Ted Haggard Is Right (About One Thing)

Ted Haggard is back in the news. He shouldn't be, but he is. He's been on ABC news, Oprah, Larry King, and the HBO documentary "The Trials of Ted Haggard." Why? I can't help but think he's out there on his own making these decisions, and accountable to no one who is credible.

He and his wife are saying their story is a story that needs to be shared and heard. Why? This looks, to me, like an act of self-promotion rather than God-promotion. Of course I can't know this. It just feels like it to me. Something in me doesn't like it, and it's not because I can't forgive Haggard. I can forgive him. I just don't trust him. For me, if he had mentors who I respected and they said "We feel it's a God-thing for Ted to be on TV sharing his story," then that would make me consider it.

This is what happens when trust is violated in a relationship. Forgiveness? Of course. Trust? "Trust" is not a decision. It takes a long time to rebuild trust. So when Haggard says "I'm doing better now" I don't, ipso facto, trust him. Trust is like an emotion - one can't will the thing. I don't have a clue whether or not he is truth-telling since he's just coming off living a two-faced double life while responsible, not only for a church of thousands, but an organization of millions. For this reason, rather than going on "Oprah," Ted should stay small.

But there is one thing Haggard is right about, whether he knows it or not, and whether he is lying or not. It's this: all of us are filled with duplicity. When Haggard confesses "I am a failure" he is "Everyman." C.S. Lewis warned us that every true Christian must keep his nostrils constantly attuned to the "inner cesspool." Swiss psychologist Paul Tournier wrote that, within every human heart, there is the repressed, rotting stuff of humanity. Within us we all have "seeds of destruction" (Thomas Merton). BEWARE OF ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH THIS.

My own belief, after 38 years as a follower of Jesus, is that there's not one person walking the planet who isn't hiding something. Put in Jesus-language, only He was "without sin." Not you. Not me. If we had a machine that could be hooked up to our hearts and minds and project all that's inside of us, good and bad, who would want all of America to see it? Remember 1 John 1:8-9 - "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Fuller Theological Seminary New Testament scholar Marianne Meye Thompson, in her commentary on 1 John, writes: "The recognition of what is impure and false in us ought to lead us to confess our sins... What many of us have left behind is a pervasive sense of sin." (46) If it were true that I was a perfectly transparent, spotless, sinless, together person (i.e., if I was now Jesus incarnate minus his love), then I'd be looking for some stones to throw at Haggard.

This exposes the problem of the church. Haggard's church, like most churches, was one where he was allowed to hide, because, as Thompson says, most American Christianity is a "Pick-and-Choose Christianity," with "sin" being low on the list. Consider instead what a real "church" is supposed to look like, as expressed in James 5:13-16:

"Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."

Over the years I've met Christians who can't admit they are sick because of a false teaching that people of faith don't get sick. I've met Christians who can pray for the illnesses of others but don't reveal their own inner and outer brokenness. I've rarely seen a church where people get up and confess their sins before they've been caught at them. Most "Christians" I've known hierarchize things and place the "pastor" at the top of the moral ladder. Some pastors actually want this image. Others feel the pressure. I know. I've read the journals of hundreds of them that have been sent to me. We love praying for the drug addict who comes off the streets while firing and shunning the pastor who's got a drug problem. Pastors know this. Make one moral blunder and there's a church member who shouts "crucify him."

But if a pastor has a drug problem should he remain a pastor? I think the answer is: it depends. If he or she is humble and broken and asking the flock for prayers and help, then the discernment-meter leans towards "Yes."

I've many times talked with people who attend Alcoholics Anonymous who say that organization is a lot more real than any church they've ever been in. There, people are expected to be real and openly confess their sins and love on each other and support one another. Sadly, this won't happen in most churches. If your's is transparent and real and forgiving and loving, then you are truly blessed. Forget how big or that church is - never leave it and invite others to it! SWhen it comes to real Jesus-stuff size doesn't matter.

Here's a thought, using Haggard's former church in Colorado Springs as an example. If the invitation were given to come forward and confess your sins on a Sunday morning, and the people got real about this, everyone would be up front with something to say, not about someone else like Ted Haggard, but about their own selves - their sin, their failure, their struggle.

In no way should Haggard ever be the pastor of that church again. That's my opinion. Because of what he did his ministry is seriously compromised. But to be asked to leave, not only the church but also the city, and not only the city but also the state? Why not the country? Beyond that, send Ted Haggard to the moon. What is that about? If that's the response of Haggard's church "family," it's but the fruit of his own duplicity and hiding. Which is, I'm guessing, the condition of most churches. We shoot our wounded instead of sharing our wounds. We all bleed to death quietly and privately while casting the openly bleeding out of our sight. It's all a facade of purity sans real cleansing.

I've heard it said that the real church is not a "country club for saints" but a "hospital for sinners." If this is true, does it mean for even the worst of sinners? Is it even... for one like me? I hope so. I believe so. That's what it was for me many years ago. And it still is. I'm a human who is a pastor. I'm not Jesus. How open can I be about this?

Redeemer Ministry School - 2009-2010

Come spend 10 months with us that will change your life!

At Redeemer we have a Ministry School that I’d like you to consider being a part of it. Here are some reasons why.

I will personally be giving you the best of my own training and ministry experiences. These include:
- Ph.D in Philosophical Theology, Northwestern University
- 11 years in Campus Ministry at Michigan State University
- I currently teach at two theological seminaries (Palmer Theological Seminary in Philadelphia; and Faith Bible Seminary [Chinese] in New York City. I've also taught at Payne Theological Seminary (African-American) in Dayton); Asia Theological College (Singapore), Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (Chicago), and elsewhere,
- I am Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Monroe County Community College
- I’ve taught at conferences and seminars in India, Singapore, Vancouver, and other places around the planet.

RMS will be unique in its academic component. Because of my academic training and experience I will shape RMS to have a high level of excellence, especially in the area of biblical studies, spiritual transformation, and apologetics. This will not be your basic Bible study class. We’re going to take you deep into the things of God.

This academic component will be complemented by a focus on experiencing God and demonstrating the power and life of the Kingdom of God in the real world.
In this sense I believe in the total gospel of the Real Jesus, to include the two ways Jesus brought in the kingdom, which are: 1) Proclamation of the good news; and 2) demonstration of the power of God.

I have assembled a great team of leaders and teachers that will give you a lot of things you could not get in other ministry environments.

You will be in our church’s culture for 10 months and be a part of the amazing things God is doing in our own ministry environment. Which is cool for me, since God has given us an amazing church family.

Here at Redeemer we are very excited about RMS. Why not pray about taking 10 months of your life and learning about God and Jesus in the most intensive way ever?

And, we’ll develop community along the way, plus have a lot of fun. If you’d like to talk with me personally, I’d love to hear from you!

Blessings,Pastor John Piippo, Ph.D

734-242-5277

johnpiippo.com

Rejecting a Spirit of Religion

(Mask in a store, La Jolla, California)

In Mark 11 we see Jesus riding on a donkey down the Mount of Olives. Crowds of people are shouting “Hosanna to the king!” The word “Hosanna” means, literally, “Save us!” Today we think of this word as a word of praise and celebration. At the time of Jesus it was more a desperate pray-cry for help. These people were living under the oppressive occupation of Rome. Imagine today living in America but under another nation’s rule? The people are hoping for Jesus to be the king that frees them from all of this.

After the donkey-procession Jesus slips, alone, into Jerusalem and the outer temple courts. Mark 11:12 says: Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. What did Jesus see when he looked around at everything in the temple? The answer is: a lot of religious activity. He saw Jews wearing prayer shawls and phylacteries and robes with tassels and who were bobbing up and down and genuflecting and reciting Torah and doing a lot of other religious activities Jesus had been in the temple before, where he said things like “I am the light of the world” and “If anyone is thirsty let him come to me and drink.” Here was the Son of God, the Messiah, in the temple as God had foretold, only to be ignored and rejected. In Mark 11:12 Jesus is there only to observe. What’s missing in the temple is the presence of God. It would never be there again. This background explains what happens next.

Jesus is on his way back to Jerusalem with his disciples. He’s walking from Bethany, up the Mount of Olives, then down the Mount of olives into the Kidron Valley, from where one gets an incredible view of Mount Zion and the temple. He sees a fig tree with leaves on it. This gives Jesus an expectation of fruit. Fig trees produce “pre-figs” that are edible. These pre-figs, which are really the “flowers” of the fig tree, come before leaves are formed. The sight of leaves on the tree announces that, at least, edible pre-figs are there. Jesus is hungry. As they near the tree they see there are no pre-figs. This means this particular fig-tree is sterile and, for all practical purposes, useless. It’s all leaves and no fruit. So Jesus says to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." (Mark 11:14)

Then Jesus goes and cleanses the temple, saying “My house shall be a house of prayer.” The temple is like a fig tree with all leaves and no fruit. It’s just a bunch of religious activity and religious rituals and gestures. Someone hungry for God’s presence would not find God there. Which is the point of the whole thing.

He and the disciples leave the temple, and walk past the sterile fig tree once again, noticing it now has withered from the roots. The disciples are amazed at the raw power of Jesus. Jesus then says, "Have faith in God. I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.” Note that Jesus does not say “If anyone says to “a” mountain.” This is about “this” mountain, which is Mount Zion. Upon which is the temple. Which has become a sterile, barren place. Therefore, it’s now worthless, because God’s not in the house. It might as well be cast into the sea. Jesus is telling his disciples that they can pray and cast out a spirit of religion. Ben Witherington writes, “One could not simply repudiate the temple without provoking the most fundamental crisis regarding God’s (Yahweh’s) presence in the world. Jesus directly challenges this identification, arguing that to abandon faith in the temple is not to abandon faith in God.”

To follow the Real Jesus is not about engaging in religious rituals and activity. It’s all about the presence of God. If you have been captivated by a spirit of religion, then you are like a fig tree that produces no figs. For Jesus, it’s all about the fruit and being fruit-bearing people. Put your faith in God, say to the spirit of religion “You are out of here,” and embrace Jesus and following after Him.

Q&A With Francis Collins & Richard Dawkins

I'm again teaching the teleological argument for God's existence in my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes.

I re-looked at the Time interview with Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins and again found it helpful and interesting. Here you have an atheist (Dawkins) who is, it almost seems at times, incapable of believing in God, and a theist (Collins) who converted from atheism to theism. Both are scientists (with Collins being an actual scientist and Dawkins more of a historian of science).

It's a good read, and helps clarify some issues and some of the differences.

In San Diego

Linda and I flew to San Diego Thursday night, where I spoke at a conference today and will speak again tomorrow.

We're staying in Chula Vista, which is 10 miles away from Tijuana. When we got here we had not eaten and stopped at a place called Tacos del Gordo. These tacos are the real thing! After eating one of them you'll never eat at Taco Bell again in your life.

On Friday we had a day together and began by going to San Diego Zoo. Wow - what an incredible, lush tropical paradise!

Then we went downtown San Diego and walked and browsed around.

Next we went about 5 miles north of San Diego to Torrey Pines Beach in Del Mar. We went to a crepes place and carried out some great food and took it to park on the highway facing the Pacific Ocean. We spent about 4 hours here and say a beautiful sunset. We had a long walk along this beautiful beach in 65-degree weather. Spectacular!

On Mondy I attend HSRM Executive Committe meetings all day... Linda will relax, sit in the sun, maybe do a little shopping, and reading. Plus, I hope to go to Tacos del Gordo at least one more time.

Home late Tuesday afternoon. Then recover from jet lag.

Is it Possible For A Timeless God To Choose To Create A Temporal Universe?

In one of my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes yesterday I was presenting William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence. Craig believes he has proven that our universe had a cause. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be sufficient to explain the effect of the universe. Craig believes whatever caused the temproal effect of the universe must itself be "an eternally existent agent." How can a temporal effect arise from an eternally existing agent? Or, as one of my students asked yesterday, how can a timeless being make a choice to create something like a universe?

Craig's answer is that there is nothing incoherent about, say, a person sitting from eternity who wills to then stand up. But doesn't such an act indicate a change in the eternally existing agent? Craig thinks not. He writes: "Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived." So Craig thinks that there is nothing logically incoherent in the idea of an eternally existing agent who chooses to create a temporal effect, such as our universe.

Someone asked Bill the following questions:

1) I don’t understand how “a man sitting from eternity could will to stand up”? Again, wouldn’t that imply that endured through a period of time before standing up? Similarly, if “a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have willed to bring the world into being at that moment” wouldn’t that imply that the Creator endured through a period of time before bringing the world into being?

2) I don’t understand how anyone could do anything if there was no time?

3) I am having trouble comprehending ‘By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes His mind but the He freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning’? Do you mean that by “choose” all that is meant is “intend”? That God always wanted to create a world with a beginning and never changed his mind about this? If so, why wasn’t the world created from an infinite time ago?

Bill's response was as follows.

Prior to creation there was no time. "So the question is asking, “What happened at a moment of time before the first moment of time?”, which makes no sense. It’s like asking, “What is the name of that bachelor’s wife?”"

Re. the "timeless man" who chooses to stand up Bill writes: "Free will doesn’t require any antecedent determining conditions. The very nature of free will is the absence of causal determinants. So a free choice has the appearance of a purely spontaneous event. [Emphasis mine] The man can simply freely will to stand up. Thus, you can get a temporal effect from a changeless cause, if that cause is a free agent. Now in God’s case, God exists changelessly without the universe. Creation is a freely willed act of God that, when it occurs, brings time into being along with the universe. Thus, to say that “a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have willed to bring the world into being at that moment” does not imply that there was time prior to that moment."

Bill writes: "What timelessness entails is that one doesn’t do anything different, that is, that one does not change. Timelessness implies an unchanging state of being. Now some activities don’t require change and time. For example, knowing something doesn’t require change or time. God can know all truths in that timeless state without any change."

Finally. Bill says: "By “choose” I mean that God has a free intention of His will. Its timelessness does not negate that this is, indeed, a choice. For one can conceive of possible worlds in which God has a quite different intention, namely, to refrain from creating a world at all. Initially, I thought that this was all that was needed to explain the origin of the world; but reflecting on agent causation leads me to think that in addition to that timeless intention there must also be an exercise of causal power on God’s part. That act is simultaneous with the moment of creation - indeed, it just is the act of creating - and brings God into time. If you ask, “But why didn’t God execute His intention sooner?”, you’ve fallen back into the Newtonian view of thinking of God as existing temporally prior to creation."

See Bill's complete response here. For more see Bill's extensive writings on the relation of God to time. See also Bill's Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time.

Either God Or A Multiverse

I just read an article by Tim Folger in Discover called "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: The Multiverse Theory." Here are some quotes and things I'm now thinking about this discussion.

• Here's the anthropic principle: "Everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist." in other words, it looks like the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Physicist Andre Linde says: "We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”


• This incredible situation might be a fluke. It might be a miracle. Call it a mystery. "Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life."


• Looks like, for many, the explanation of the fine-tuned universe is: Either God or a multiverse. "Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life."


• Is multiverse theory "science?" Some think not, "because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved."


• Perhaps multiverse theory is more indebted to finding an alternative to God than it is to science?


• "The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter, then a physicist at Cambridge University, spoke at a conference in Poland honoring Copernicus, the 16th-century astronomer who said that the sun, not Earth, was the hub of the universe."


• Linde gives a natural (non-supernatural) possibility for the fine-tuning: "If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, by pure odds at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things."


• Most physicists at the time Linde was talking about a multiverse disagreed. But then came the discovery of "dark energy." Dark energy appears calibrated for stars, galaxies, and us." "“If [dark energy] had been any bigger, there would have been enough repulsion from it to overwhelm the gravity that drew the galaxies together, drew the stars together, and drew Earth together,” Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind says. “It’s one of the greatest mysteries in physics. All we know is that if it were much bigger we wouldn’t be here to ask about it.”"
  "Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, agrees. “This is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident,” he says."


• As a result of the discovery of "dark energy" it has now become "impossible to ignore the multiverse theory." But this seems like begging the question. "Dark energy" provides evidence of outrageous, faith-defying fine-tuning. Therefore, there must be a multiverse? The wildly improbable fine-tuning just got more improbable with the discovery of dark energy. So, if someone already is certain God does not exist then, more than ever, there must be a multiverse. And for someone like myself who believes God exists, the discovery of dark energy further strengthens my already-existing beliefe in God.


• Back to the top of the article. Folger writes: "Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many."


• So, evidence of our universe being fine-tuned for human life mounts.


• To be continued...

Work On the War In Your Own Heart

(Gaza)

We're not becoming better, morally and spiritually. People still cheat, lie, steal, rape, are greedy, are self-centered, hate, hierarchize, and make war. In these matters nothing has changed over hundreds of years except, perhaps, that we now have greater means to do all these things. The media gives access to instant hate. Technology gives access to mass destruction. I've heard it said that the 20th century broke all records for mass human destruction in wars. The 21st century will surpass all centuries when it comes to all of the above.

We need civilization, wrote Freud, to protect us from our selves. But with civilization's technological advances the means to harm others increases daily. Is there a solution?

As a follower of Jesus I don't see any biblical justification for expecting things to get better. Human nature remains human nature. The same problems Adam and Eve had are in you and in me. Were I an atheist I'd understand things via the lens of naturalistic evolution. In naturalistic evolution there's no such thing as moral progress. Were I a theistic evolutionist I'd think the same way.

The best answer I have is this. I need an inner moral-and-spiritual revolution. I need to change. As long as I view you as the one who needs changing we'll have a battle on our hands. I'm continuing to pick up my Bible and listen to Jesus and ask God to let his words descend from my mind into my heart. It's not that I don't understand a lot of what Jesus says. It's that what he says is so outrageously revolutionary that I need God to bring the revolution into my heart.

What if I actually had a heart to love my enemies? Everything inside me would be changed. Some things outside me would be changed. Everything must change. Everything won't change. But, with God's help, you and I can be changed. Work on the war in your own heart.

The Disease Is Us

(Israeli soldier by the Wailing Wall)

Israel and Hamas are carriers of the disease. They are sick people. Violent people. "Never again," cry the Israelis as they slaughter women and children. "Destroy the infidels" cry the Palestinians as they launch missles into villages and terrorize and kill women and children.

Is the story of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish the saddest story of the latest war? Read here and watch the video to have your heart broken... again.

The sickness is in us. The problem is... us. It's the "seeds of destruction" Thomas Merton wrote about, the "violence within" Paul Tournier wrote about. It's Elie Wiesel's "Night" and Haing Ngor's "killing fields." It's Macbeth meets Herod the Great meets Saddam Hussein meets Jim Jones meets Constantine meets Pol Pot, all of whom meet at the Hotel Rwanda where they go after money, sex, and power. It's in you and in me. Anyway you look at it. On Christianity it's the kingdom of darkness, on atheism it's genetic, on Buddhism it's human desire.

It's the sin-disease Jesus addressed.

We'd all be dead if we didn't defend ourselves and kill our enemies. So we send our sons and daughters to fight and kill and be killed so we're not all killed and can peacefully read about life in the Gaza strip on our laptops.

We're "free."

I used my freedom this past year to read This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. It was a tough read. I kept projecting my sons into the bloodshed, empathizing from my side of the temporal gap between then and now. What's scary is that this book is normative, universal.

"Blessed are the peacemakers," said Jesus. Many are the peace-lovers who make war to wage peace.

Slumdog Millionaire

(Mumbai)

When I landed in Mumbai I remember stepping out of the airport in the middle of the night looking for the bus that would take me 3 miles to another part of the airport for my connecting flight to Hyderabad. I was traveling alone, and was met by beggars standing in the dark. I felt vulnerable and, I confess, afraid.

In Hyderabad when I exited the airport I was greeted by a boy who was, I think, about 12 years old. He held out his hand, asking for money. I remember his teeth. They were brown and rotting. A 12-year-old boy, losing his teeth. The image stays with me.

I spent 10 days on the Deccan Plateau in central India, with the city of Kurnool being home base. Kurnool has a half-million people and no sewage system. I saw people urinating and defecating on the streets. The whole place smelled like a giant cat-litter box.

I traveled throughout the region speaking and teaching about God and Jesus. I was in villages that had no electricity and, I was told, had never seen a white man in person before. I can believe that, since the people in these villages don't get to travel like I do. Some of them are as poor as a person can be.

In one village my Indian host told me "The government does not care about these people." It sure looked that way to me. The caste system, though formally discredited by the Indian government, is alive and well. I think "caste system" is in our genes. We all hierarchize and rank-order people in terms of honor and shame, worth and worthlessness, value and expendability. I spoke to this issue in the villages I visited. Galatians 3:28 was the verse I proclaimed: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This concept is so caste-breaking that I could see the people wondering if it could be true. Jesus descended to the bottom of the caste system and became an expendable. I told the people that they were loved by God and that, in Jesus, God has come to them. Everyone responded to this message of hope. But then that's part of India, too. It's hard to separate out the real thing from India's hyper-spirituality.

On my way out of India I spent one night in Mumbai, hosted by a Christian leader whose name I have now forgotten. When you fly into Mumbai you see a huge slum, a shantytown, directly adjacent to the airport runways. I was told by someone on the plane that this one slum held 10,000 people. 60% of Mumbai's twelve million people live in slums. I saw the poor everywhere as I rode through the streets of this city.

Last night Linda and I saw "Slumdog Millionaire." And I was transported back to India. It's an amazing story of a young boy who endures much loss and abandonment and suffering in the pursuit of love and loyalty and hope. In the end, the captives are set free and, unforgettably, dance. This movie is brilliant, beautiful, captivating.

As I stood up in the theatre to leave a woman behind me said "You can be certain that I am never going to visit that country." I know how she feels. Who would ever want to leave all that we have and pitch their tent among the poor? In all my life I've only heard of one person who has done that in such a way that the slumdogs get set free.