“If there is life on other planets, I am sure that He must know,
and he’s been there, once already, and has died to save their souls.”
 - Larry Norman, UFO

I just read this article on the search for extra-terrestrials:  The search for aliens should start on Earth not outer space, says scientist.

it reminded me of a recent conversation I was having with some folks about theology and the existence of aliens.  One of the fastest growing religions in America is technopaganism.  Technopagans almost universally believe in the existence of alien life forms.  I believe that this is a theological position, based on faith, not science, and that it forms a part of their eschatology and provides them with hope.  I also find it curious that many Christians also hold to the alien fantasy.

I take the position that under our current understanding of the physical laws of science, aliens will never, ever, reach out to us and we will not be able to contact them.  We will not know if they exist, and we should give up on the dream of ever finding them.  It’s fantasy, pure and simple.  To think that the scientific community actually spends research dollars on the hunt for extra-terrestrials is, to me, an indication of just how deeply held this technopagan belief is in their hearts and minds.  This topic will become bigger and bigger with the newly commissioned Kepler satellite which is a part of our government’s search for planets that are similar to earth.  I am not at all opposed to this search as I see scientific exploration as an important part of being human.  But the alien angle is a but much.

Hugh Ross details his reasons for why aliens cannot travel here in this article.  Basically, the distances are too great for any plausible scenario in which a sentient life form can travel to us or us to them, the dangerous galactic hazards would prevent such a journey, and those doggone laws of physics get in the way of travel above the speed of light. 

“Well, the aliens will have technology we don’t yet possess to make this work,” is the rebuttal.  Oh, c’mon, give me something better than that!  Like what? Time travel?  Wormhole-to-wormhole travel?  String-to-string travel?  Very imaginative, and a good example of a “faith claim.” 

When I say, “under our current understanding of the physical laws of science…” I mean, “under our current understanding of the physical laws of science“  Is there “science” out there that we don’t know about?  Absolutely, but we must start with what we DO know to be true, not what we DON’T know.  Incredibly, these are often the same people that would argue against the spiritual world because it is not scientific enough for them (check out this clip with Dawkins for an example – the alien claim starts at around 3 mintues and 30 seconds or so).

With each new planet that is discovered (and I think there will be LOTS of them) we will hear the same refrain about the possibility of life on other planets.  Let me suggest that while we can speculate all we want about what life may be on these planets, it makes no difference to us past the value that speculation might bring.  Be on the watch for creeping technopaganism.  Popular portrayals of alien life, far more interesting and imaginative than our own, are why many people hope for ET.

Rather than embrace the life we are living, they yearn for an alien life that will bring meaning to their own.

Tweet This Post

How I am taking the Vikings loss.

Pretty well, truth be told.

It was the best season of being a Vikings fan I can remember, ever.  It was filled with intrigue, excitement, and disappointment.  Through it all, Brett Favre made it fun.  I hope he comes back for my sake.  I hope he doesn’t for his!

2010-2011 will be a new season and I will be a Vikings fan.

Now for a little analysis.  The Vikes lost because of four reasons.

First, they didn’t get to Drew Brees. This has to be in part because of the Edward’s injury. Next, he Saints pounded Brett Favre.  O-line, I think you let him down a bit. Third, The butter ball.  Why can’t the Vikes hang onto the ball in this important game after having a good turnover record in the regular season? Finally, Brett Favre’s late game interception – what was he thinking??

New Orleans fans, congratulations.  However, you got lucky.  That ball caught in OT was on the ground.  Further, the coin toss could have gone either way.  I hate the sudden death OT in the NFL.  They should do like college ball and give equal time to each side to be on offense. New Orleans didn’t win because they were better than the Vikings.  They won because they got lucky!  That’s not to take anything away from the Saints at all, but sometimes, games are more about luck than anything else.  Had the Vikes won, I would be saying the same thing.

That’s another reason why I am not grieving the Vikings loss too much.

Tweet This Post

This isn’t really a sports blog but it isn’t often that my team, the Minnesota Vikings, are this deep into the playoffs so… here goes.

This weekend the New Orleans Saints and the Minnesota Vikings will vie for the NFC championship. I believe that this game will be largely decided on the role that the Vikings defense will play. If they can get to Drew Brees, I think it will be highly unlikely that the Saints can win. For the Saints to get Bush running the ball they will have to open up the passing game. This can only happen if Brees has time to execute.

Some might say that the same is true for the Vikings quarterback, whose name I do need to write because you know who it is. Brees and Favre are often compared and have a similar style leading some to thing that the matchup on QB is fairly even and thus not a game-changer. Brees has a slightly higher rating that Favre. However, Brees will have more to contend with than Favre will.

The Saints (in fact, all of the later season teams that the Vikings have played) will be deathly afraid of Adrian Peterson. They know than any letup on the run means big gains. I have seen most teams focus like a laser on AP no matter what Brett does. Thus, the Vikings have the passing game available to them regardless if AP puts up huge yards or not. This creates an opportunity for Favre that Brees will not enjoy.

Do I think the Vikings will win, then? Hmm… I have been a Viking fan for a long time and therefore I watch every game knowing that the Vikes can lose to just about any team in the NFL. The home advantage that the Saints will have cannot be underestimated. The Vikings away record this year is not the greatest. However, they have done well playing indoors regardless of the home/away situation. Overall, though, if the Saints get ahead early and keep the crowd fired up I think they will walk away with it.

Yet, I am going to call this game for the Vikes (how can I not?). I put them the final score at 33-29 for the Minnesota Vikings.

GO VIKES!!

Tweet This Post

Last fall Ed Stetzer wrote about the fact that many missional churches are not that missionary oriented.  If you read that and think, “What are you talking about?” then you should click over to Ed’s article and see what he says.

I agree with much of Ed’s viewpoint on this, but I think the problem is much deeper than he states.  The movement we know now as the “missional” movement was born in part because of a reaction against modernism in the church.  It is made up of many who think that post-modern expressions of the church speak to today’s culture in a more significant way.  At the same time, the approach to missions that is predominant among agencies comes from a thoroughly modern worldview.  This is also true of larger churches which are the the major influencers of how we see and know the church today.

“Missional” movements are predominately found in Western cultures.  The emerging church movement, for example, is strong in the UK and various urban centers of Europe and North America.  Those that attend missional churches tend to be younger and urban, with a “global-chic-youth-culture” feel about them.  These church thrive where there is a postmodern culture present in the society at large.  They are seldom found in third world cities, rural areas, or parts of the world which embrace Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (I didn’t say “never” – I said “seldom”).

Meanwhile, the modern missionary movement has made those very populations (Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist) their primary areas of service.  The “unreached people group” movement (which really took off in the late 1970’s) was birthed at the height of modernity’s influence in the church.

I would argue that the cultures of the missional movement and the modern missionary movement are motivated by distinct worldviews.  These different beginning points make it difficult for each to “play” in others world.  Missional leaders see the Western society around them as needy.  Missionary leaders see this same Western society as resource rich.  Missional churches struggle to be relevant in their own local context.  Missionary agencies struggle to be relevant in a very cross-cultural context.

Can the two be merged?  I think so.  However, it will take a change in worldviews (on both sides) to make it a fruitful endeavor.

Tweet This Post

Coming to you live from the floor of Urbana…

Yes, it’s Urbana time.  There are about 16,000 people here – just over 10,000 of them students.  Intervarsity is doing a great job, running an excellent conference.

The theme this year is tilted toward what one would call “social gospel” issues.  I know that at least one mission agency declined to participate, publicly stating it was due to budgeting issues but privately noting that they didn’t like the focus.  They wanted to see more focus on evangelism and more traditional missions work.  From my perspective I see no conflict between the “social gospel” and a “proclamation approach.”

Urbana is not cheap for agencies.  The booth space, travel, hotels, meals, and registration costs all add up to some tens of thousands of dollars for a larger agency.  However, the potential for recruiting a number of new staff members is great and there is also value in that it helps your organization establish its identity.

Tweet This Post

I don’t go to many movies on the premier night, but I went to see Avatar last week with my sons and a few friends.  It was an eye-popping 170 minutes of film.  Would I recommend it?  Hmmm…..

There are plenty of reviews out on Avatar, and I think they mostly agree.  James Cameron spent his creative genius on how he created the film rather than the story he told.  The story is as disappointing as the eye candy is delightful.  The plot is the worn-out retelling of the colonial invader versus the noble savage.  It is paradoxical that what makes this movie possible (technology) becomes the film’s villain.

What most reviews don’t mention is the overtly religious statement this movie makes.  It embraces technopaganism.  Here are just a few examples:

• Science and mysticism are seamlessly interwoven
• Pagan rituals are combined with scientific means to bring about healing
• Naturalism leads to a worship of nature (rising to the level of “Mother Earth”)
• A spiritual “life force” ties all living things together and ultimately gives life
• The premise of the movie is that technology can transfer consciousness between living beings

It used to be that we liked our science fiction served up all nice and secular.  No more.  By combining tribal religions with technology we have created a new spirituality that is pagan to the core.

A basic belief of today’s scientific elite is that extraterrestrials are alive and well.  In a future post perhaps I can write about the complete fallacy that aliens will ever contact us.  For now let me simply state that little green men (oh, sorry, big blue men) are a cornerstone of a technopagan worldview.  Avatar makes us want to believe that we will someday explore Pandora – it looks cool!  We want there to be aliens!  We want to fly on giant dinosaurs.  We want there to be a life force that our pony-tails can tap into.  We want it!!

Are we so enamored with the incredible special effects that we fail to see the alluring worldview of Avatar?

Me thinks so.

Tweet This Post

After a long break from blogging I am coming back online.  Check back soon…

Tweet This Post

There are lots of good articles critical of the “Truth or Scare” video below. The best one is Patrick Johnstone’s article (from an upcoming book! I can’t wait to read it) on Strategic Network (click here for it).

I have written about this topic before as well (click here for it). Rather than read my notes, jump to the bottom of this post at some of the article I cite.

Regardless of all these author’s views, the truth does remain that Islam is growing on the European continent and will continue to do so for some time.

Another interesting demographic statistic I heard yesterday that really, really surprised me: 74% of the US population is…. minority?? NO! WHITE! One would never know that from following the mainstream media. I believe this figure includes the Hispanic/Latino population. You can check the sources on Wikipedia if you like.

Tweet This Post

??

Tweet This Post

I have been getting some feedback about past posts regarding my thoughts on mega-churches. So it’s time to come clean and let you know where I am on this topic. I am going to post about mega-churches over a number of weeks.

To get the ball rolling I am going to give you a few basic assumptions and thoughts that I have about mega-churches.

All forms of the church are okay by me
First, I do not think that there is any one form of the church that is “biblical” or somehow more accurate scripturally than another. I would define a local church very simply:

• The people see themselves as a church and they meet together in some regular way
• They have recognized leadership
• They observe the sacraments (Communion and Baptism – you may include others)
• They do their best to follow Christ together

That, my friends, is a very broad definition. It also fits pretty much everywhere in the world I have seen the church at work.

You might have many other things to add to your definition. Whatever. That’s fine, but I don’t think you can substantiate too many more things. For example, some suggest that a local church “Practices discipline.” Well, if that’s true, there are many church in the US that aren’t churches.

There is a lot of sloppy ecclesiology out there
One of the tragedies of the English language is the word “church.” It’s like the word love, which means everything from sacrificial love given toward a son or a daughter to the act of sex. The word “church” means both the local representations of the body (what we call “local churches”) and the church universal. Most of the time that there is chest thumping about what rightly “belongs” to the church, people are talking about the local church. For example, a pastor recently said to me, “Parachurches aren’t the church!” What he meant, of course, was that they aren’t the local church. Of course they are a part of the body of Christ (the church universal). The fact is… most New Testament references to the church are not focused on single local churches. They more often refer to the Kingdom of God or the church universal (which, in my view, have great overlap but that’s for another blog post).

This point is important to me because I think that many local churches assume the role of the universal church. An outcome of this is the idea that the church is at the center of all God is doing. Well… yeah, but not YOUR LOCAL CHURCH. You are just one small slice of the pie.

Forms have consequences
If we like to have huge mega-churches with $38 million dollar buildings we can. But that will effect the end result of how we do ministry, how the world sees us, who is attracted, who is repelled, etc. The mega-church form has big implications for what the gospel representation in a community might look like.

Forms shape meaning. They are important.

The mega-churches are God’s churches
I remember a time when I was a young missionary recruit, fresh on the field. I was being critical of the few churches in the place where I was living. My mentor (and boss) said to me, “You had better be careful about criticizing the church. It’s the church that God has placed here.” Wow. That set me back a bit; and it was true.

What is happening in American evangelicalism is that the largest churches and the smallest churches seem to be where there is growth and vitality. The number of large churches is growing. This is a movement and significant change in how we do church in the United States. We must accept and recognize this movement as from the Lord.

Leadership counts
How we do leadership matters more than just about anything else in ecclesiology. As a missionary in a foreign country one of my primary jobs was to understand the leadership dynamic in that culture so that I could plant a church that would be effective in that culture. Of course, one can choose to change culture as well. It might be best to abrogate the cultural norms if they don’t reflect the Kingdom of God.

In a future post, I will flesh out what concerns me about the leadership paradigm of the mega-church movement. Let me “seed” the topic by asking you to reflect on this question: “How many people would it take to lead a spiritual movement in the United States that transforms our country of over 300 million people?“

Bigger is not always better
Many of us will agree this statement. However, our culture tells us that successful churches are big churches. When pastors meet, the first question that gets asked is, “How big is your church?” I think it is very difficult for us to separate size and success when it comes to churches.

An assumption we have is that a pastor of a large and growing church is a successful pastor. It is hard to escape the vortex that says, “a big church means ministry success.” I disagree with this. Perhaps large size is an indicator of something wrong in the “eccliosystem.”

Missionary work is about getting people to change their worldview from a non-Christian view, to a Christian one
The word “missions” means just about anything in the church today. For this discussion, I am going to agree with Rodney Stark’s view that missionaries are about getting people to become Christians. Feeding the poor is great, but it’s not missionary work. Doing community development is great, but it’s not missionary work. Supporting the local pro-life center is super, but it’s not missionary work. I could go on.

I know that Francis of Assisi has said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” I say bunk to that view of mission. When a church categorizes something as the responsibility of the missions team that doesn’t mean that it becomes missionary work. Missionaries are supposed to convert people.

Whew – that was a lot. Please give me your thoughts by commenting if you would like!

Tweet This Post