Online mission field

Online message boards and forums might be the next great mission field.

At first glance, the Gametrailers forums doesn’t seem like a place open to ministry. The members are mostly male, between the ages of 13 and about 24 and many play games for hours a day. But they kept bringing up religion. When I first joined Gametrailers about 4 years ago, forum members were posting threads on religion on a fairly regular basis. Most of the threads turned into arguments and were soon locked. Eventually, the forum moderators realized there’s a strong demand among members to talk about these topics and locking the threads was too much of a hassle. They created a section just for religion and philosophy. Since then, it has been very active with a wide variety of discussions.

Gametrailers is just one example of a site that has nothing to do with religion but still made a religion section because of the demand from its members.

Problems with this ministry: Each one of these communities is like their own country. They have their own history, culture, leaders and laws. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply. The sites are generally open to a variety of topics, but most will ban you if they feel you’re only there to convert people.

Just because a forum has a religion section, that doesn’t mean you can openly proselytize. Just like any mission field, you will need to take it slow, get to know the culture and people and tell them about the gospel when the time is right. Even if you take every possible precaution, you still might get banned.

One of the best things about this possible ministry is it’s flexible to any situation. If you attend a decent size church, especially one with a youth group, there are probably a few members who post on forums. Just find out who posts on forums and teach a few classes on apologetics and evangelism.

This is still just speculation. We don’t know enough about this to say how it may or may not work. But that doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t do anything it. Hundreds, probably thousands, of people online are asking questions about religion and Christians need to be online with them and ready to respond.

Dealing with Neopaganism

I knew neopaganism was a fast growing, non-traditional religious movement, but I didn’t realize how strange its philosophy is.

The Denver Post recently ran a story on the trend. A whole book could be written on neopaganism, the article even mentions one that has been written, but I’m just going to pick a few quotes and examine them.

Druids were the priests of the ancient Celts. The essence of [Jesse] Walter's modern druid faith, he said, is that ‘people's perception of reality is what makes reality.’ He said he religiously avoids negative thoughts.

A rock is a rock regardless of how we perceive it. The earth has always been round even though most people perceived it as flat for thousands of years. Those things, and millions of others, are based on facts existing outside our perceptions. Atheism, theism and polytheism all make claims about facts existing outside the perceptions of people. If the realities of geology, astronomy, biology and many other sciences exist outside our perceptions, why would the realities of supernatural beings, or lack thereof, be any different?

Reality exists without us perceiving it, and it isn’t changed by our perceptions. It doesn’t really matter if we don’t like part of reality. Our tastes, desires and opinions of what is fair or right have never changed anything about reality.

‘You'll get no agreement on how Wiccans see God — or Goddess,’ [Carridwen] Brennan said. ‘In Wicca, there is no 'you have to' and 'you can't.' There is no orthodoxy.’

If something is ‘orthodox,’ it conforms to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. The quote above about perception making reality is orthodoxy. A common neopagan ethic is “As long as it harms none, do what you will.” That is also orthodoxy. If you say you’re a Wiccan or Druid, two branches of neopaganism, then you are conforming to the beliefs, attitudes or modes of conduct associated with those groups.

‘It's important to have a spiritual path that's working for you,’ Brennan said. ‘We all need a connection to something greater than ourselves.’

Our of all the quotes, I think this is the strangest one, especially after comparing it with the previous quotes. First, our perception of reality is what makes reality. Then, we all need a connection to something greater than ourselves. Don’t those two concept contradict each other?

If you want to connect with something greater than yourself, you have to have an open mind. You need to open your mind to the possibility that reality may not be how you expected. You have to be willing to accept there are some realities you don’t like. You can’t make a connection with something bigger than yourself if you keep your mind closed to anything you disagree with or don’t like. If you constrain your beliefs to your own tastes and desires, you will never connect with anything bigger than yourself.

2012 and the apocalypse

On December 21, 2012, the world as we know it will end. The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar will complete its thirteenth b'ak'tun cycle since it started about 5,000 years ago, which was when this prediction was originally made. It’s unclear whether this event will destroy the world, or transition it into a new state.

This prediction comes from Mayan cultures, but many other cultures have embraced it. A Dutch-language newspaper recently spoke to thousands of people who believe the prediction. Many of those interviewed have started stocking up on emergency supplies like life rafts and other equipment.

If the prediction turns out to be true, it will be a huge event. But if it’s false, the date will be the start of a great missionary opportunity. Either way, the date will have a significant impact on millions of people’s worldview. Many people who grew up believing a religion that follows this prediction will suddenly start questioning that belief system.

When missionaries starts witnessing to people, one of the first things they do is get the person to examine their beliefs. What do I believe? Do my beliefs make sense when compared with each other and the world? What impact have I seen from my belief? Those are all questions we all need to ask at some point in our life. We have the time to ask them at our own pace, but everyone who believes that prediction will be abruptly confronted with them.

We also have to consider that if the date turns out to be nothing, atheists and naturalists will jump on it and use it as further proof religion and anything supernatural is false.

The date could also turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If large groups of people believe the world is about to end, we might see some rioting and looting. If those situations get bad enough, the followers of the religion might see it as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

No matter what happens, it’s going to be a very interesting holiday season.

Obama and the Bible in public life

I usually try to avoid writing about politics, religion and philosophy are a better fit for me, but this election season has repeatedly brought the two topics together. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson accused Barack Obama of ‘distorting’ the Bible.

Here’s the quote in question from Obama’s 2006 speech:

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.

So unless we somehow follow all the teachings of the Old Testament or say the Bible contradicts itself, we’re not reading our Bible?

Biblical principles can be applied to every area of life, but that doesn’t mean every single point of public policy should be dictated by the Bible. In Romans, Paul said we should submit to the government’s authority as long as it doesn’t contradict God’s teaching. God doesn’t give specific instructions on taxes, immigration or many other issues.

To be fair, the point of Obama’s speech was to contradict the secular argument that people shouldn’t bring religion into public life. Our religion or philosophy, whatever it may be, affects every area of our life. Even if it doesn’t give specific instructions, the questions of equality, authority and priority shapes every decision we make. So Obama’s point is a valid and important one.

But the point is weakened by the attitude that the Bible contradicts itself. If someone accepts the Bible as a source of wisdom and teaching that can help guide one’s life, yet also thinks it contradicts itself, which side of the contradiction are they following? They are following the teaching or principle that appeals to their own predetermined logic and morals. That means we’re dealing with people who think they are appealing to some higher authority, but in reality are only following themselves.


Religion and philosophy should be a bigger part of public life, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re following the Bible just because you quote a few verses. If you claim to follow Biblical teachings, then you should actually follow them, not your own version of what you think they mean. The Bible was written in a different language and a very different culture. You can’t follow the Bible unless you deal with those factors.

There are many articles that explain those ‘contradictions’ Obama brought up. I’ll try to briefly explain a few, but if you want more complete explanations, do a search for some articles.

The slavery the Bible refers to was vastly different than the more recent American slavery. It wasn’t based on race and it wasn’t a forced lifetime of servitude. Many people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. Their masters released them after a set amount of time. If the slave liked the master, he or she could choose work for the family longer.

The Old Testaments has many teachings on what not to eat and proper hygiene, like regularly washing hands. Considering they didn’t know anything about germs back then, those teachings probably kept many people healthy.

Making a difference

Corban College’s mission: “To educate Christians who will make a difference in the world for Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19-20).” I graduated from Corban in May with an English/Journalism degree and I’ve been thinking about that mission. No matter how much they want to, Corban’s faculty can’t fully educate people to make a difference.

The classes and faculty do a great job of instilling knowledge, wisdom and a biblical worldview to students, but that’s not enough. If someone wants to make a positive difference in the world for Jesus Christ, they will probably need more than knowledge wisdom and a worldview.

When missionaries go into a mission field, they usually don’t start preaching right away. They spend time, sometimes years, learning the language and culture before they start reaching out to the people there. A college education is essential, but it’s not enough to prepare a missionary. Missionaries need first-hand experience to make a difference. Other professions are the same way.

If I were to take a job in journalism and go into it focusing on biblical ideas, knowledge and wisdom, it would be hard to make a positive difference. I couldn’t start preaching the first day on the job. I will need to take time to learn the language and culture of the publication I work for before I try to make a difference.

Corban, and many other Christian colleges, is doing a great job, but students need to realize making a real difference takes more than writing papers and taking tests. Our education needs to continue after graduation. We need to have enough humility and patience to learn from people before we try to reach them.

Reflections on Mormon 'Christian' discussion

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post dealing with the question ‘Can Evangelicals and Mormons religions both be Christian when they disagree on how to follow Christ.’ Soon after I posted it, I started a thread on a Mormon Apologetic forum. The thread has grown over 200 posts since then and I’ve learned a few things about why this is such a touchy subject. These are trends in the Mormon church, but I’ve also noticed some in other religions.

1. One of the fundamental reasons why there is confusion in this area is most Mormons define ‘Christian’ differently than these other groups saying Mormons aren’t Christian. What I didn’t expect though was the fact that this difference isn’t based on the difference in doctrine between the groups. A user by the name of ‘flameburns623’ explained this difference:

There is a narrow and a broad interpretation or definition of the term 'Christian', The broad term, while a bit fuzzy around the edges, is simply one who accepts Jesus Christ as the principal figure of their religious faith and who therefore orders their life and worship around Him and His teachings in some way, to the best of their human ability by the grace of God and the help of the Holy Ghost.

The narrow definition of a Christian is: one who believes rightly about Jesus Christ as He Himself intends for them to believe, and who therefore orders their life and worship around Him and His teachings in the way He intended them to do, to the best of their human ability by the grace of God and the help of the Holy Ghost.

Speaking broadly therefore: Quakers, Unitarians, Unificationists, Christian Scientists, Latter-Day Saints, Seventh-day-Adventists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Anglicans, fundamentalists, followers of the Unity School of Christianity, and all manner of the various and sundry denominations each and all collectively are Christians.

Speaking narrowly however--some, many or most of the above, named or unnamed, cannot meet the definition of 'Christian'. If Catholicism most-perfectly conforms to the narrow definition of Christianity, then--speaking narrowly--Mormons are not Christians. If Mormonism most-perfectly meets that definition, then Presbyterians and Baptists--speaking narrowly--are not Christians.

So if you’re interested in talking with members of other religions about who may or may not be Christian, make sure you clarify what you each mean by the term ‘Christian.’

2. To be clear, I’m not saying someone has to be a member of a specific church or group to be a Christian. You just have to be following Christ’s teachings as He taught them. As I read more responses and thought about this more, I realized one reason why Mormons might have a problem with that idea.

I visited BYU a few months ago with some friends and we sat in on some classes. One class I visited was called ‘Teachings of the Prophets,’ and the lecture that day was on what happens when we don’t follow the prophets. According to the professor, “questioning and looking for flaws in prophets is sinning” and “doubting is a sign of spiritual sickness.” Another class I visited said we have to follow the prophets if we want to be right with God.

The Mormon church teaches taking the sacrament, going on a mission and performing temple ceremonies are all required to be right with God, and being a member of the church is the only way to do those things.

So Baptists can use the narrow definition of ‘Christian’ without implying people need to join their church to be Christian. But Mormons can’t make the same do the same thing. If they used a narrow definition of ‘Christian,’ they would also have to say people must join their church to be Christian. Of course, this doesn’t prove anybody right or wrong, it’s just an observation.

3. A few members on the forum insisted someone doesn’t have to believe specific doctrines to be a Christian. A member by the name of Flyonthewall said, “belief is general, doctrines are specific.” As long as you say Jesus is the Son of God, the redeemer of the world and our personal savior, then you are a Christian. It doesn’t matter how you define those beliefs or what doctrines you attach to them, as long as you believe them, you’re a Christian. Even if you believe ‘redeemer’ means Christ is perfecting the world so we will be prepared for when the aliens come to earth to make a super-race of human-alien hybrids, you will still be a Christian.

Frankly, I think that view makes no sense. I looked up various definitions of ‘doctrine’ and a common theme was that a doctrine is a belief that is taught and believed by a group. The Bible doesn’t give clear definitions for either ‘doctrine’ or ‘belief,’ but that doesn’t mean we should make up our own definitions for them.

Belief itself is general. It can be applied to many different things. I could say, ‘I believe the Cardinals will win the next Super Bowl’ or ‘I believe my grandfather was a good person.’ But Christ didn’t ask for a general belief. He didn’t say, ‘Just believe.’ He said, ‘Believe in Me.’ That is a specific belief focusing on specific doctrines like ‘He is the Son of God’ and ‘He came to save us.’

Simply put, a Christian is someone who is following Christ and His teachings. We can’t be a Christian if we recite a few beliefs and fail to follow His other teachings.

Brainwashing children

Yesterday, I wrote a post about British religious education policies coming under criticism. I consider myself conservative on religion and philosophy, but I agreed with the secular groups that the education policies should be changed, although my reasons were different than theirs.

Some people I’ve talked to have gone to the other extreme and say no one should tell kids about religion. At least one person suggested there should be a law to prevent parents from “brainwashing” their kids with religion. Kids should be raised without being indoctrinated, and once they reach age 18, they can choose for themselves what they believe. There are a few problems I see with that idea.

First of all, the philosophy seems to assume it’s possible to raise kids as blank slates untouched by religion or philosophy. It’s not possible. There’s no such thing as a neutral philosophy. Everyone lives with some kind of bias, and kids learn by example, so they will learn those same biases.

I’m not just talking about religious biases. These are underlying philosophies, principles and values that influence every decision you make. Why do you get up in the morning? Why do your kids go to school? What do you do with spare money you have? If you child steals candy from the grocery store, what do you do? These situations, as well as thousands of others, are what shapes a child’s worldview.

Secondly, even if it was possible to raise children without any philosophical biases, this modern culture would still make it impossible. If you want your children to stand a chance at being competitive in this world, they will need to understand at least a few basics about culture and current events.

Why did people hijack planes and crash them into the twin towers? Why is peace in the Middle East so hard to achieve? Why did so many people make religion a factor in their presidential vote? Basic religious knowledge is essential in at least starting to understand these questions. Issues relating to religion come up on an almost daily basis. If your children have a half-way decent knowledge of current events, they know about religion.

Plus, it’s not just current events. Pop culture, movies, tv, music and the internet all talk about religion. Anyway you look at it, there’s no way to isolate your children from religion.

British schools require religious participation

Church attendance has been dramatically dropping in Britain during the last decade. Most children spend more time in religious observance than their parents because public schools require them to take religious education classes and “participate in acts of collective worship.”

Cnsnews.com recently ran a story about critics who say those religious education policies violate human rights.

I’m not so sure about the ‘violation of human rights part,’ but I do strongly agree the policy should be changed. No one, regardless of age, should be forced to participate in any religious activity. Christianity is the official state religion in the United Kingdom, yet forcing people to participate is antithetical to that religion. Christianity is based on faith, and you can’t force people to have faith. Someone has to choose to believe, not be forced into it.

The way I see it, three different types of people will come out of a system like this. First, some may come out as genuine believers who are strong in their faith and aware of other faiths out there. But this isn’t left up to chance. If someone graduates from High School (or the British equivalent) with a strong faith, it’s not because they were forced to participate in school sponsored religion. Parents are what make the difference. It’s parents who raise genuine believers, not schools. For children who have no religious support from their parents, forcing them participate in religion will probably do more harm then good.

Secondly, this policy probably creates naïve believers. When someone grows up in an environment where Christianity is forced upon them as the right religion, it can be hard to see other points of view. Even when other views are wrong, they still have good points and their supporters feel very passionately about the cause. The view may be wrong, but not taking it seriously can make the situation worse.

Finally, and I think this is the most common result, this policy creates people who dislike, or even hate, Christianity. They might even hate religion in general. If we force kids to participate, many will see religion as a list of rules that have no real connection with modern life. They will see worship and pray as empty rituals that have no real meaning.

People from the third group can be extremely hard to witness to. They’ve grown up in a religious environment, so they think they know what Christianity is. If they see any sign you follow the Bible or God, they shut you out. If a child shows signs of not wanting to participate, it’s probably better to not force them and wait till their older and more receptive.

To be clear, I’m not saying children shouldn’t have religious education. I will get to that tomorrow.

Can Christianity be offensive?

Like I said in my last post, many Mormons I’ve talked to have said they don’t want to say other faiths aren’t Christian. I will respond to three reasons I’ve heard.

“We don’t say other faiths aren’t Christian because we’re not prophets. We’re not God. We don’t have the authority to say other religions don’t follow God.”

It doesn’t matter. The LDS church believes its doctrine is God’s doctrine, right? The members believe they’re following the correct interpretation of the Bible, right? If the church is right, then religions that contradict their doctrines are contradicting God’s doctrines.

“We don’t want to offend people by saying they aren’t Christian.”

In Matthew 15, Jesus rebuked some Pharisees. The disciples asked Him about it.

“12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"

13 But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.”

Jesus didn’t have a problem with pointing out where people were wrong, even if telling them was offensive.

In Galatians 1, Paul rebuked false teachers.

“8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

Paul said people who taught other religions should be cursed. He even repeated himself to emphasize the point. Why are people today so reluctant to say other religions are wrong? Verse 10 is also important to this discussion.

“10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.”

When you refrain from telling someone they’re not following Christ, are you seeking the favor or men, or of God?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying people should be offensive with their faith. I know many people have gone way over the line in expressing their beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing to justify that sign. But just because some people have been that offensive, it doesn’t mean religious people should shy away from any kind of offense. The purpose of any ministry should never be offending others. The gospel and God’s truth should always be the focus.