There will never be a Batman

Jeffrey Weiss explains that evil is easy and stopping it is hard:

Here is one lesson from Friday's Colorado theater massacre: superheroes are fantasy but supervillains are not.

Less flippantly: we live in a era where it is infinitely easier to commit transcendent evil than to perform remarkable good. This is only the latest in a series of episodes that demonstrate the malign power unique to our times. The 9/11 attack. The Columbine killings. The Fort Hood shootings. Choose-the-bombing with the terrible details of blameless dead and wounded from too many cities anywhere in the world. ....

In the 2008 movie, Ledger's Joker offers a series of explanations about what turned him in[to] the clown-faced villain. With zero indication that any of them were true. But at one point he offers an irrational but logical motive that feels like it's real:

"Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!" [emphasis added]

And here's another thing about chaos: in 2012, it's easy. Anybody who can get access to off-the-shelf modern tools of destruction and isn't too particular about who gets killed can engineer a comics-villain sized massacre any day of the week. ....

Far as I can tell, this is all stuff that anybody without a felony conviction could assemble in a busy afternoon. And takes no more skill to employ than a garden hose.

Doing good is a lot harder. It requires actual skill. Consequences matter. Seeds must be sown and carefully nurtured. Networks of technology and people need to be planned and pruned. And even with the best of intentions and planning, there are no guarantees.

Evil, on the other hand, can give absolute guarantees.

Giving a human the powers of a spider? Not happening. Gliding, bat-shaped capes that would allow someone to leap from a skyscraper to a safe landing? Physics says no. But bullets and explosives are a commonplace. ....

We are forced to live with the reality of joker upon joker upon joker. Why so serious? Because there's never going to be a Batman. .... [more]

Evil is real. Superheroes, in the world we live in, are not. But we can contend with evil.

RealClearReligion - A Day Without Superheroes

Order or chaos

John Podhoretz explains what it is that makes "super-hero movies" so popular and why this third Christopher Nolan Batman movie works so well:

.... What people adore about superhero movies is the signal quality of the Christopher Nolan films—their complete lack of irony when it comes to the portrayal of heroism and the need for heroes to confront evil. When they grab you, and the utterly riveting and entirely gripping The Dark Knight Rises grabs you as few movies do, it is because the filmmakers discard the knowing winks and go all-out, turning their stories into moral pageants dedicated to the elevation of self-sacrifice, selflessness, and heroism. ....

The Dark Knight Rises finally finds an epic story that fits the super-hero’s simple moral code—good people do right and bad people do wrong and good people must stop bad people. Because Batman has no special powers, the character is far better suited to fit this code than the supernaturally charged Superman or the genetically mutated Fantastic Four or X-Men....

This Manichean worldview goes very well with what one might call the quiet Tory perspective of Christopher Nolan. The theme running through the three Batman movies (the first, Batman Begins, was not very good, although Nolan and his co-screenwriter, brother Jonathan, mine it effectively for plot points in the new one) is the battle between order and chaos, with Nolan standing unambiguously on the side of order.

Nolan knows exactly what he’s doing when he puts the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the mouth of his villain. The Dark Knight Rises is a Classic Comics version of Edmund Burke. Which makes its incidental role in the latest monstrous spasm of nihilistic violence, as the movie that was playing during James Holmes’s evil massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all the more haunting. [more]

The Burkean connection seems to me a bit far-fetched, but Podhoretz gets what can make this kind of film work for me, and my tolerance for fantasy - especially comic book fantasy - is pretty limited.

Evil Undone | The Weekly Standard

Good and evil

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Christ-centered worship

Re-posted from September 21, 2009, and directly related to the post immediately below. Ultimately, the "worship wars" should be transcended by worship. Style should serve purpose. From 2009:

One way to transcend the "worship wars" might be to first ask what worship is supposed to be - and only then decide what ought to be done. Three of the questions from an interview with Bryan Chapell, author of Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice:

What is—and is not—Christ-centered worship?

Christ-centered worship is not just talking or singing about Jesus a lot. Christ-centered worship reflects the contours of the gospel. In the individual life of a believer, the gospel progresses through recognition of the greatness and goodness of God, the acknowledgment of our sin and need of grace, assurance of God's forgiveness through Christ, thankful acknowledgment of God's blessing, desire for greater knowledge of him through his Word, grateful obedience in response to his grace, and a life devoted to his purposes with assurance of his blessing.

In the corporate life of the church this same gospel pattern is reflected in worship. Opening moments offer recognition of the greatness and goodness of God that naturally folds into confession, assurance of pardon, thanksgiving, instruction, and a charge to serve God in response to his grace in Christ. This is not a novel idea but, in fact, is the way most churches have organized their worship across the centuries. Only in recent times have we lost sight of these gospel contours and substituted pragmatic preferences for Christ-centered worship. My goal is to re-acquaint the church with the gospel-shape of its worship so that we are united around Christ's purposes rather than arguing about stylistic preferences.

What is the greatest misunderstanding of worship in evangelical churches today?

Many evangelical churches—perhaps most—only think of worship as "the opening stuff" prior to the sermon, or the style of music that predominates. Worship will fulfill its greater purposes of honoring and proclaiming the gospel when church leaders and worshipers understand that just as the sacraments re-present the fundamental aspects of the gospel in symbol, and the sermon does so in words, so also the worship of the church re-presents the gospel in its pattern.

If pastors could make one change to their worship service next Sunday, what would you recommend?

Structure the aspects of worship to reflect your understanding of the gospel and tell people (briefly) how each component advances that understanding.

Thanks to Justin Taylor for the reference

Transcending the Worship Wars | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Looking for an experience

If I'm reading Brandon O'Brien correctly, the worship wars will never end:

Citing neuroscientist Daniel Levitin, author of This Is Your Brain on Music (Dutton Adult 2006), Beck explains, “Hearing familiar, favorite music stimulates the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter involved in pleasure and addiction, providing the same rush as eating chocolate or that winning does for a compulsive gambler.” ....

.... Beck goes on to say, “Dr. Levitin’s research also showed that musical tastes formed in the teen years become part of the brain’s internal wiring, as that is the time when some neural pathways are solidifying and others are being pruned away. That’s why the music adults tend to be nostalgic for is the music from their teenage years.”

Maybe that’s why even if you convince a Christian of a certain age that the theology of “In the Garden” isn’t much better than the theology of “When Jesus Comes Around,” it won’t matter. They’ll still prefer it, not because of what it says but because of how it makes them feel. ....

.... For the sake of dialogue, church members must acknowledge that their musical preferences are just that: preferences. God is not on the side of the organ, nor of the Stratocaster. Drop the pretense of righteous indignation and simply admit, “We like this music better.”

That said, the second point is that while we are talking about preferences here, we are not talking about mere preferences. If I understand the claims above, people have profound biological responses to the music they like. They want to hear certain melodies and instruments in worship instead of others, not because they are selfish or hardheaded but because certain melodies and instruments move them, they produce biological feelings we identify as “worshipful.” And most people won’t be able to explain why. ....

There are issues left unaddressed here, such as whether or not feeling worshipful should be a priority. I suspect that debate is a bit academic, as most churchgoers are looking for an experience. .... [more]

Out of Ur: Bieber Fever and the Worship Wars

Teachers

Sunday school teachers in the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, have been informed that they must take an oath that they believe and will teach what the Catholic Church teaches. Some news organizations have been reporting this requirement as if it were a violation of religious conscience, among them, apparently, The Washington Post. Rod Dreyer, who is no longer a Roman Catholic, is ticked off by this ignorance about what Catholicism is:

.... For Catholics, the Church has the right to teach authoritatively on faith and morals — an authority that is exercised through its leadership. This is what the Protestant Reformation was about! It is beyond embarrassing that this has to be explained to a reporter for The Washington Post. Then again, it has to be explained to liberal Catholics that they can’t pick and choose what to believe, and remain as Catholics in good standing. This is something I will never understand about modern Catholics. They want to have their church, but only on their own terms. Which is not Catholic. .... [more]

It is not only "not Catholic" but not consistent with any organization, religious or secular, that is organized around a set of beliefs. Shouldn't any church organization be able to require its teachers to affirm and teach what that church believes?

Catholic Loyalty Oath? | The American Conservative

"When I run I feel His pleasure"

Chariots of Fire has finally made it to Blu-ray, and so I watched it again. Although it won its Oscar as long ago as 1981 it holds up very well, and the DVD is gorgeous. Something I learned from the extras was that Ian Charleson, the actor who plays Eric Liddell in the film, died 22 years ago, only 40. He was remarkably good in the role — he seemed natural, genuine, and, from all accounts, a good portrayal of the actual man.

As the 2012 Olympics approach, the film has been re-released in London: "Chariots of Fire recapturing British imagination":

...[F]or many Christians, the movie’s enduring appeal comes at least partly because of its sincere and sympathetic depiction of a believer who sacrificed for his theological convictions, despite severe criticism.

Perhaps more importantly, Liddell provided a model for understanding how to be “in the world, but not of it.” He believed that his service to God included being a missionary and an athlete, and that he must be faithful in both roles. As his character famously said, “I believe God made me for a purpose. But He also made me fast, and when I run I feel His pleasure.”

WORLDmag.com | Chariots of Fire recapturing British imagination | Les Sillars

The decline of liberal Protestantism

Ross Douthat asks "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" in The New York Times. R.R. Reno, at First Things, argues that the diminishing influence of liberal Protestantism is a bad thing for America:

...[T]hese Christian churches have so thoroughly embraced the social mores of our secular elites that they’ve lost a great deal of their distinctive purpose. Why go to church when you can get what you need by reading the editorial pages of the New York Times?

The self-destruction of mainline Protestantism is an often told story. But Douthat makes an important observation.

If liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity—that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion—has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right.

I would go a step further. The decline of liberal Protestantism has played an important role in the political polarization of America. By and large, the secular Left has come to dominate the Democratic Party. One effect has been to drive religious voters toward the Republican Party, turning our political life into one of the primary places for working out a struggle to define the future of American culture. It’s because institutions like the Episcopal Church have become irrelevant that there are few moderating forces at work on the Left today.

The decline of mainline Protestantism has meant the decline of Christian influence over American elite culture. No Christian (or Jew or Muslim, for that matter) ought to celebrate the end of liberal Christianity. It hasn’t meant the end of liberalism, only the end of a religiously and morally serious liberalism. That’s been bad for America, and bad for religious Americans. ....

Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved? - NYTimes.com, The Christian Deficit » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

No remembrance of former things

Beginning his review of a worthy example of the historian's art, Jay Green expresses his pessimism about the success of the calling:

Historians devote themselves to a hopeless project. They are in the business of memory reclamation, dredging up long-forgotten events, places, and people buried deep within the muddy waters of the human past. The "dredging up" part has gone exceedingly well; all things considered, I would even call it a rousing success. The problem lies with the "memory reclamation" part. Although all of us go about with the noblest of intentions—"Never Forget!"—the human species shows almost no sign of being able to sustain an ongoing memory of its shared past. Memories are no sooner "reclaimed" than they slip from our trembling fingers, sinking back into the murky ooze of cultural oblivion.

.... I like to imagine that the ancient writer of Ecclesiastes was pleading with future historians to change their college majors (subtext: "It really wouldn't hurt to take an accounting class"), or was at least offering them a little straight talk, when he wrote, "There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow" (Ecc. 1:11). Like everything else "under the sun," he seemed to know that this project was doomed to failure.

But, as with so many lost causes, the task of historical study remains worthy of our support. ....

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11, ESV
Destiny of the Republic | Books and Culture

This world is not my home

Charles Chaput is the Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia. I first read him when he was in Denver and have since then always found that his arguments merited attention. This is from a summary of his recent homily about the relationship of the Christian to the state:

.... Archbishop Chaput began...by referring to Paul Claudel, a French poet and dramatist of the last century, and a devout believer. Surveying western secularization, Claudel observed that the Christian in the secularized West is “a man who knows what he is doing and where he is going” and therefore “alone has liberty in a world of slaves.” This transcendent perspective enables the Christian to resist the ideologies of modern states, which are based on materialism and science. These secular philosophies led nations and people who accepted them to the murder of millions of people, while Christians like Claudel continued to stand for truth. They had a duty to “render to Caesar,” but also to God, and Archbishop Chaput then asked how Jesus based his admonition to proper duties signaled by the images (of Caesar and God) which believers encounter. If taxes should be paid because money bears the image of the ruler, then human beings, who bear the image of God, should give their entire lives to him. [emphasis added] Love of country is honorable, but our real home is not on earth, and we should give Caesar nothing of ourselves. “Nothing permanent and important belongs to Caesar …we belong to God and only to God,” the Archbishop said. Real freedom is the freedom involved in loving God with our whole being, and this freedom which “knows no attachment other than Jesus Christ,” the freedom of the sons of God, isn’t something that the government can give or take away. Religious freedom is important because it is needed to facilitate this most basic freedom given by God.

Having shown religious freedom to be the most crucial freedom in the secular order, the archbishop then asked what the task of Christians should be in the contemporary world. Here he referred to the watchman (or sentinel) passage in Ezekiel (“I have appointed you as a sentinel. If I say to the wicked, ‘you will surely die’ – and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them . . . I will hold you responsible for their blood”). We live in a time that calls for a sentinel, and are responsible for this today, not only to defend religious liberty, but also for the dignity of the human person, defending it in both words and deeds, and thus “live as disciples of Jesus Christ.” .... [more]

“Render to God” a Total Claim on Christians « Juicy Ecumenism

The philosophy of Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien is best known as the author of the most popular genre novel of the 20th century. But was also a Christian whose arguments were an important factor in the conversion of C.S. Lewis. Peter Kreeft explains the connection between his faith and his fiction in a book I just ordered at the recommendation of Justin Taylor:

Peter Kreeft’s The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings (Ignatius, 2005) is an enjoyable and edifying book. He is an unabashed fan of The Lord of the Rings, which he considers one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century. In this book he works through 50 of the great questions using four tools:

• an explanation of the meaning and importance of the question;
• a key quotation from The Lord of the Rings showing how Tolkien answered the question (many more passages are given in the Concordance to The Lord of the Rings in the Appendix);
• a quotation from Tolkien’s other writings (usually a letter) that explains or comments on the theme in The Lord of the Rings;
• a quotation from C.S. Lewis, Tolkien’s closest friend, showing the same philosophy directly stated.

For me, the Lewis quotes alone were worth the price of the book. .... (more)

Taylor continues his post with an "outline of worldview issues addressed (at least in part) by The Lord of the Rings," i.e. the table of contents of the book, and "the outline for his philosophical concordance of The Lord of the Rings," also from Kreeft's book.

The Kindle edition of The Philosophy of Tolkien can be purchased here.

The Philosophy In and Behind “The Lord of the Rings” – Justin Taylor

A new Father Brown

It is announced that there will be a new television series based on G.K. Chesterton's "Father Brown" stories:

The BBC’s recently announced crime drama, Father Brown, will feature Harry Potter actor Mark Williams.

52 year-old Mark, who starred as Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter series of films, will feature in the television adaptation of the short stor[ies] by GK Chesterton.

The 10-part series is set to air next year on the BBC....

Alec Guinness starred as the priestly detective in a 1954 film which I have and enjoy. There was an earlier, 1970s, British series starring Kenneth More that I watched on Netfix streaming and that I thought was rather good, preserving the plots and sensibility of Chesterton's stories. Since BBC dramas of television series eventually become available here, I look forward to the new version with, I presume, much better production values.

The source materials, of course, are the short stories [available free or for very little for Kindle], and today Suzannah shares her enjoyment of one of the Father Brown collections, The Secret of Father Brown:

.... As the book begins, Father Brown—quiet, apparently idiotic, yet somehow so keenly in tune with human nature that he is able to solve dozens of baffling crimes when he's not carrying out his duties as a Roman priest—attempts to explain the secret of his success to an acquaintance. As he does so, his mind roams back to eight of the cases that he's solved. A revolutionary poet prosecuted by a respectable barrister for the murder of a well-known judge. The uncanny disappearance of a priceless curio, apparently through Eastern magic. A blackmail attempt quite unlike any other, and an attempted revenge with deadly consequences...

The story I found most interesting, however, was The Actor and the Alibi. A beautiful intellectual actress married to a director of pantomimes and vaudeville bears her trials uncomplainingly. The conclusion isn't too difficult to see coming (I'm trying not to give it away), but things aren't what they seem in this miniature study of the politics of the sexes.

This was an excellent read—like all of Chesterton's works—built around the truth that all men are evil, and that there is redemption.

Harry Potter Star Mark Williams To Star In BBC Drama ‘Father Brown’ - Celebrity Gossip, News & Photos, Movie Reviews, Competitions - Entertainmentwise, In Which I Read Vintage Novels: The Secret of Father Brown by GK Chesterton

In My Hour of Darkness

Via Gene Veith:

Jesus is Just Alright with Me

When Gram Parsons joined the Byrds [and David Crosby left] — Philip Jenkins argues in "When Evangelicals Were Cool" —  it helped open the popular culture to hear the gospel:

.... In August 1968, the Byrds released the album Sweetheart of the Rodeo, which pioneered a new style of country rock. It also initiated a revolutionary change in the country music world, which was at the time very conservative musically and politically, and where long hair was strictly taboo. ....

Quite unintentionally, the Byrds also revived and legitimized Christian themes in music for an audience wholly unaccustomed to them. If you want to revive America's roots music, it's hard to do so without incorporating hymns, gospel and Christian songs, and Sweetheart of the Rodeo featured such evocative classics as I am a Pilgrim and The Christian Life.

In 1969, they recorded the Art Reynolds Singers song Jesus is Just Alright with Me, which became an anthem for the emerging Jesus People. Plenty of other artists jumped on the bandwagon, recording or adapting Christian roots — and that is quite distinct from the contemporary emergence of avowedly Christian contemporary music. (Christian rock largely dates from Larry Norman's 1969 album Upon This Rock). The language of pilgrimage, redemption and sin entered rock music, as did Satan himself: in 1970, the Grateful Dead issued Friend of the Devil.

Suddenly, young people who knew nothing whatever about the American religious heritage were exposed to this music, in highly accessible rock/country fusion styles, played by hip musicians with long hair and beards. Along the way, they also heard key evangelical messages, which suddenly became cool and contemporary.

And that, I suggest, is a major reason why those Christian movements were suddenly able to find young audiences open and receptive to their messages. ....

RealClearReligion - When Evangelicals Were Cool

Retaining the offspring

Some interesting statistics indicating how well various religious [and non-religious] groups seem to be at retaining those raised within them:

I wonder whether Seventh Day Baptists track with Baptists generally?

Did you know that Atheists have the lowest retention rate of any “religious” group? Some interesting Data from CARA | Archdiocese of Washington

Favorite films of the 1940s and 50s

"What are Your Favorite Films from the 1940s and 50s?" asks Diane Ellis, one of the editors at ricochet, who has decided not to spend $12.50 a shot to go to see movies this summer. Well over half of the DVDs I own must be from that era so I was very interested to read the responses — as of noon today more than 75. Some of the recommendations stray into earlier or later time periods, but there are an enormous number of good, entertaining movies released between, say, 1939 and 1960 (straying slightly myself). Here are a just a few of the suggestions Ellis received early in the comments:

Maltese Falcon	The Third Man
How Green Was My Valley	Rear Window
The Caine Mutiny	Shane
Vertigo	The African Queen
North by Northwest	Gilda
To Have and Have Not	The Big Sleep
Woman of the Year	Foreign Correspondent
The Lady Eve	Key Largo
Harvey	Night of the Hunter
Shadow of a Doubt	Murder My Sweet

And many, many, more. This was the period Hitchcock directed most of his best. Every single film directed by Preston Sturges is worth watching for pure pleasure (my favorite is Sullivan's Travels). Bogart and Bacall,  Cary Grant, William Powell and Myrna Loy, Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, Barbara Stanwyck, James Stewart, and on and on. I envy those who have yet to see for the first time the many good and great comedies, mysteries, westerns, thrillers, etc., from the middle of the last century.

A place to stand

Stephen M. Barr, a physicist, explains why quantum mechanics makes it easier to believe in God. Even though it doesn't provide proof for the existence of God it does provide a good argument against materialism.

.... Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities — if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just “machines made of meat.”

Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism — at least with regard to the human mind — is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

How, one might ask, can quantum mechanics have anything to say about the human mind? Isn’t it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces? It is; but while minds cannot be measured, it is ultimately minds that do the measuring. And that, as we shall see, is a fact that cannot be ignored in trying to make sense of quantum mechanics. If one claims that it is possible (in principle) to give a complete physical description of what goes on during a measurement — including the mind of the person who is doing the measuring — one is led into severe difficulties. This was pointed out in the 1930s by the great mathematician John von Neumann. ....

If...we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind? (more)

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? | Big Questions Online

Sale on ESVs

The Westminster Bookstore is having a sale on English Standard Version Bibles, several editions including the ESV Study Bible, Student Study Bible, presentation bibles, and ESV pew bibles like the one at right that we chose to use for worship in our church.

Case Quantity ESV Bibles - SAVE 45%-67%.

It's coming

Babies and bathwater

Daniel Darling included an interview with Trevin Wax in his Real: Owning Your Christian Faith about some of the hazards that confront those of us who grew up in a church, i.e. "second generation Christians."  From the interview which can be found in full at Trevin Wax's blog:

Daniel Darling: What are the particular idolatrous temptations for those who grow up in the church?

Trevin Wax: I would say that the first temptation is the desire to live up to the standards set by the church community. For those in stricter churches that place a high value on obedience and morality and separation from the world, the Christian life often gets reduced down to a few things, such as how we look, whom we associate with, etc. ....

Daniel Darling: How would you counsel someone who has grown up in a context where methodology or preference has been placed on the same level as orthodox truth?

Trevin Wax: I’ve had numerous conversations with folks who grew up in those environments. You’re basically told that the Bible is true, Jesus is God, and women shouldn’t wear pants or something. The emphasis is on those three equally as if they were of the same nature.

Two things typically happen when someone leaves this environment. They see a vibrant spiritual walk with God by someone from another, less restrictive background and adjust their thinking and begin to separate what is true from what is merely preference.

Or they react in the opposite way. They think to themselves, I was lied to. Then they question everything: Is Jesus really God? Is the Bible really true? They basically feel as if they’ve been sold a bill of goods and have no capability to discern major Christian truth from a particular community’s standards.

The people able to separate the two usually come to appreciate the wider breadth of Christian expression within orthodoxy and they end up in a different church context. They are able to passionately serve the Lord and can move right along.

Those who have been offended by their background usually end up chucking their faith all together because they don’t trust anyone in religion at all, because their background doesn’t, to them, merit this trust. .... [more]

Growing Up in Church: An Interview with Trevin Wax – Trevin Wax