non-literal reading of certain passages of scripture, he doesn’t go along with “liberal theology that eviscerates the real truths of faith.” He ends the chapter with “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory.”

Chapter 11 ends this section and is again more autobiographical. Collins relates stories of God’s work in his life and gives a more detailed personal testimony of his journey out of atheism into a personal faith in the Christian God who forgives sins.

Next week, the last part of this review which will cover his appendix on bioethics.

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part II

Published by Thainamu June 4, 2008 in General. 1 Comment

Part 2 of 4 - The great questions of human existence

Part 1 of this review may be found here.

Part 2 covers chapters 3-5. Chapter 3 talks about the origins of the universe. Collins covers a number of scientific principles of cosmology, but with language that, for the most part, even an ordinary old lady can understand (that’s me). He states that while at the beginning of the 20th century most scientists assumed a universe with no beginning and no end, now it is assumed that the universe indeed did have a beginning. Of course, the scientists don’t call it ex-nihilo creation, they call it The Big Bang and have calculations to say it happened about 14 billion years ago.* Collins makes the point that the Big Bang Theory cries out for a God explanation, especially when the scientists try to talk about what came before the Big Bang. Collins gives a very interesting quote from agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Chapter 4 is entitled Life on Earth, and it was, in my opinion, the least satisfying of the chapters. Collins firmly holds to the current scientific thinking that the universe was created (ex-nihilo) about 14 billion years ago and that the age of the earth is about 5 billion years. (These numbers come from dating rocks, moon rocks and meteorites using radioactive chemical dating methods which, of course, I don’t know very much about.) He then says that microbial life started on earth somewhere around 3.8 million years ago–microbes that could store information, self-replicate, and evolve.

Then he asks the obvious question: How did self-replicating organisms arise in the first place? Collins answers the question like this: “We don’t know. But we do know that it seems utterly improbably to have ‘just happened.’”

At this point all of us Christians are saying, “Well, God did it, of course.” This is the point in Collins’s discourse that seems a bit odd to me–he very much believes that God created life, but he is loath to give any hints as to how He did it. Also, at this point he takes a little swipe at the Intelligent Design people because he says their explanations are too much of the “God of the gaps” type–where Christians just say “God did it” in order to fill in any gap of understanding that they might have. (More about his take on ID in Chapter 9.) Chapter 4 also talks about fossils, Darwin, and then waxes eloquent about seeing God’s handiwork in DNA. (The rest of us non-microbiologists have to be satisfied to see it in flowers.)

Chapter 5 starts out autobiographical again as Collins tells about the early days of DNA sequencing and how thrilling it was for him to discover the faulty DNA sequence that causes cystic fibrosis. He then tells about scientists arguing whether trying to map the entire human genome was a good idea or not, and spending an afternoon in prayer asking God’s guidance as to whether he should accept the directorate of the entire Human Genome Project. As a side story he tells about the heated debates about whether the information about the human genome should be kept as open source or whether it should be patentable. The chapter ends with a detailed study about the interrelatedness of all living things, pointing out that the DNA between a human and a chimpanzee is 96% identical.

Next week: Faith in science, faith in God

*The topic of a literal vs. nonliteral reading of Genesis is discussed in a later chapter.

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part I

Published by Thainamu May 28, 2008 in Book Reviews. 11 Comments

The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief
by Francis S. Collins
Free Press, Simon and Schuster
2006, 295 pages
Amazon link

Part 1 of 4 - Introduction and the Chasm Between Science and Faith

Most of you have probably heard of Francis Collins. If you haven’t heard of him as a evangelical Christian who believes in evolution, at least you’ve heard of him as the head of the Human Genome Project. His list of degrees, accomplishments and publications is impressive from a purely secular view, but his story of how he came to faith as an adult and how he relates faith to the study of human genetics is impressive too. The title of his book comes from a speech given by then President Bill Clinton on June 26, 2000 when it was announced that the first draft of the human genome had been assembled. Clinton said,

Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.

Chapter 1 of this book is Collins’s autobiographic tale of how he came to faith. Collins’s parents were homeschooling free thinkers. Growing up only vaguely aware of the idea of God, he began college as a lazy agnostic (”In fact, my assertion of ‘I don’t know’ was really more along the lines of ‘I don’t want to know.’” p.16) and gradually became a full-fledged atheist while studying physical chemistry at Yale. After taking a course in biochemistry he got excited about studying medicine and found a way to combine his love of mathematics with his new interest in medicine by studying genetics. At the age of 26, a patient asked him about his religious beliefs. This question haunted him until he felt compelled to make a full investigation into religion, fully expecting to find no rational reasons to believe and thus to reaffirm his atheism. He dug into a survey of the world’s religions and eventually made a visit to a local Methodist preacher who gave him a copy of CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

Lewis’s point that struck closest home to Collins was the discussion of right and wrong and the moral law. Collins returns to this idea often throughout his book–that man has something inside of him that knows there is a right and a wrong. (One negative reviewer pointed out that Collins should have mentioned that recent ideas in evolutionary biology claim this perhaps universal idea of the existence of right and wrong is just one more thing evolution has brought the human race.) It was the realization that the moral law points to a God and that this God is holy which soon led to his conversion:

I had started this journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism. That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief. (p.30)

Chapter 2 was written for skeptics. Collins gives a brief and very readable explanation about how he worked through each of these four rather common objections we hear from unbelievers:

  • Isn’t the idea of God just wishful thinking?
  • What about the horrible things have been done in the name of God and religion?
  • How could a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?
  • How can a rational person believe in miracles?

Next week: Part 2 of 4 - The great questions of human existence

Ladies, Always a Bridesmaid, Never a Bride?

Published by Thainamu March 31, 2008 in General, Book Reviews and Christian Books. 37 Comments

Always a bridesmaid??

In her book Get Married: What Women Can Do To Help It Happen, Candice Watters speaks to single Christian women who are past college age, want to be married, but aren’t. (I expect that hardly anyone reading this review fits in that category, so you may want to quit reading here and go check ESPN.com for the latest basketball scores instead.)

In her discussion of what Christian marriage today is like she makes these observations:

  • Most Christians are meant to marry (that is, God’s call to a life of celibacy is rare).
  • God is the one who invented marriage, not some frustrated young woman in a church singles’ group.
  • Marriage is not just the private business of the couple, it involves the entire community.

She urges single women to examine their attitudes:

  • Men might be jerks, but remember you’re fallen, too.
  • Don’t assume marriage is not worth the trouble because your parents divorced.
  • Don’t be embarrassed because you want to marry, and don’t hesitate to publicly say that you want to marry (that is, don’t give in to the common pressure to act like you’re perfectly happy single, if you really aren’t, and avoid the idea that mentioning marriage will scare a guy off.)
  • Don’t overdo the independence.
  • Don’t let a past broken heart stop you from trying again.

To the single woman who wants to marry, Watters sprinkles these bits of practical advice throughout her book:

  • Live a godly life, devoted to loving and obeying God.
  • Stay out of debt.
  • Watch your attitude about men so it doesn’t become too critical.
  • Openly express your beliefs about marriage.
  • Be a good steward of everything you own—your body, time, money, attitude.
  • Stay far away from premarital sex—it isn’t going to help you marry well.
  • Don’t procrastinate, assuming that it is as good to marry at 32 as it would be at 22.
  • Don’t aim so high—not every one marries their “soul mate.”
  • Develop a multi-generational network of people who may be able to introduce you to potential gentlemen.
  • Include your parents in your network, and ask them to pray with you about finding a husband.
  • There may come a point in a relationship when you have to force the issue—don’t let a guy hang around too long without stating his intentions.
  • Don’t stay in a going-nowhere relationship, even if it means being alone for a while.
  • Pray boldly. Don’t pray like you’re apologizing for wanting the good thing God created.

When you find a guy you might be interested in, treat him this way:

  • Ask him about the dreams he has for his life.
  • If you honestly can, communicate to him that you believe in him.
  • Don’t expect 100% maturity in a 25 year old man. Instead, look for aptitude and an attitude that is willing to grow in maturity.
  • Instead of asking, “Is he worth the risk?” ask, “Will we be able to serve God better together or apart?”

Picky, Picky

Probably the part of this book that I found most interesting was Watters’s discussion of “soul mates.” She points out that today’s young woman is often admired as someone who is highly educated, has a high paying job, drives a safe car, and lives in a safe place. As such, she doesn’t need a man in the way a woman of yesteryear needed one—she doesn’t need protection, she doesn’t need provision, she doesn’t need status. Really, all the independent Christian woman really needs is a best friend to meet her deep emotional longings. (Oh, and she needs sex, too.) And so, she looks for a hott man to marry who could meet all her emotional needs, who knows those needs without her having to tell him, and who makes her feel good. Because she can take care of all her other needs herself, she’s looking to find a husband whose main purpose is an emotional one—and I say, good luck with that! If you get a chance to read only part of the book, I’d say the 6-page subsection of chapter 8, “Aiming Too High,” is probably the best part of the book.

Gift Giving

Published by Thainamu December 19, 2007 in General. 7 Comments

It is that time of year again. When we were kids—admit it—we really hoped for a good haul on Christmas morning. And no matter how many nice things we got, we were somehow disappointed: there weren’t quite enough gifts with our name on them, our sister got something nicer than us, and the one thing we really wanted wasn’t there.

But now we’re adults, it’s different. It’s even worse now! How many times have we—admit it—stressed out about: who to give to; how much to spend; how to buy gifts you can’t afford; how to act happy when you receive a gift you don’t like; how to find a gift for someone who has everything; feeling like you have to give a gift when you don’t really want to; feeling like the gifts you give won’t be appreciated; feeling like the gifts you give won’t be as expensive as the gifts other people give; and–my personal favorite–how to find a perfect gift for someone who thinks you ought to be able to do so without so much as a hint! Oh, wait. We Christians aren’t supposed to worry about those things. I almost forgot.

From a strictly Emily Post point of view, one can learn how to do right by taking this 10-question quiz on the etiquette of gift-giving. Sadly, I only got a 70.

From a Biblical point of view, there is a lot to learn about gift-giving too. Here are some examples:

Perhaps the most well-known passages about gifts are about spiritual gifts (Romans 12 and I Corinthains 12). Interestingly enough, one of those gifts is giving (aka generosity).

My favorite Bible passage about gifts is Matthew 7:9-11:

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

No matter how bad our kids have been all year long, when Christmas comes, we forgive and forget, and we lavish all we can upon them because we love them so much. No wonder Jesus uses that as an example of how he loves and gives good gifts to us. We evil and imperfect parents still give good gifts to our children, whether they deserve them or not. Our Father in heaven does the same to us, only more so!

You’ve only got a couple more shopping days before Christmas, but don’t stress out—give thanks to God for his indescribable gift (2 Corinthians 9:15).

For Christians Only: An Alternative to Traditional Health Insurance

Published by Thainamu November 30, 2007 in General. 12 Comments

If you have a job, thank the Lord. If you have a job that provides health insurance, thank the Lord twice. Not everyone is so fortunate. An estimated 45 million people in the United States are without health insurance of any kind, and many more are underinsured.

As an alternative to traditional health insurance, some otherwise uninsured Christians are turning to medical sharing societies. Such groups offer benefits similar to health insurance, but they rely on a type of voluntary giving to meet the medical needs of others in the group, along with an agreement to live according to healthy Biblical principles.

There are several different programs and, although each is structured somewhat differently, they are generally organized along similar lines. Some examples:

Picky, Picky
Not just anyone can join one of these plans, and that is part of what makes them cost effective. It is well-documented that a “Christian lifestyle” is a healthier lifestyle, so that means the medical bills will be fewer. Typically a member of one of these plans must agree to:

  • sign a statement of faith
  • agree to live by biblical principles
  • abstain from the use of tobacco and the illegal use of drugs
  • follow biblical teaching on the use of alcohol
  • attend church regularly

I belong to a large Christian organization which provided health coverage in a form similar to this for many years in a self-funded pool of funds to pay for the medical bills of our group. It was open only to members of the group and their minor children. Recently, they put that system aside and moved to a traditional health insurance, but one that specialized in overseas coverage.

More study would be required to know if medical sharing plans are adequate coverage for the price they cost, but I like the idea of paying some kind of smaller health insurance premium in exchange for a healthy lifestyle.

Thankful for Thanksgiving

Published by Thainamu November 22, 2007 in General. 0 Comments

You probably aren’t reading this on the day intended. Instead, you’re probably stuck in the airport on your way to Grandma’s house, stuffing yourself with stuffing, or watching the Cowboys. Your diet has been set aside for the day, and probably you’re with relatives you don’t see too often. I hope you are indeed thankful for whatever situation you find yourself in today.

Thanksgiving is a national, secular holiday in the US, but it started out for religious reasons. The early English settlers counted their blessings, such as they were, during a time of corporate thanksgiving to God. First, in 1619 at Berkeley Plantation

“Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty god.”

and again in 1621, the more famous story of the Pilgrims.

It wouldn’t do to thank God as a corporate nation any more, but we still can do so as individuals, churches and other groups of Christians. We do have lots to be thankful for in the broad sense—our physical surroundings aren’t all that bad. Even the poorest among us is quite physically comfortable and has quite a bit of stuff.

Scripture says a lot about being thankful, and gives many examples of prayers of thanksgiving. A few examples:

For a believer, giving thanks isn’t just a nice, polite thing to do. Rather, it is an act of obedience which serves to rightly align us with God and fellow man—in other words, it puts us in our place. When we give thanks we acknowledge our indebtedness to someone, admitting we are in a dependent relationship. Thankfulness to God and to others puts a damper on our ever-virulent pride.

Psalm 100

1 Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth.

2 Worship the LORD with gladness;
come before him with joyful songs.

3 Know that the LORD is God.
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.

4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving
and his courts with praise;
give thanks to him and praise his name.

5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.

Christian: Bearing Christ’s Name?

Published by Thainamu November 16, 2007 in General. 15 Comments

Although it has served me well in the past, I’m starting to hate the word Christian. I’m enough of a linguist to know that language changes over time–words change their meanings, vocabulary becomes outdated, and even grammar structures change. I think that is what has happened with the word Christian.

A string of sounds–what we call a word–is just an arbitrary string of sounds until a community agrees on what the meaning of those particular sounds is. When someone says the word house, we all have an idea in our heads of what that means. Interestingly, we don’t all have exactly the same idea. In fact, we might have quite different ideas, but we can communicate something meaningful between us because my idea of the meaning of house overlaps enough with your meaning of the word. We agree on a basic core of meaning, even if the outer edges of meaning are different for me than they are for you.

The same is true for the word Christian. There is a basic core of meaning something like ‘having to do with Christ or the religion he started’ that almost all people can agree on. But when it comes to the rest of the meaning of the word, that’s a different story!

A quick lesson on the history and etymology of the word. First there was a Hebrew word moshiach (מָשִׁיחַ) which meant ‘anointed one, usually a priest or king’. Moshiach is translated into Greek as christos (Χριστος). (Jesus claimed to be the anointed one, so that’s where we get Jesus Christ.) Then the Latin suffix -ianos was added to mean ‘related to, belong to’ which turns the noun into an adjective (which itself can be used as a noun). BTW, we do this all the time with other words, eg., Canada –> Canadian.

The first meaning of the word Christian was to refer to Jesus’ specific followers who lived in Antioch (Acts 11:26). A lot has changed since then. Now we have meanings that range on the one hand from ‘kind‘, all the way to the meaning ‘Western‘. We have people who say you are a Christian if your parents were Christian or if you try to treat people fairly. Many people think American equals Christian. Then we have a really nice definition that tells us you’re a Christian if you say you are. Can’t go wrong there, huh?

So what’s the problem? The problem is I want to call myself a Christian, but I don’t want a Muslim to think I espouse everything in Western culture; I don’t want a politician to think I’m part of a certain voting block; I don’t want the man on one street to just think I’m just a nice guy and the man on the next street to think I’m a wacko. I don’t want the person I’m sitting next to in church think that he’s a Christian just because he’s sitting there with me. I don’t want my children to think they’re Christians just because I am.

I’m beginning to wonder if we should consider some of the other terms used in scripture to call ourselves: followers of the way, disciples, brethren, the faithful, elect, saints, believers.

Or maybe Christ follower would work:

Christ follower

The Apostle Peter might have been thinking about the meaning of Christian too when he wrote this (1 Peter 4:16):

However, if you suffer because you are a Christian, don’t be ashamed of it, but thank God that you bear Christ’s name.

Recent Forum Topics

Archives

Archive for Thainamu.

Archive for Thainamu.

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Archive for Thainamu.