Blog

19 Feb, 2024

Blog

ANSWERING THE MUSIC MAN

Atheism New and Old by John D. Ferrer

A Critique of Dan Barker’s Brand of Atheism

In case you are not familiar with the reference to the “Music Man” here’s a link to Dan Barker’s story of going from a teenage evangelist and christian music composer to becoming an atheist.

Dan Barker: Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s).

Before we get started with Ferrer’s critique, let me say that Dan Barker does not need my help defending himself from the likes of the authors of Answering the Music Man. None of them would do well in a one-on-one debate with Barker. Perhaps that’s why they wrote a book.

In his book “godless” Dan Barker says this about theists who are attempting to discredit him and other atheists.

“What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

This is certainly the case with John D. Ferrer. Barker’s rather simple definition of Atheism contains just 40 words. Ferrer’s response, on the other hand, exceeds 7,300 words.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in Ferrer’s 7,300 words he would be able to produce at least some semblance of a defense for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead he spends the bulk of his 7,300 words arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “atheism”. With that said, let’s look at what Ferrer says about renown atheist Dan Barker.

Here’s how he begins he defense… (underline is mine)

“Words evolve over time, growing, losing, and changing definitions, all depending on fickle social fashions. The word “atheism” is no exception. In the last ten to fifteen years, a new definition of “atheism has grown in popularity, threatening to replace the classic sense of the word. And people like Dan Barker are benefactors.”

He spends the rest of his wordy diatribe attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of the word “atheism” is dishonest. He also spends some of his 7,300 words belittling Barker on a personal level. I guess this is what you do (ad hominem) when you are unable to produce a defense of theism.

Ferrer: “Is Barker just an intellectual hipster who can’t stomach “old-fashioned” classics without a spritz of irony? He’s in his seventies now, so “hipster” probably isn’t the right term for him. Although, I’m sure he has rocked the tweed jacket and craft beer from time to time. Barker, however, is firmly entrenched in a new socio-culture of atheism known, ironically, as New Atheism.”

Ferrer attempts of discredit Barker’s definition of “atheism” and also to attack Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ferrer not only doesn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism he doesn’t like Barker’s brand of atheism. He wants Barker to play nice. This coming from a man who is a “teaching fellow” for a pro-life organization that I’m sure, would have no issue taking away a woman’s right to control her own body.

Here’s what Ferrer says about what he calls Barker’s “new atheism”

Ferrer: “New Atheists like Dan Barker would have to dull their blade a bit and learn to play nice with others. Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation will likely persist as militant as ever, competing for territory, and promoting nontheism, secularism, and irreligion with all the fervor of an evangelistic crusade.”

Here’s what Barker says about his evangelistic crusade.

“Once a preacher always a preacher (in my case, at least), so the question now was, “Should I preach atheism?” When all is said and done, we can’t help being who we are. I had developed certain habits and skills in the ministry and still wanted to change the world for the better. I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions so can others“

I have personally experienced “being healed of such delusions” and for me it was very freeing. Others (like Ferrer) are still stuck in their delusions. In my next blog we’ll explore the reasons why.

Ferrer continues…

“He is not… the quiet, respectful, public atheist who flies under the radar rather than drawing attention to himself. Nor is he the outlandish academic atheist squirreled away in his office in the biology department at some college in the 1970s. New Atheism replaces peacemaking policies with verbal conquest; humble nonbelief becomes cocky secularism; timidity switches into boldness; and the pluralistic se la vie shifts to intolerant chants of “Stop that, or you’re sued!” It’s clear that he is not the peacemaker.”

Love this paragraph. Ferrer wants atheists, like Barker, to be humble, timid and not in the public view, while at the same time the likes of Ferrer are attempting to push their religious beliefs on the public. Based on Ferrer’s credentials (which we’ll explore in the next blog) it could be assumed that he has no qualms about blurring the lines of separation of church and state. And when he attempts to overstep his bounds (as evangelicals often tend to do) and push his religious beliefs on the general public, Barker’s foundation is there to protect the constitutional rights of the other citizens. So in that sense, I guess Barker is not a peacemaker. But then again, is Ferrer?

Barker writes, “It turns out that atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. Basic atheism is not a belief.”

I kept waiting for Ferrer to begin his presentation for the defense of the existence of his god, but he never does. He spends his next 5,000 words attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of atheism is “new” and “fickle” (making it trendy, and thus invalid). Ferrer contends that Barker’s definition does not conform to ancient Greek etymology of the word Atheos and thus is not valid in today’s world. Really? This is where he wants to go with his argument… to ancient Greek?

Ferrer would prefer that rather than atheists saying, “we don’t believe in gods” they must say unequivocally that “there are no gods”. Rather than theists shouldering the burden of proof that their god exists, Ferrer would prefer to shift the burden of proof to atheists. That way Barker and other atheists would be forced to prove that no gods exist.

Why would that be important for Ferrer? It’s simple! Since he can’t prove his god exists, (which he demonstrates in his 7,300-word diatribe) he wants Barker to prove that gods “do not” exist.

Ferrer’s desire to switch the burden of proof that “no gods exist” reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s theory of the Celestial teapot. Russell’s teapot theory is “an analogy” designed to discount the need for a burden of proof regarding the non-existence of something (i.e. a God).

Russell wrote: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Ferrer responds to Russell’s teapot theory by saying that the question of God’s existence is a little more pressing than… “the trivial dismissal of an orbiting teapot”. Ferrer goes on to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus divinitatis” (the sense that a divinity exists) although he fails to give any supporting evidence other than his “senses”. What if I were to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus teapotis”? Would that be enough proof that the celestial teapot actually exists? Certainly not! Let’s be clear here; a “sense” of the divine is not actual proof of the divine.

Ferrer also doesn’t like Barker’s definition of agnosticism.

Barker: “People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists. “The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence.”

If Ferrer were being honest with himself (and with us), he might admit that he himself is an agnostic. Ferrer has a strong belief in his god but there is insufficient evidence to prove its existence, and therefore his belief (no matter how strong) cannot be taken as fact. He is indeed a theistic agnostic while I am an atheistic agnostic. He believes in his god (teapot), but he can’t prove his god exists. I don’t believe in his god, but I cannot prove that his god doesn’t exist. In that light, Barker’s use of agnosticism is perfectly valid. We’ll expand more on this in next week’s blog as we take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s own believes.

SO, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? Ferrer continues,

It can be true even if God exists

Ferrer: “Perhaps the weirdest result with Barker’s brand of atheism is that it doesn’t say anything about whether God exists. Even if God exists, Barker’s atheism could be true. That’s a strange brand of atheism, aligning just fine with God’s existence.”

On this one point, I have to agree with Ferrer (except for the part about a strange brand of atheism). I understand that my disbelief in gods does not mean that they absolutely don’t exist. And I will continue in my non-belief until there is evidence to the contrary. However, here’s what Ferrer proposes it would take to convince atheists that god actually does exist.

Ferrer: “This means that even if God exists, even if God came down to Los Angeles, California, dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God ’s Not Dead III—Barker’s atheism would still be true so long as his atheism refers only to his lack of theism.”

How about rather than ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”, God ended world hunger or human trafficking, or the suffering caused by wars? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV? Get serious, Ferrer!

Intellectual laziness

Ferrer: (Barker’s definition of atheism) “fosters intellectual laziness. The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. My point is that the “default atheism” view is self-serving for atheists. It can deceive atheists into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground but can presume it while theists do all the work.”

Does earning a master’s in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion automatically award Ferrer with the “intellectual high ground”? (I think not, but more about that in my next blog.) Barker admits that he doesn’t have the education of a theologian, saying that it wasn’t that important to him.

Barker: “Looking back, I can see that most of the religion courses (with a couple of notable exceptions) were simply glorified Sunday School classes and I don’t remember that we delved very deeply into the evidences or arguments for or against Christianity. I believed that my education was secondary to my calling.”

Ferrer continues,

“What can we make of Barker’s Atheism? In the final evaluation, Barker’s definition of atheism offers a strategic advantage for him. He never has a burden of proof in defending his nonbelief. If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else. His definition of “atheism,” fits the profile of a pseudo-intellectual skeptic.“

The pot and the kettle.

I take issue with Ferrer’s claim that he has earned “intellectual respectability”. Let’s say, for an example, that we were to ask Ferrer if he believes in Astrology. My guess, (based on his religious beliefs) would be that he does not. Would he say that he “doesn’t believe in astrology”? By his own argument that would be invalid. According to his own standards, he must say unequivocally that astrology is false and then accept the burden of proving that it is false. If he simply were to say that he “doesn’t believe” in astrology without offering any evidence debunking it, wouldn’t that make him “a pseudo-intellectual skeptic” of astrology? Let’s see how Ferrer’s own words reveal him to be the pot.

A reversal of Ferrer’s own words

“The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. It can deceive atheists (and theists) into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground. If anyone wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability (on any topic), they are going to have to earn it just like anyone else.”

It might surprise you to learn that there are a number of universities that offer a master’s degree in Astrology. Would Ferrer’s limited knowledge of astrology make him a pseudo-intellectual skeptic? Is Ferrer implying that his master’s in apologetics has earned him the intellectual high ground over someone who has earned a master’s in astrology? Perhaps for Ferrer it does, but for me a master’s in astrology carries the same weight as a master’s in apologetics.

From where I stand

It’s clear from Ferrer’s writings that he is convinced he has earned intellectual respectability. However, as we shall see in the next blog, he forfeits his intellectual respectability.  It is curious that nowhere in Ferrer’s seven thousand plus words does he ever say what he personally believes. We know what Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe). He’s been very clear about that. So, why doesn’t Ferrer tell us what he believes?

Coming next:

We’ll take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s personal beliefs and as a result, perhaps come to understand why he has chosen not to reveal them in his critique of The Music Man.

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 19, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

13 Feb, 2024

Blog

Happy Marti Gras!

Not that this blog has anything to do with Marti Gras, but I wish you a happy one none the less!

__________________________________

The Full Armor of God – Conclusion

“The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it!” Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

In the two previous blogs we examined an article from bibleinfo.com about the full armor of God (as found in Ephesians 6). In part one we discussed the belt of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. In part two we discussed the shoes of the gospel of peace, and the shield of faith. In this blog we’ll take a closer look at the remaining two articles of the armor: the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit (i.e. the bible) plus some added instructions that (according to the bibleinfo.com article) are needed to make the armor fully functional so it can actually protect as advertised. But we’ll get to that in a bit.

But, before we get into that, let’s take a side trip. This week I serendipitously stumbled on a blog that Dr. Bart Ehrman wrote about ten years ago called “The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.” Ehrman writes,

The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.

“Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith… think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings as they get older in every other aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen-year-old? That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many evangelical Christians is that the views they put forth, are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16-year-old. There’s something wrong about that.”

I was 16 years old when I became a christian, so Ehrman’s article is particularly relevant for me. In a previous blog I talked about how and why I ended up walking away from christianity. I realize now that perhaps it was the result of me maturing intellectually and refusing to unquestionably hold on to the religion that I was introduced to in 1972.

Maybe you are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, like I was back then. If so, let me say that it’s okay to question, it’s not only okay, it’s the right thing to do. Just realize, if you begin to question, you might lose some friends. Do it anyway.

So, let’s see what bibleinfo.com has to say about the last two articles of the Full Armor of God.

Helmet of salvation

“The helmet protects the head—perhaps the most vital part of the body since it is the seat of thought and the mind. When we have a sure knowledge of our salvation, we will not be moved by Satan’s deceptions. When we are certain that we are in Christ with our sins forgiven, we will have a peace that nothing can disturb.”

What’s important to remember here, is that the concept of “sin” is made up by religions. I’m not a religious studies expert but I’m pretty sure that every religion in the history of mankind has had some concept of sin. There’s always some way that humans are displeasing to their gods. And when the gods became angry, they retaliated by causing drought, floods, earthquakes or even war and (as an act of kicking them when they’re down), the famine that always seems to follow such events. Religion is the process of appeasing the gods. “What have we done to displease the gods and how can we make it right.?” There are many stories of how different civilizations have worked to appease their gods, for example, by offering up grains or “first fruits” as payment for a bountiful harvest, or, as in Hebrew tradition, offering animal sacrifices. Whatever it takes.

Christianity, however, has taken this concept to a whole new level. It’s not something we have done to displease the Abrahamic god, it’s something the first man and woman did, and as their descendants, we displease this god simply by being born. Because of something the mythical Adam and Eve supposedly did in the Garden of Eden; the entire human race is condemned to an eternity in hell.  The only way to escape this dismal fate is to join the Jesus Club. Even when I was active in church, I never really bought into that theology. How about you? Is that what you believe?

Now let’s return to the last article of the Armor of God.

Sword of the spirit

“The sword of the spirit is the only weapon of offense listed in the armor of God. All the other parts are defensive in nature. God’s Word—the Bible—is described as “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword”. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). That is why it is so powerful. That is why it is so important that we study the Bible and become familiar with its truths and its power. The sword of God’s Word both protects us and destroys our enemy—the devil and his temptations.”

Notice that the reasoning bibleinfo.com gives for the proposition that the bible is true, is that the bible says it’s true. That’s not how it works. Is there no other way to show that the bible is true other than it saying it is? Apparently not. I have yet to encounter a christian (even a trained apologists) who is able to provide a list of credible non-Christian sources that confirm the historicity of the main tenants of the bible. Yet, for evangelicals, it’s all true… “for the bible tells me so”. Another topic we’ll explore further in an upcoming blog.

The bible verse “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword” comes from the book of Hebrews 4:12. Here is the verse in its entirety.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart.”

I have three issues of concern about this verse. First, evangelicals believe that the letter to the Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, but biblical scholars pretty much agree that it was not. This is a problem for evangelicals because it brings into question the inerrancy of the bible, and that can’t be allowed. So, as we have seen before, they will continue to believe it was written by Paul despite evidence to the contrary.

Second, experts believe that the book of Hebrews was penned somewhere around the year 65 CE. The New Testament did not even exist yet, three of the four gospels had not even been written yet. So, what exactly is he referring to when he says the “word of God”. I read one commentary on this verse that refers to John 1:1 saying that Jesus is the word of God. Funny that the gospel of John wouldn’t be written for another 30 years. So that can’t be it. Is it referring to the ancient Hebrew texts? Possibly, but even if it was, what percentage of people in the first century actually had access to, and were literate enough to read them? Easily less than 10%. It would be like saying that it’s more accurate to read the NT in the original Greek. How many people can do that? It can’t cut to the quick if you don’t have access to it.

And lastly, read the verse again. The intent of this sword is not only to “destroy our enemy” but also to dismember him, as in “piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow”. I don’t give much credence to the bible at this stage of my life, but I do believe that modern day christians who use this verse to say that all scripture (even the NT) is “a powerful weapon” are greatly misrepresenting it, as does Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. I wish they all would stop weaponizing the bible.

The bibleinfo.com article adds a couple more thoughts about the articles of the armor. Apparently, it’s not enough to just put on the armor of God, it’s useless without this essential addition.

Prayer

“Although prayer is not one of the pieces of the whole armor of God… you need to bathe it all in prayer. Prayer brings you into communion and fellowship with God so that His armor can protect you.”

So, do I understand this right?  It’s not enough to be wearing all the articles of armor, they won’t work unless they are “bathed” in prayer? After all this exhortation to “put on the armor of God” it doesn’t protect anything unless you follow the directions to the very end. But bibleinfo.com isn’t done yet. There’s one more surprise regarding the armor.

How do you put on the whole armor of God?

“It isn’t as difficult as you might think. All the pieces of the armor are found in a relationship with Jesus. When you give yourself to Jesus and “put on” His righteousness, you are clothed in the whole armor of God.”

Let me see if I have this right, the complete ensemble of the armor of God is included free of charge with a membership to the Jesus club. How convenient! Don’t worry about it or waste your time putting on the full armor of God because it’s already part of the Jesus club uniform.

In conclusion, the bibleinfo.com article is very simplistic and seems to have been written for “a 16-year-old” (of any age) whose understanding of what’s actually in their bible is limited.  If that kind of simplistic explanation is no longer acceptable to you, you’re headed in the right direction. Keep seeking the truth and you will find it.  Keep questioning what you are being told from the pulpit. Do your homework, and don’t let someone else decide what’s right for you.  A great place to start would be by reading Dr. Ehrman’s book Forged.

Ehrman tells the story of when he dedicated himself to following the actual truth of the New Testament, no matter where it led him, he was no longer welcomed in evangelical circles. This might happen to you too. But I can tell you that it’s worth it. You’ll find yourself on a solid ground that you never knew existed. As Dr. Ehrman discovered, being outside the evangelical camp… “is a lush paradise compared with the barren camp of fundamentalism.”

Learn to question everything!

and

Prepare yourself for the opposition you’ll encounter as a result.

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 13, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

6 Feb, 2024

Blog

The Full Armor of God

“The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it!” Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

Shoes and a Shield

As we discussed in the previous blog the armor of God is mentioned is in the sixth chapter of the book of Ephesians. I found a christian website (bibleinfo.com) that detailed each of the six items of the spiritual armor and explained how each one can be used by modern day christians. Last week we examined the first two articles of armor: the belt of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. This week we’ll look at the shoes and the shield and see if they adequately protect christians who are doing spiritual battle.

Shoes of the gospel

“Soldiers marching into battle must have comfortable shoes. As soldiers of Christ, we must put on “gospel shoes” that will allow us to march wherever our Lord leads. Satan will try to place obstacles in our path, but in Jesus’ strength we can walk forward, following our Lord, obeying Him, and advancing the gospel.”

 

 

This is the actual photo used in the article. Look at those shoes! Do they look comfortable to you? Would you march into battle wearing these?

But on a serious note, the author says that christians must put on their “gospel shoes” but he left out a word from the Ephesians passage. If you are familiar with the passage, perhaps you know what’s missing. If so, say it out loud.

If you said “peace”, you’re right. The verse says, “and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.” Have to wonder why the author left out that word. Perhaps because it just didn’t fit his narrative. Here’s how his narration would be if we included the word “peace”.

“Soldiers marching into battle must have comfortable shoes of peace. As soldiers of Christ, we must put on ‘gospel of peace shoes’ that will allow us to march wherever our Lord leads. Satan will try to place obstacles in our path, but in Jesus’ strength we can walk forward, following our Lord, obeying Him, and advancing the ‘gospel of peace’”.

It really doesn’t make sense to say that you are marching into battle wearing shoes of peace, does it? Perhaps that’s why he left the word out. Also, it should be noted here that Ephesians 6 is the only place in the entire bible that references a “gospel of peace”. It’s not mentioned in any of the four gospels.  In fact, the author of the book of Matthew recorded that Jesus himself said, “Don’t think that I came to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” There is no such “gospel of peace”.

So now what? No gospel of peace, no shoes… no marching off to war? One could only hope!

Shield of faith

The next article of the full armor of God is a shield of faith. Bibleinfo.com says this about it:

“In listing the different pieces of the armor of God, Paul Ephesians says, ‘Above all, . . . [take] the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one’. When Satan attacks with doubts, the shield of faith turns aside the blow. When temptations come, faith keeps us steadfast in following Jesus. This faith is not something that comes from within us. It is God’s gift to us.  You use the shield of faith to turn aside everything Satan hurls at you.”

For the sake of this argument let’s replace the supernatural phrase “when Satan attacks with doubts” with a more accurate one, “when science proves the bible wrong”. When we make that replacement we have a more viable and accurate statement as in, “When science proves the bible wrong the shield of faith turns aside the blow”. You’ll notice that satan is always getting the blame for temptations and doubt. And why not? It’s easier to blame an invisible (i.e. fictitious) enemy than to face the truths that science gives us. Let’s see how faith turns aside the “blows of doubt” created by science.

When science proves the bible wrong the shield of faith turns aside the blow.

  • Fact: The world was not created in six days. Christian reply: But I have faith that God’s word is true, so a six-day creation story must be true. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: The world is around  4 billion years old. Christian reply: But I have faith that God’s word is true and since the earth was created in six days the obvious (biblical) conclusion is that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: There was never a Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve. Christian reply: I have faith that God’s word is true, so a story about the Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden must be true. Besides, without the fall of man there would be no need for a savior and our whole theology is based on that. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: There never was a worldwide flood. Christian reply: I have faith that God’s word is true, so the story of Noah and the flood must be true. Why do you think we have rainbows? Attack Blocked.
  • Fact: The bible is nowhere near inerrant. Christian reply: I have faith that the bible is 100% true, because it says it is. Attack blocked.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Earlier in the bibleinfo.com article the Author wrote about the “great truths of the bible”. So, let’s take a look at those “great truths” and see if they are objective truths (i.e. true for everyone, everywhere) or if they must be taken by faith.

The great truths of the Bible?

  1. The love of God. Must be taken by Faith only.
  2. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Must be taken by Faith only.
  3. The Second Coming. Jesus was supposed to return in the lifetime of his disciples. It’s been 2,000 years. He’s not coming. This must absolutely be taken by Faith only.
  4. Forgiveness of sin. Must be taken by Faith only.
  5. Grace and power to live for Jesus. Must be taken by Faith only.
  6. These truths set us free from Satan’s lies. None of these “great truths” are actual truths and therefore cannot set us free from anything.

The great irony of the shield of faith is that it does more damage to believers than it does to protect them. When christians hold on to and defend an ancient document that was written in the infancy of humanity they lose credibility.

Think about it! Would you respect someone who as adult is still living their live based on the nursery rhymes, they learned in their childhood? For them, Mother Goose, Humpty Dumpty and Little Bo-Peep would be real and to not believe in Mother Goose would be heresy. By defending the Genesis stories and other made up stories in the bible, christians are forcing their god into a tiny box and expecting others to do the same. It’s time for christians to grow up, put away their childish beliefs and let their god out of the box.

It’s the first step to knowing the truth and allowing it to set you free.

Coming next:

Next week we will examine the last two articles of the Full Armor of God; the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit (i.e. the bible.). In addition, we’ll learn that simply putting on the full armor is not sufficient to protect the believer. Something more is required. Wouldn’t ya know!

 

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 6, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

29 Jan, 2024

Blog

What is the Full Armor of God?

“The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it!” Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

For the past several weeks we have been examining the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Youmans; a christian writer whose life mission is to restore God’s word to public education. As we saw in the previous blog, Youmans is at war. She writes often about spiritual weapons of warfare. So, for the next three blogs we’ll take a look into what kinds of spiritual weapons she might be referring to.

The Full Armor of God

The only place the armor of God is mentioned is in the sixth chapter of the book of Ephesians. I found a christian website (bibleinfo.com) that detailed each of the six items of the spiritual armor and explained how each one can be used by modern day christians.

 

 

On a cringe worthy note, this is the actual graphic used on the bibleinfo.com site showing a creepy looking christian soldier pillaging and plundering his way through an unsaved world in an obvious attempt to share the good news of Jesus. Is this really the image they want their readers to take away from this article?

I certainly hope not!

 

 

 

So, let’s see what bibleinfo.com has to say about the full armor of God.

1. Belt of Truth

“Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth,” Paul says.

First off according to New Testament Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are compelling reasons to believe that Ephesians was most likely NOT written by Paul. It is a forgery at best and for the author of this “bibleinfo.com” article to say “Paul says” is either ignorance on his part or a flat out lie. The result is the same either way. If “truth” is needed to protect our loin, then bibleinfo.com is off to a bad start.

Also, if someone believes in the stories of Genesis, such as the 6-day creation story, the myth of Adam and Eve, the flood story or if one believes that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then their spiritual loins are indeed exposed and vulnerable. And it doesn’t sound like a good idea not to protect your loins.

 “Truth is the belt that holds all the other pieces of the armor in place.”

The belt is the piece that holds all the other parts in place? I found this idea in several articles on this topic. I’m trying to picture how my belt holds my shoes in place, or my hat or a shield. It seems to me that it would be quite awkward if my shoes actually were attached to my belt, or my hat. The visual that comes to mind would make a good Charlie Chaplin routine; such as him pulling up his belt and inadvertently kicking another gentleman in the seat of the pants, or by tipping his hat to a young lady his drawers fall embarrassingly to his ankles. It might make a good piece of physical comedy… but it’s definitely not the truth. Why do christians say such ridiculous stuff, and why do other christians accept it without question? As a former evangelical I know the answer to both of those questions, but I just thought I’d point it out.

“There are two ways in which truth is a part of the armor of God. First, it refers to the truths of Scripture as opposed to the lies of Satan. Satan is the father of lies. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.  The great truths of the Bible… set us free from Satan’s lies. Satan would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope.”

We will examine the author’s “great truths of the bible” in a later blog, but for now, let’s focus on the last phrase of that paragraph. “Satan would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope”. Recently I posted a blog about how evangelical congregations rarely use the word “love” in their mission statements. Next, I did another search of evangelical mission statements looking for the word “sin”. Eureka!! I’d stuck gold. The word “sin or sinner” appeared four times more than “love”. All of the following declarations come directly from evangelical mission statements.

This is just a small sampling.

  • Mankind is sinful and under justified condemnation.
  • Without exception every man and woman is totally depraved.
  • Humanity sinned and consequently experienced spiritual death.
  • All human beings are born with a sinful and depraved nature.
  • Sin then spread like a virus to all humans, separating us from God.
  • We believe that man is lost and destined to spend eternity in hell.
  • Sin plunged man into a hopeless state.
  • Mankind is totally depraved.
  • We believe that all people are deserving of eternal punishment in hell.
  • There is no way for us to make things right with God.
  • Humanity is utterly evil and made opposite to all good.

It would seem that rather than Satan, it’s actually evangelicals who would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope. No surprise actually because for them it is a prerequisite for becoming a christian. If evangelicals can convince you that you are a lost and hopeless sinner, then they have a chance to convince you to join their Jesus club. If you do that and only if you do that; you can be called a child of God and are no longer lost and destined for an eternity in hell.

But there is a better option. What if, instead of believing the lies that we are sinful, lost and without hope, you believed in a benevolent, loving god that doesn’t require a transaction to become a child of god? What if you already are? Would that change your theology?

I’m sure that any evangelical reading this would have some strong objections. Of course they would, they can’t sell you their solution (i.e. membership in the Jesus Club) if you don’t first accept the lie that you are depraved. It’s the principle on which all advertising is based; create a need then present the solution. We see it every day on TV. (More on that later.)

The following is an excerpt from the mission statement of a progressive christian congregation.

“We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.  As a faith community, our call is to accept that we are already accepted by God, and to live a life imitating God’s love by doing justice, loving kindness, and walking in humility with God.”

For more about this progressive congregation see my previous blogs about their mission statement compared with that of an evangelical congregation. Now, back to bibleinfo.com.

“The second way that truth serves as a belt, is our personal commitment to truth—to living a life that is upright, transparent, and without deceit. Integrity and honesty are vital to your Christian life. People should know that they can depend on you to be a person of truth and principle.”

The author of the article seems to have confused the quality of truth, with the quality of righteousness. The first part of this paragraph deals with being committed to the truth. There should be a period after that comment for reasons that we will discuss shortly.

“The second way that truth serves as a belt, is our personal commitment to truth.”

The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with “truth” but deals more with what me might call righteousness, which, coincidently enough, is the next article of armor.

Breastplate of righteousness

“The breastplate covers the heart and shields it and the other vital organs. Christ’s righteousness… protects you against all of Satan’s accusations and charges. This righteousness is not made up of the good deeds you do. The Bible is clear that none of us are righteous in ourselves. The breastplate of righteousness is entirely the righteousness of Jesus which He gives us freely when we accept Him as our Savior. It is Christ’s righteousness—not our own righteousness—that covers and protects us.”

First off let’s be clear about what we mean by the word “righteous”. For some reason it has (unjustly) come to be associated with religion. However, for me being righteous means knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing, for the right reasons. Righteousness isn’t something that can be acquired magically or instantly. Righteousness requires being thoughtful, reflective and disciplined in our actions. Anyone can be righteous, not just the religious.

The last statement in the first paragraph is exactly what we’ve been talking about. “The Bible is clear that none of us are righteous in ourselves”. This particular lie implies three things.

  1. Humans are too depraved and defiled to do the right thing on their own.
  2. Once someone joins the Jesus club, they are given a set of values that is not theirs and therefore they abdicate their personal responsibility to develop their own moral sense of right and wrong.
  3. If righteousness comes only from Jesus, then non-believers have no way of ever being righteous.

Back to bibleinfo.com

“It is Christ’s righteousness—not our own righteousness—that covers and protects us.”

Christians love and embrace this idea. Jesus gets the credit for everything. If you have ever spent time in christian circles, finish this phrase “Without Jesus I can do __________.” If you filled in the blank with the word “nothing” then you have been (or currently are) a part of a christian community. The message is that humans have no abilities in themselves. Everything comes from Jesus and we can do nothing on our own. This is another untruth.

Imagine, if you will, an evangelical home shopping network. It might sound something like this.

“Are you feeling sinful, lost, and without hope? We have good news for you.  With one quick prayer you… yes you… can join the Jesus Club and have all your sins instantly washed away. And as an added bonus we’ll throw in a coat of righteousness at no extra cost. Angels are standing by to take your prayer… so pray now.”

I’m not buying it. You design, make and wear your own righteousness. No one can do that for you. We’ll they can, but it will always be disingenuous. If you have ever been a part of an evangelical congregation, you will know that there are plenty of people who will tell you what is required of you to be righteous.

Let’s go back to what the author said earlier about truth, which actually has nothing to do with truth but has a lot to do about being righteous.

“Living a life that is upright, transparent, and without deceit. Integrity and honesty are vital to your Christian life. People should know that they can depend on you to be a person of truth and principle.”

So, there you have it… the real truth. These are the qualities of a righteous person; being upright, transparent and without deceit, having integrity and honesty, and being a person of principle.

As I’ve said before, being righteous means knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing, for the right reasons as a matter of principle. Righteousness isn’t something that can be acquired magically or instantly. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, believer or non-believer, can be righteous and to say otherwise is simply not the truth and if it’s not the truth then your “loins” are unprotected, and that ain’t a good thing.

See Phil Zuckerman’s article “What it means to be moral” for more on this topic.

Coming next:

We will continue our examination of the remaining pieces of the full armor of God; which includes shoes, a shield, a helmet and a sword.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 29, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

22 Jan, 2024

Blog

A Theology of War

In the past several blogs we have been exploring the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Youmans who believes that the devil is busy at work changing the definition of words. As a secularist there is much in Youmans’ writings that I find objectionable, but none more than this; she is clearly at war and she sees herself as a warrior. So, let’s see just how warlike Youmans really is. She writes…

“Words have great power for creating or destroying. God’s Word is both an offensive and a defensive weapon.”

Drop the adjectives and you have the simple truth of Youmans’ world view: God’s word is a weapon, and she certainly uses it that way. She continues on her warpath.

“If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.” The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation waged in the classroom and in the media with words! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Christian leaders, teachers and parents must be alert and take action to be armed with effective weapons of warfare.”

As history has shown, in times of war there needs to be a clear distinction between US and THEM. There must be enemies and there must be allies. Youmans has allied herself with a rather small, tightly formed circle of (most likely white) evangelical nationalists. Thankfully, not all christians are motivated by Youmans’ theology of war.

Recently I discovered a book simply titled If God is Love by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. Both authors grew up in fundamental christianity, but have since reshaped their christianity to a kinder more loving version of what they learned in their youth. Mulholland’s story goes like this…

(In the church I grew up in) “…rather than teaching us about peace and reconciliation, we were recruited for the Lord’s army. Even the bible became a weapon, a sword to wield against our enemies. No one questioned hatred as an attribute of God. I grew up with a theology that defended both the violence of God and the intolerance of God’s people. Hatred, when directed at those we have judged as wicked, becomes a sign of religious devotion rather than a grievous sin. The enemy is not to be loved, but destroyed, not prayed for, but preyed upon.”

For many, religion is how we decide who to love and who to hate.

One would suppose that Youmans’ righteous angst would be aimed solely against secularists and non-believers, but that is not the case. From her own words it is clear that it’s not enough to just call yourself a christian, one must be the right kind of christian. She writes,

“There are many immature Christians on the planet! Many who say they are Christians, are not! Many are carnal Christians, operating in the flesh, not the spirit.”

Mulholland writes that in the church he grew up in “the saved were those Christians who shared his doctrinal creed. It wasn’t enough to claim you were a Christian. You had to be the “right” kind of Christian.”

For Youmans the line in the sand has been drawn, and some who call themselves christians are on the wrong side of that line. In spiritual warfare there can be no middle ground, nor neutrality. Battles must be fought and the enemy, (albeit an invisible one) must be defeated.

Choose your battles well

We’ve all heard that phrase.  So, what exactly is the battle Youmans has chosen? Is it to relieve the suffering of the poor? Or to battle against social injustice? Or is it to relieve human suffering at home or abroad? No, No, and No!

Unfortunately for Youmans all of the above actions are commanded in her bible.

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter– when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” Isaiah 58;6-7

“And the King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it (kindness) to one of these my brothers of mine, even to the least of them, you did it to me.” Matt. 25:40

“The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Proverbs 29:7

Youmans’ battle of choice.

So why is Youmans at war?

Youmans: “If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.”

 I sent Youmans an email and asked her if she was actually suggesting that we restore “God’s word” to public education and also what exactly does she mean by spiritual “weapons of warfare”. Was she referring to the armor of God as listed in Ephesians 6? She responded by telling me that she was praying for me but did not have time in 2024 to answer my questions.

However, in her writings Youmans mentions Dr. Benjamin Rush who as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, believed that the Bible should be the primary textbook in the schools of the new United States of America. Never mind that it was as unconstitutional then as it is now, Youmans holds up Benjamin Rush as a hero.

Any actions Youmans might take to restore “God’s word” to public education will obviously and rightfully be opposed in court by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and also by the likes of constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel. She might not have the constitution or the law on her side, but she will surely be armed with “effective spiritual weapons of warfare”.

In addition to being unconstitutional, it’s simply just wrong for Youmans and other evangelicals to impose their religious beliefs on others. For Youmans it’s undoubtedly a righteous battle, one that she must wage in order to prove her devotion and her loyalty to her god and her religion. Nevertheless, unlike God’s repeated command to provide relief to the oppressed, I could find no command in scripture to battle an invisible enemy who is dumbing down (the English) language. Perhaps we could revise Isaiah to meet Youmans’ devotion to her battle.

Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of bad vocabulary and untie the cords of secular dictionaries, to set the oppressed free from secular education and break every spirit of those who questions the stories in Genesis? Is it not to share your religious beliefs with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with a bible and an American flag — when you see the naked, to tell him to get a job, and not to turn away from your evangelical brothers and sisters? (because no one else really matters)” Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised

I ended my email to Youmans with this thought. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to everyone if she focused less on weapons of warfare as found Ephesians 6 and focused more on relieving human suffering as found in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25. I can pretty much guarantee that the Freedom of Religion Foundation would never challenge her actions if her agenda was simply to show compassion to “the least of these”. But this, as we’ve have seen, is not Youmans’ brand of christianity. She wants a fight, and it’s more noble (for her) to battle non-believers and force her religion on them than it is to feed the hungry.

I’ll end with this thought. Wouldn’t it be nice if more and more christians rejected Youmans’ theology of hate and warfare and replace it with a theology of love and compassion?

In the words of John Pavlovitz  “if God is love don’t be a jerk”!

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 22, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

14 Jan, 2024

Blog

Meaningful Communication?

“Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man.”

In my previous blog, we examined the writings of christian author Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. She believes that our English vocabulary is being robbed and pillaged by none other than the devil himself. She also advocates for restoring “God’s word” to our educational system, so we can once again call ourselves “people of the Word.”

In one of her articles there is a sentence that caught my attention. In her ranting about how the devil was hijacking our language, she wrote this… “Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man.”

I was intrigued by this because it has not been my experience with people who say that they are communicating with their god. Usually when someone claims to be in close communications with their god, it’s usually a bad thing for the rest of us. I wanted to find out if Youmans actually was able to experience meaningful communication with her fellow man (i.e. me).

Biblical definitions?

As a secularist, I don’t believe in supernatural explanations for naturalistic occurrences. So, what if my definition of “meaningful communications” is different from Dr. Youmans? She writes, “When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason with the revelation of God’s Word, freeing us from secularism”. With that in mind, I decided to see how the bible defines “meaningful communication”. So, I referenced the Strong’s Concordance and searched for “meaningful” and “communication” in the bible. No results for either! What a surprise! Our first glitch! So now what? (Do we blame Satan?)

My next, and really only, choice was to check a secular dictionary to see how these words are defined.

  • meaningful: adj. full of meaning (duh!), significance, purpose or value.
  • Communication: noun, a giving or exchanging of information, signals or messages as by talk, gestures or writing.

So much for being freed from secularism. Sorry Dr. Youmans.

Dr. Youmans’ writings are full of contradictions like this, (much like the bible). At first, I originally planned to critique all three of her online articles but soon realized that doing so would be quite a daunting undertaking, and besides, it would make for some very lengthy blogs. Almost every sentence of hers contains supernatural ideas that can neither be proven nor supported and therefore requires a secularistic rebuttal.

So instead of critiquing all of her writings, sentence by sentence, I decided to strikethrough everything that referred to the supernatural. Hopefully that would make the job easier and maybe after removing any supernatural references, we’ll be able to see if anything remains that might provide a semblance of “meaningful communication”.

Just the facts, Ma’am.

This is her original online article with supernatural references struck through.

“Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man. When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason with the revelation of God’s Word, freeing us from secularism. This enables us to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” and appropriate “the mind of Christ” in teaching and learning.” (96 words only 14 non-supernatural)

I sent Youmans an email and asked her what she meant in her brief article. (This was her reply with all supernatural references struck through.) 

Dear Dale,

“Thank you for your inquiry. There is a series about the power of words and their effect that I wrote that will answer your questions. If you read through all three of these articles (short) you will find answers to your questions. 1) Words make a difference, 2) Who controls language controls culture, 3) God’s word creates virtuous nations

The Christian’s enemy is and always has been since the dawn of time a spiritual enemy, Satan, who used words in the garden of Eden with Eve to persuade her to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From the Bible, Genesis, chapter 3: The Fall of Man…”

[She then goes on to quote the entire biblical story of Adam and Eve (700 words) all of which would have obviously been entirely struck through. I’ll save the space and not include it here.]

“If you have further questions (and your interest in understanding is legitimate) I will try and assist you. Respectfully, Dr. Youmans”

I wrote her back and thanked her for her response and shared my concern with her that some christians considered me an enemy because I am an apostate and a secularist. This was her reply to my enquiry.

Dear Dale,

 “I’m interested in what kind of project you are writing and how my responses will be used. I’m also interested in your worldview/perspective for this topic. Is that information you can share with me? I don’t have time to type out long answers without knowing who you are and understanding what you’re doing. There are so many “weirdos out there” today, as your google searches prove. (Did she just imply that I was a weirdo?) Truth for the true Christian is found in the Bible, God’s written Word. Any Bible-believing Christian understands there is a spiritual world, that spiritual warfare is a reality, and that Satan/the devil is our enemy. Whom or what he uses to assault Christ and God’s gospel purposes is another discussion. Our battle is not “against flesh and blood,” but from the writing of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 6:10-20): Non-believers are not the enemy! Every human being is created in the image of God. There are many immature Christians on the planet! Many who say they are Christians, are not! Many are carnal Christians, operating in the flesh, not the spirit. Ideas (which are expressed by words with specific definitions and intentions) inform the individual’s decisions and actions which can be harmful/sinful. The Christian is to love the sinner and hate the sin. He wages warfare in the spirit against demons, principalities, powers of darkness, spiritual forces of wickedness! Elizabeth”

 After striking through all references to supernatural elements, only 151 words out of 1,285 remained. It was certainly not enough “communication” to be called “meaningful”. As the Myth Busters might say. That myth has been busted.

Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin?

But that’s not to say that she didn’t try to make other points. Another sentence which caught my attention was the well-known refrain, “The Christian is to love the sinner and hate the sin”.  I’m sure we’ve all heard (or said) this at one time or another. As an ex-evangelical, I used this phrase while talking about my then “non-believing” friends and family members. And now, I’m sure my old church friends are probably saying this about me.

It also seems to be used a lot in reference to members of the LGBTQ community. It’s as if christians are saying, “We really like [insert any name you want], he is so kind and nice to everyone. We just wish he could stop sinning and stop being homosexual, then he would be more like us, hetero and free from sin. It’s too bad he can’t be a part of our community, but we will continue to love him and pray for him to repent, because we are called to do so by Jesus!”

[For the record, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I certainly don’t believe it’s something that needs to be fixed. By excluding those christians who name themselves as being gay, many church communities are denying themselves the company of some truly remarkable human beings.]

I’m not the only person who has been puzzled by the sanctimonious piety behind that phrase. Lately I discovered a christian writer named John Pavlovitz. In his book, If God is Love, Don’t Be a Jerk he says this about christians who used that phrase.

“If someone is uttering the phrase Love the sinner, hate the sin – they’re doing it while being abjectly horrible to another human being and trying to make themselves appear far less horrible in the process. Those six words are responsible for more loveless christianity than any other combination in recorded history – and not surprisingly they exist nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. In some ways, it’s a master stroke of sanctified mass delusion.”

“Moral superiority and believing your particular mess is somehow superior to someone else’s is a nice delusion if you can manage it:” John Pavlovitz

 Amen, John, Amen!

Coming next: 

Dr. Youmans is at war, and her writings contain all the traits of someone who is doing battle with an enemy, albeit an invisible one. As is always the case in war, Youmans’ battle with supernatural forces will ultimately result in real human casualties, and collateral damage.  Anyone who doesn’t believe as she does is fair game. In addition, another byproduct of war is that righteous hate will increase while “love your enemy” will be ignored.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 14, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

7 Jan, 2024

Blog

It’s the Work of the Devil

In my previous blog, we examined the writings of christian author Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. She believes that our English vocabulary is being “robbed and pillaged” by none other than the devil himself. She also thinks that education should be based solely on the bible. I contacted her to ask about what she had written, and to my great surprise she actually responded. Here is her reply…

Dear Dale,

“Thank you for your inquiry. There is a series about the power of words and their effect that I wrote that will answer your questions. If you read through all three of these articles (short) you will find answers to your questions.

  1. Words make a difference.
  2. Who controls language controls culture.
  3. God’s word creates virtuous nations.”

For the record, I read all three of these articles and rather than finding answers to my questions, I have even more questions. I will be addressing each one of these articles in future blogs. Can’t wait to address the one entitled “God’s Word Creates Virtuous Nations”. That should be really interesting.

Dr. Youmans did however answer my first question. Who exactly is the enemy? It’s the only one of my three questions that she chose to answer directly. Her articles didn’t actually address those questions either, and like before were so laced with christianese that it was difficult for me to decipher what she was actually saying. As a result, I have even more questions. But, for now, let’s look at her reply about who exactly is the enemy?

  • Dr. Youmans: “The Christian’s enemy is and always has been since the dawn of time a spiritual enemy, Satan, who used words in the garden of Eden with Eve to persuade her to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From the Bible, Genesis, chapter 3: The Fall of Man: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’…” 

She goes on to quote the entire passage from Genesis 3 to prove that the devil is, and always has been, the real enemy. On a side note, it continues to surprise me how someone with a doctorate degree can still believe the biblical myth of Adam and Eve and treat it as a historically accurate event as Dr. Youmans obviously does. She closes her email like this…

  • If you have further questions (and your interest in understanding is legitimate) I will try and assist you. Respectfully, Dr. Youmans Ed.D.

If my interest in understanding is legitimate? What this really means is, if I don’t ask too many questions that challenge her beliefs, she might continue the conversation. She doesn’t want to be challenged, no one does. Her articles are written to an audience of evangelical christians who accept her views without question. We’ll see just how willing she is to answer questions from a non-believer.

“When your God shrinks, your demons tend to multiply, which is a good way to spot people with an undersized deity.” John Pavlovitz

As a secularist, I don’t believe in the supernatural. I agree with Youmans that language is being dumbed down for a myriad of reasons, but unlike her, I don’t believe that it is the work of the devil. Perhaps the dumbing down of language is a result of the internet or even more so, the abbreviated language of texting. But it’s certainly not the work of the devil. Let’s get back to the topic of who is the enemy.

Satan is the enemy

Okay, Satan is the enemy and not me. Whew, that’s good! But, as most non-believers can corroborate, this has not been my personal experience with Evangelicals. It seems that most Evangelicals believe that as a non-believer I AM the enemy. It didn’t take a lot of searching on the internet to find an article, on a christian website, that explained just who could be considered an enemy of Christianity.

Who is an enemy of God?

  • Nothing more terrible can be said of a person than to suggest that he is an enemy of the Son of God.

Oh my! Even worse than being a serial killer, or a rapist, or a child molester or even worse, a human trafficker?

  • There are those who, with eyes wide open and jaw set, are confessed Christ-haters.

I know quite a few non-believers but I wouldn’t call any of them “confessed haters of Christ”. The opposite of love is not hatred. The opposite of love is indifference. With that in mind, I do know people whose “eyes are wide open” and thus are simply indifferent to the “anointed one” as found in the gospels. In the words of a very popular singer, “It isn’t love, it isn’t hate, it’s just indifference.”

  • Certain sensualists, who have made lust their god, have also declared their enmity for Christ.

Lust is their god? This is simply made up, right?

  • Modern advocates of homosexuality, live-in sexual relationships, “open” marriages, etc., have made no secret of their hatred for the Son of God and His lofty system of ethics.

This one made me both laugh and cry. Religious “lofty system of ethics”? OMG, isn’t that an oxymoron? Are they getting their “lofty ethics” from the same book that promotes genocide, misogyny, slavery, homophobia and all manner of intolerance all endorsed by a “loving god”? That one made me laugh.

On the sad side, saying that homosexuals (or anyone who affirms the inclusion of the LGBTQ community) hate the Son of God is simply not true and also a very harmful thing to claim. I have gay friends who devoutly love God and profess to a personal relationship with God, even though other (so called) followers of God hate them. (see my blog “A Conversation with Pastor Jenny”.)

Also, to say that anyone who has a sexual relationship outside a marriage makes no secret of their “hatred of the Son of God” is simply ridiculous. This guy needs to get out more and mingle with real people rather than judging from afar.

  • Those who have simply decided that they have no personal obligation to submit to His authority.

I must admit that I feel no personal obligation to submit to the authority of Jesus.

  • The Bible classifies as an enemy any person who refuses to yield to the Lordship of Christ.

Guilty again.

  • All are enemies of Christ who seek to emasculate the Bible of its supernatural elements. For example, some would relegate the Genesis account of man’s origin to the realm of mythology in an obvious attempt to accommodate the Mosaic record to the evolutionary scheme. Jesus charged that any such subversive procedure was in reality an attack upon Him.

So, if I don’t believe in the 6-day creation story, the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Noah flood story, or any of the numerous myths that can be found in the bible, I’m an enemy of Christ? Guilty, again.

  • Those who are apostates from the faith have become enemies of the Lord Jesus.

Guilty again. Personally, I don’t see how a god, who supposedly created the entire universe, could be threatened by people who are questioning what they are being told by religion. Many of the apostates I personally know left the church in search of the truth. And when they actually found the truth, they were shunned and no longer welcomed by the church. The only ones who are threatened by apostates are those christians who believe that they already have the truth.

  • Lukewarm Christians are pathetic souls who, though they have not severed formal fellowship ties with a local church, nonetheless are so spiritually apathetic as to be practical enemies of the Lord.

At least I’m not a lukewarm Christian.

  • The choice is ours. We can be a friend of Jesus Christ, or we can be the enemy.

Those who say they are friends with Jesus Christ are lying to themselves and to others. I know of no scripture that calls for followers of Jesus to be his friend. Doesn’t the article say that having a relationship with Jesus is to be his slave and to yield to his Lordship? Slaves usually aren’t friends with their masters. So, if I refuse to surrender myself to be a slave, I’m an enemy. I can live with that.

Friend of Jesus

I googled the expression “Friend of Jesus” and found an article on a christian website entitled What It Means to be a Friend of Jesus. Let’s see what they have to say a about this.

Jesus said in the gospel of John, “You are my friends if you do what I command you. That’s interesting. It certainly would be easier to have friends who don’t question anything you ask of them. The article continues by saying…

  • “In the entire Old Testament, only two men were ever referred to as a friend of God: Abraham and Moses. They enjoyed a close relationship with the Lord, and he revealed himself to them in unique and special ways. The children of Israel feared that kind of revelation.”

The children of Israel had good reason to fear that kind of revelation. When someone in the scriptures claimed to have a close relationship with God, people started dying. So, what did Abraham and Moses do that caused them to be called friends of God? Remember, you’re a friend of God if you do what he commands. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child to a god who demanded it of him. Some friend! Was it Abraham’s willingness to kill his son that made him a friend of God?

Moses committed mass genocide at the bidding of his god. Did that make him a friend of God?

If that’s what it takes to be friend of this god, then I respectfully decline.

Coming up next:

We will return to my correspondence with Dr. Youmans. I responded to her with my concerns that evangelicals consider me an enemy of God. Will her response finally answer some of my questions? Will my interest in understanding be legitimate enough for her? We’ll see.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 7, 2024

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

31 Dec, 2023

Blog

Meaningful Communication

Can an evangelical enjoy meaningful communication with an atheist?

Christian author Dr. Elizabeth Youmans thinks so… at least that what she writes. Dr. Youmans is an advocate for Christian Education, which she believes should be based entirely on the bible, but we’ll get to that in a later blog.

She writes…

“Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man.”

Although Dr. Youmans believes that evangelicals can have meaningful communication with non-christians, it’s not what I’ve found to be true. The reality is that the more someone is communicating with their god, the less likely they will be able to have meaningful communication with anyone who does not hold the same beliefs.

I discovered Dr. Youmans while doing some internet research for a project I was working on. I googled the phrase “whoever controls language, controls the culture” and was surprised to discover that there are many christian websites that address the topic. It seems that as a result of an increasing number of young people labeling themselves as “nones”, christians are rather nervous that they are losing their grip (strangle hold) on the culture.

Dr. Youmans in particular caught my attention because her article was so laced with christianese that it was difficult for me to decipher what she was actually saying. It was very much like that evangelical mission statement we examined last November. They both say things that only a christians would accept. Maybe they don’t understand what’s being said, but they certainly would never question it. To do so would be apostasy and that is not allowed in evangelical circles. Trust me, I know.

Dr. Youmans

This is a paragraph from her writings.

“Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man. When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason with the revelation of God’s Word, freeing us from secularism. This enables us to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” and appropriate “the mind of Christ” in teaching and learning.”

As a non-believer I found many issues with what she wrote. I had so many questions and decided that if I wanted to know what she meant, I should just ask her. So, I sent her the following email.

Dear Dr. Youmans,

I’m an independent filmmaker/blogger and am currently working on a project about the phrase, “Whoever controls language, controls culture.” When I googled that phrase, a website came up on which you were quoted. I am not a believer and don’t always understand Christian lingo, so I was wondering if you would be willing to help me better understand your quote.

Here are my questions:

  • Who exactly is the enemy, and why are they dangerous?
  • What is meant by a “biblical vocabulary” and how can it be robbed and pillaged?
  • What does it mean to define words biblically?

I understand that perhaps I’m one of the enemies you mentioned in your quote, but I’m also a fellow human being that is looking for meaningful communication. Any clarification you could send my way would certainly be appreciated.

Sincerely,

And I signed my name.

To my great surprise she actually responded to my email.

Coming next:

Next year we’ll dive deeper into the writings of Dr. Youmans and explore her reply to see if it qualifies as “meaningful communication” with a fellow human.

 

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dec. 31, 2023

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

 

<Previous Post / Next Post >

28 Dec, 2023

Blog

What the World Needs Now…

It’s not getting for Christmas.

This blog was originally going to be a continuation of my previous blog about the lack of love in evangelical mission statements, but I scrapped that idea, to look for a more festive topic. Perhaps we’ll return to that after the new year, but for this week let’s explore the spirit of Christmas. Perhaps something about being kinder, gentler and more loving toward each other. So, I chose to address the promise of…

HOPE

It wouldn’t be an understatement to say that the world we live in is broken. Perhaps it’s always be broken, but now, with the internet, we’re keenly aware and reminded on a daily basis of its global brokenness. Everybody, everywhere is dealing with they own version of brokenness but unlike two centuries ago what’s happening in the Middle East or in Ukraine or in Africa matters to the entire world. Even, in the United States (the land of plenty) we have our own brand of brokenness. We are a divided nation. That’s really nothing new for us. We’ve been divided before, but this division feels like it’s approaching the breaking point. Sometimes the endless, constant flow of humans hating and being cruel to each other leaves us (me) with a deep sense of hopelessness.

One would think that in a worldwide pandemic, when the whole world was reeling from an attack by a common enemy, (called COVID-19) we would be able to find it in ourselves to be kinder, gentler and more loving toward each other. But that’s not what happened, at least not here in the United States. Some people, following a leader who thrives on division, decided that it was a time to sow even more division, more hate and more ugliness.

What we witnessed during such a challenging time as the pandemic, was that it brought out the best of humanity in some and conversely the worst of humanity in others. So, where do we find hope and healing in a broken and divided world? Christmas? There has to be some hope in the magic of Christmas.

Can Hope be found in the Christmas message?

In my youth I loved Christmas. What child wouldn’t? There was excitement, and anticipation and let’s not forget… presents to open. It was a magical time. It’s the most wonderful time of the year, so full of promise and of hope. Every Christmas I would read the nativity story (as found in the Book of Luke) and still to this day can recite it from memory.

Christmas Past

Take a minute to read it. If you’re a secularist, go ahead and read it anyway. It won’t hurt you and I’m not trying to convert you.

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”. Luke 2 KJV

Did you know…?

Did you know that the first two chapters of Luke, including the nativity story, were not included in the oldest version we have of the book of Luke (dating back to the middle of the second century).  Luke’s story of the life of Jesus originally started with the teachings of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus (in what we now call chapter 3). The first time the nativity story became a part of the book of Luke was not until the third century.

As a secularist, I now understand that the entire nativity story in the book of Luke is completely fictional, we know that, but one has to admit that it’s a great piece of prose and I used to love the message so full of hope. “Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy” with the promise of “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” Then one day, after walking away from christianity, it finally hit me that the promise of Christmas “Peace on earth and good will toward men” has yet to be realized.

Peace on Earth and good will toward men?

I mean, when in its 2,000-year history, has christianity actually produced peace on earth and good will toward men? When we stop to consider how many people have died in the name of religion, the numbers are staggering.  It might be time to admit that after centuries of waiting and hoping, we are not going to get “peace on earth, good will toward men” from christianity or any other religion.

Christmas Present

We might want to think that those days of killing others simply because they believe something different, are in the past. But in fact, many current day evangelicals are still full of hope and are eagerly awaiting the day when Jesus will return. Another glorious day in the history of christianity because He is coming to destroy all of their enemies. Wonder how the angels might address that event.

“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Oops, scratch that part which shall be to all people… which shall be to all christians, oops wrong again, scratch that, which shall be to all christians… which shall be to all white evangelical christians. Yeah, that’s better. Jesus has come to destroy all your enemies including, gays, progressives, liberals, democrats, and Muslims. Then there will be peace on earth and good will toward whoever is left.”

I recently discovered a christian blogger who wrote this, “The kingdom of God (when it finally comes on earth) knows no injustice, no racism, no inequality, and no cruelty.” Christians believe that when God’s kingdom arrives on earth, (which will be soon) God will destroy all of their enemies (i.e. anyone who doesn’t believe what they do, or have the same color skin as them). So, of course a post-apocalyptic society won’t have any of these injustices. The cruelty of destroying millions of innocent lives will have already happened. And as a result what remains will be a homogenous society in which there will be no need for inequality; everyone will have the same beliefs and look the same. Also, I would imagine the world will be less crowded and real estate would be cheaper, because there will be lots of empty houses.

As convenient as it might be to wish for such a homogenous society, we need a better plan. Preferably one that doesn’t include slaughtering a majority of the human race.

Christmas yet to come.

Where can we find hope at Christmas?

For the past two weeks I have been struggling with what to say in this Christmas blog. I was planning to use the bible to admonish christians to stop obsessing with mankind’s “sinfulness and total depravity” and instead to encourage them to focus on being kinder, gentler and more loving. I sat at my computer for hours composing multiple drafts, and staring at the blinking curser on a yet another blank page, but nothing felt right. I realized that what I needed was some kind of inspiration.

It’s impossible to know where inspiration might come from, but mine showed up in the most unusual way.

Recently on a last-minute shopping adventure before the big day, I serendipitously discovered a children’s book entitled ABCs of Kindness. I picked it up, thumbed through it and discovered 26 ways to show kindness, and the best part is that it was written so a three-year-old could understand.

It contains no theology, no directive from God to love our enemies, no guilt trip to manipulate children and no religious indoctrination. What it does contain is 26 ways we can be kinder to one another.

I had found my inspiration… in a book written for children.

Without getting too preachy, here’s hoping we can make “good will toward men” last for more than one day. Perhaps a good place to start is by teaching our children to be kind and modeling that behavior ourselves. Civility matters.

In closing:

If you haven’t seen the French movie Joyeux Noel, I would highly recommend it. It’s a story based on real events of WWI combatants who decided to call a cease fire for Christmas Eve, came out of their trenches and shared a Christmas Mass together. It’s an inspiring story that shows what can happen when sworn enemies laid down their weapons and picked up their humanity.

Merry Christmas / Frohe Weihnachten / Joyeux Noel

*ABCs of Kindness by Patricia Hegarty and Summer Macon.

After thought:

I got to thinking more about Luke’s nativity story. Many christians see the birth of Jesus as arguably the most important event in the history of mankind because God became man and was now living amongst us. With that in mind, it seems very curious that the angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth would be given to just a handful of illiterate shepherds.  I can just imagine that the glorious choir of angels, (something really special to behold), would be a bit disappointed to perform to such a small, insignificant audience. Just a thought!

From Where I Stand

Dec. 28, 2023

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

10 Dec, 2023

Blog

What’s Love Got to Do With It?

How important is the concept of “Love” in Christianity?

I posed that question to SERI and was gifted with a myriad of christian websites explaining just how important Love is to the christian narrative.

What do you think those websites said about Love? What do you personally think? How important is it?

1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
(1 being not important and 10 being very important).

Go ahead, touch the screen where you think love’s importance should be in christianity. Here’s a small sampling of what can be found on the internet about the importance of Christian Love.

Christianity is a religion that preaches love as the most important thing.

  • God is love.
  • The love of God is greater than anything we can imagine.
  • Love is effectively the most important principle Jesus taught.
  • Love is the ultimate reason for everything of value. Love is the ultimate purpose.
  • We will never lose our need for love. Love will govern all our actions, all our relationships.
  • Love is the center of everything.
  • Love is the nutrient that empowers faith.

Where’s the Love?

If love is so important in christianity one would think that mission statements of christian churches would reflect this importance and “Love” would be a major theme running all throughout them.

But that’s not what I found.

I visited a number of church websites, found their “what we believe” statement, copied and pasted it into a Word document and searched for the word “Love”. The results were a bit shocking as you’ll see.

I started with some churches in Greenville, SC because at that time I was producing a video about a homophobic pastor from there. I then moved on to older articles of religion, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the foundation for the Presbyterian Church and the Articles of Religion for the Protestant Episcopal Church and then lastly looked at some local churches.  Here are the results.

Types of love we’ll see in Christian mission statements:

  1. God’s love for humanity (including Jesus’ love for humanity)
  2. Believers’ love for God
  3. Christians’ love for each other
  4. Christians’ love for the unsaved world
  5. Generic love as an indistinct trait or act of love.

Historical Articles of Religion

Westminster Confession of Faith – 1646

12,000-word document with 12 mentions of love. Here’s the break down.

  • Only one mention of God’s love for humanity.
  • Five mentions of believers’ love for God.
  • One mention of christian’s love for each other.
  • No mention of Christians’ love for the unsaved world.
  • Four mentions of Generic love as an indistinct trait or act of love.

Protestant Episcopal Church – 1801

As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801.

4,475 words with two mentions of love.

  • Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God. (2)
  • The Supper of the Lord is a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves. (3)

Contemporary Articles of Faith

Love mentioned four times.

The Vineyard in SC: 183 words

  • We want to be a community where people can embrace the love of Jesus (1).
  • We want to make and equip disciples who will endeavor to love God (2) and love people (4) 
  • We want to be a church that loves the city (4). 

Church of God of Prophecy: A whopping 7,000 words

  • …and the great love He has for His people. (1)
  • “But the fruit of the Spirit is love…” (5)
  • “For God so loved the world…” (1)
  • The Church… is to be guided by love. (5)

Ascension Lutheran Church: 266 words

  • Love of the Triune God: (5)
  • God loves (1) the people of the world, even though they are sinful, rebel against Him and do not deserve His love (1?). He sent Jesus, His Son, to love (1?) the unlovable and save the ungodly.

Love mentioned three times

The Church: 566 words

  • As a church we will strive to love others (3) with the kind of love that Christ displayed to us. (1)  One way that we will love others (3) is by developing close relationships with people in and also new to the church.

Summit Church: 800 words

Love is mentioned three times in the same sentence.  All appear outside of what they call their “list of core beliefs”. The reference to Love is contained in a paragraph of “less-essential matters” which are beliefs left to the conscience of their church leadership and their members.

  • The less-essentials are important because we embrace the whole Word of God; but we also recognize there may be different interpretations and applications. We respect varying points of view, provided the essentials are not compromised.
  • We speak the truth to define our faith and extend it to others, but we speak out of love for them (3),  and out of love for Jesus Christ (2),  who said, “by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (3).

Love mentioned twice

Calvary Church Englewood: 1,235 words

  • Both husbands and wives are responsible to God for spiritual nurture and vitality in the home, but God has given to the man primary responsibility to lead his wife and family in accordance with the servant-leadership and sacrificial love (5) characterized by Jesus Christ. This principle of male headship should not be confused with, nor give any hint of, domineering control. Rather, it is to be the loving (5), tender and nurturing care of a godly man who is himself under the kind and gentle authority of Jesus Christ.

Grace Christian Church in SC: 309 words

  • We believe that loving relationships (5) should permeate every area of church life. Our relationships… should be motivated by the unconditional agape love of God (1).

Elevation Church in SC: 485 words

  • Every human personality is… worthy of respect and Christian love. (4)
  • The Church works together in love (5) intent on the ultimate purpose of glorifying Christ.

“The Relentless Church” in SC: 304 words

  • A church of many nations expressing love toward God (2).
  • A church that loves ferociously (4), seeing the value of the human soul as paramount.

Restoration Community Church: 406 words

  • A church is a group of people who meet regularly to love God (2), love people (4) and make disciples.

Love mentioned once

South Fellowship: 1,780

  • “We believe the church is at its best when it serves, sacrifices, and loves… (5)”

Living Waters Tabernacle: 1,025 words

  • We believe that the Holy Spirit has endowed the Church with His gifts. These gifts are to be regulated by the Spirit, according to God’s Word. Divine love (5) should be the motivation factor in exercising these gifts.

Sanctuary Christian Fellowship: 644 words

  • He empowers us to do things we couldn’t do ourselves, like forgive people, love (5), believe, and serve.

Littleton Baptist Church: 943 words

  • Quoting John 3:16. (1)

Bear Valley Fellowship Nazarene: 1,077 words

  • Regeneration, or the new birth, is that gracious work of God whereby the moral nature of the repentant believer is spiritually quickened and given a distinctively spiritual life, capable of faith, love (5), and obedience.

Brave Church: 720 words

  • “The church’s members are to work together in love (3) and unity…

Zion Temple: 258 words

  • We believe in the love of God (1).

Southern Evangelical Seminary: 857 words

  • We believe in one God who is Creator of heaven and earth, who is infinite Spirit, light, love (5), and truth; eternal, almighty, and infallible in all things.

Grace Fellowship: 811 words

  • We believe in God the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love (5).

Church in the City: 600 words

  • We believe in God the Father, an infinite personal Spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love, (5).

Tabernacle Pentecostal: 653 words

  • We believe in God the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. (5) 

(Yes, these three churches have the exact same statement. Many parts of their mission statements are identical as well. When I googled the “we believe in God the Father” phrase over 100 churches used the exact same wording. Have to wonder if any of them actually put any original thought into their mission statements or whether they just copied and pasted from some other church’s statement of faith.)

No mention of Love

Life Church in SC: 478 words

Red Rocks Baptist Church: 482 words

Rocky Mountain Presbyterian Church: 316 words

Fellowship Bible Church in SC: 1,845 words

LifePoint Church in SC: 484 words

Angelical Church of North America: 524 words

Victory Church: 803 words

Cloverdale Church: (Love is in Our Name) 398 words

  • This one was the most disappointing. The sign outside their church says, “Cloverdale Church, Love is in our name”. This intrigued me, so I googled them. Unfortunately, what I found was that LOVE might be in their name, but it certainly wasn’t anywhere in their mission statement.

Summary 29 churches / 26,300 words / 40 mentions of love. (o.15%)

God’s love for humanity. (Ten mentions)

  • Only one church mentions an Agape kind of love.
  • Two are simply quoting John 3:16.
  • One church says three times that humans are unlovable, but God somehow does it anyway.

Believers’ love for God. (Four mentions)

Although Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love God, it doesn’t seem that important in these mission statements.

  • A church of many nations expressing love toward God…
  • We speak  out of love for Jesus Christ…
  • We want to make and equip disciples who will endeavor to love God…
  • A church in its most simple form is a group of people who meet regularly to love God.

Christians’ love for each other (Five mentions)

  • As a church we will strive to love others.
  • One way that we will love others is by developing close relationships with people in the church.
  • We  speak out of love for them…
  •  “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
  • The Lord’s Supper is a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves.

Christians’ love for the unsaved world (Five mentions)

  • We want to make and equip disciples who will love people.
  • We want to be a church that loves the city.
  • Every human personality is worthy of respect and Christian love.
  • A church that loves ferociously, seeing the value of the human soul as paramount.
  • A church is a group of people who meet regularly to… love people and make disciples.

Generic Love is an indistinct trait or act of love. (Ten mentions)

  • What is meant by generic love is when a congregation says that “God is perfect in love” but does not also say what the attributes of “perfect love” are. We have no idea of what that really means.
  • What exactly is “Divine love“  and how does it relate to exercising spiritual  gifts?
  • When a congregation says that the fruit of the Spirit is love, or that the church is to be guided by love, or that the Church works together in love and unity, there’s no explanation of what that would actually look like.
  • All of these are indistinct in their meaning, rendering them practically worthless in application.

So, how does your church measure up?

Do most parishioners really know and understand what’s actually in their church’s mission statement? Do you? How important is love in your church? I would challenge you to try this exercise with your church’s mission statement. You might be surprised. You can let me know your results by contacting me at mt.toll@comcast.net.

In the words of the Black-Eyed Peas

“Where’s the love, Y’all?”

Update Jan. 1, 2026, 57 churches / 67,000 words / 175 mentions of love. (o.26%)

Coming next:

What the world needs now it’s not getting for Christmas. Whatever happened to, “Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men”?

If christians aren’t talking about love, what is important to them?

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dec 10, 2023

Dale Crum

 

<Previous Post / Next Post >