Drinking the Kool-Aid

Are you familiar with the term "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?  It means blindly believing and following something that is foolish and wrong.  We recently saw a documentary on the People's Temple cult.  It was a socialist cult led by Jim Jones in the 1970's that ended when 909 members, 304 of them

children, committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid poisoned with cyanide.  Now, it appears to be true that some of the parents forced their children to drink, and others may have been forced by men with guns obeying Jim Jones orders.  However, the majority it seems, drank the Kool-Aid of their own free will.  Were those people Martyrs?  No.  Not in the strict sense.  They were not put to death because others found their beliefs to be abhorrent.  They committed suicide, or were murdered.  Yes, it was a result of their beliefs, but they were not martyrs.

A martyr is someone who is murdered because someone else objects to them believing what they believe, and objects strong enough to kill them over it.  It is important to distinguish this from others who die because of their actions, such as the hijackers on 911.  They were not martyrs, they took their own lives while murdering others.

In John 21, Jesus speaking to Peter says "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.”  This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God."

And in 2 Timothy 4 Paul says "I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. ⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."

History records that Peter and Paul were both martyred for their faith in Christ.  So how did they die?  Not really sure.  In works such as The Acts of Peter [end of 2nd century]

and the Apostles [except for John] we find some stories about their death, but there is question over whether the accounts are historical or metaphorical, but really, the exact method of their deaths is not all that relevant.  Oh, I guess it may be inspiring if Peter refused to be crucified right side up and was instead crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy to die like his Savior [and it is fair to note that there are historical accounts of people being crucified upside down] but the particularly heinous nature of his death [read sometime of the heinous death of Sir William Wallace] really doesn't tell us a lot about the truth of what he believed.

Of interest in this post is that the truth of Christianity is often argued from the martyrdom of the Apostles.  The argument goes like this:  “The Apostles all died for their faith, so we can know from that it is true."  Is that a convincing argument to you?  It is often tempting to quote an argument we've heard that we don't really understand, and although occasionally you can win a point that way, it is most common that you cannot.  This argument for instance.  In response, skeptics reply, “Although not common, it is not unheard of for people to die for religious beliefs today, just as the 911 terrorists did. Just because someone is willing to die for a belief, doesn’t make that belief true.” 

What do you think about that?  Should we accept the deaths of the 911 attackers as evidence that

Islam is true?  No?  What about the followers of Jim Jones? No?  Why not?  They were really committed to their belief system weren't they?  Are you so committed to your beliefs that you would willingly sacrifice your life in such a dramatic fashion?  Maybe, maybe not, but I really believe that is the wrong question.  A better question is not "how committed were they", but "Does dying for a belief mean that belief is true?"  Nah, I don't buy it either.

 So why even talk about the martyrdom of the Apostles?  Is there anything we can learn from their deaths?  Yes!  Absolutely!  I submit to you that the horrific deaths of the Apostles as they were murdered for believing Jesus rose from the dead, is not proof that Jesus did rise, but it is proof that these men themselves did believe he rose.  They believed they saw and talked to the risen Son of God.

"Okay, so they really believed it, what does that matter?" you ask.  Their belief goes to integrity which DOES inform us about the veracity of their eyewitness testimony.  You see, if a man tells you he loves his wife more than anyone or anything in the world, and then, at some point she is kidnapped and he can save her life for $10,000, but he says "$10,000, are you kidding me?" and lets her die, that makes his declaration of love suspect.

Back to the Apostles.  They died proclaiming that they truly saw the risen Christ.  They wrote about what they saw, they followed what they taught, all their lives, it truly was a matter worth dying for to them.  This is unlike other witnesses.  The Three Witnesses to the book of Mormon for instance.  All 3 of them, at some later point repudiated Mormonism.  Not what you'd expect from men who are witnesses to the truth of the founding of a true religion is it?

You see, the proper benefit we gain from learning of the martyrdom of the Apostles is that these eyewitnesses didn't just talk the talk, they walked the walk, and if they had been imposters, lying about Jesus, it is unreasonable to believe that they would all be willing to live a life of suffering and finally Martyrdom all on account of that lie.

God could convince me...

Recently I saw a video where Frank Turek was answering questions on the Ohio State University campus.  Most of the questioners were believers, but there was this one guy, Javier who wasn't.  He jousted with Dr. Turek, and artfully evaded questions and arguments offered, however it was a good natured exchange.  One question he asked Dr. Turek though has stuck with me and I want to consider it with you today.

As I understood the exchange, and in my words, he argued that God, if he is God, would know exactly what type of evidence it would take to convince Javier that He [God] exists, so it is futile for him to seriously consider this 'unconvincing evidence' that was being presented, but instead it was incumbent on this 'God' to present sufficiently convincing evidence to convert him.

What do you think about that?  At least part of his point holds doesn't it?  I buy that since God is God, He knows and is capable of presenting evidence that would convince an honest skeptic right?  Oh, wait, did you catch that?  An honest skeptic.  Now I can't judge the heart of anyone, much less someone like Javier that I've just seen on a YouTube clip, however the question he artfully evaded was "If Christianity were true, would you be a Christian?"  Not exactly a hardball.  He argued [among other things] "Well, that depends on what you mean by truth...blah, blah, blah".  Anyone who is honest can be almost brain-dead and answer a "If this is true, would you accept it" question, but for some reason Javier couldn't bring himself to say "Yes, if Christianity is true, I will be a Christian".  Really?  If there really is a heaven and a hell, Jesus truly was resurrected, I will die and actually face Jehovah, standing before the Judgment seat of Christ and be eternally rewarded or condemned based on my response to this...and I can't bring myself to say, yes, if all that's true I'll follow Jesus?

That brings up my thought about Javier's question.  What kind of evidence would it take to convince Javier [or some other skeptic like him]?  He asked for direct evidence from God that he cannot reject.  But think about that request...there is a fundamental flaw in the request.  Unrejectable  evidence would remove the key human aspect of Christianity, faith. 

Consider the irony, he is using his free will to argue that, if there is a God, he should present evidence so undeniable that I will have no option than to accept it.  But if evidence is that strong, there is no point to free will, no need for faith, it is undeniable.  So his argument amounts to "If God wants me to believe in Him, he needs to remove my freedom to refuse to believe in Him."  Do you see the irony?

What I really think is that even if God presented undeniable evidence to someone who doesn't want to believe, they will still reject Him.  Doubt that?  Think about this.  Did Satan have undeniable evidence of God?  Oh yes.  Is there any doubt in Satan or his minions about God?  None.  But do they follow God?  No.  Why?  You'd think, if God is God He could give the devil sufficient evidence to convince them to follow Him, yes?  You see, the problem isn't with the evidence, the problem is with the heart of the one weighing the evidence.

A few years ago a young man approached me at church with questions [presumably from 'friends'] about the Christian faith.  Turns out he is a skeptic, just not 'sure' God exists.  Presenting it as though it is something noble, he tells me that he doesn't want to believe until/unless he's 100% sure that God is real and Jesus is His son.  Okay, that sounds noble, but it's really not.  What he is doing instead is believing that there [probably] isn't a God, even though he isn't 100% sure of that either.  He's just choosing to believe one less than sure option while rejecting another less that sure option because he "can't be sure".

Arguments like Javier's, on the surface have real appeal, but when you step back and think them through, they are just another smoke screen from someone who doesn't want to believe.

It was a God thing

It was a God thing, and I know it because I...

• Got tickets to a sold out play...
• Won $500 to pay my bills from a Radio Station...
• Found cancer at an early stage, by accident...
• Saw a photo that was so amazing, it just touched my heart...

In modern American Christendom, I hear things like this all the time.  Pulling into the mall and

getting a good parking spot brings out a chorus of "Oh, there is a great spot! Go God!!!"  My question in today's post is simple: are these really "God things?" Does God reach down here and sweep someone out of a parking spot near the door because He loves you so much?

Don't go running for cover right now, I'm not denying or downplaying God's amazing love [Romans 5:8-10] in any way, it is Amazing! And I do believe it's wonderful to thank Him for all blessings, so just hear me out on this.  On the one hand, I agree that there is a sense in which we can attribute all these things to God.  Scripture teaches us that He "gives us richly all things to enjoy" [1 Timothy 6:17] and "every good and perfect gift is from above" [James 1:17].  Yes, it is appropriate to praise God when you score a touchdown or to thank God that He created you with the ability to experience emotion.

However, that grand overarching "everything good comes from God" isn't the sense I'm concerned about in this post, and it's not what's meant when one gets a selfish desire fulfilled and yells "Go God!".  You see, the same scriptures that teach us to give thanks to God in all things, [1 Thessalonians 5:18] also tell us He makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust [Matthew 5:45].  Normal blessings of life are for everyone, not just those who believe in Him.  Since that's true, a radio station contest, or a game winning touchdown may be blessings given to Christians, or they may be given to those who don't serve God at all.

The other side of that coin deals with our attitude of praise.  Do you praise God when you're tackled on the 1 yard line causing you to lose the game and ending your season?  Do you thank God that he created you with emotion when you're so frustrated and angry your hands shake and you 'can't see straight'?  "Oh, well, I praise Him when I win, but sometimes forget to when I lose."  Interesting...

There is a sense, all too common among Christian folk, that God is specifically, minutely and personally orchestrating every experience I have to coddle me, clear obstacles and generally make me have a problem free life.  The mindset is often that "God loves me so much, he wants me to have a good parking place at the mall."  And that argument goes something like this: "Don't you love your kids enough to give them the good parking place?  Don't you think God loves His children as much as we love our children?"  Yes, I would, and yes I do, however, because I really love them a bunch, I would give them not just a good place, but the best place wouldn't you?
The problems with this should be obvious.  First, sometimes I go to the mall and have to park half a mile away.  What message about God's love does that give me?  Does God, for some reason not love me so much today?  "Oh no", you say, "He knows I need the exercise."  Great, so did you say "Go God!" when you got that far away space?  And what about the days when you get a close spot at the mall, but later have to walk the parking lot at Walmart?  Did you need exercise at 10am, but not at noon?  This may seem petty, or even a bit unappreciative to some of you, and please know that I

mean no disrespect to God at all in this, what I do mean is let's think carefully with the minds God gave us.  I am perfectly aware that if you want to believe He is orchestrating parking places and touchdowns like Bobby Fischer at a chess board then you can explain away every instance I could raise, but this isn't my only problem with this mindset.

Measuring God's love by things like sports or conveniences doesn't make good biblical sense.  Jesus Christ did not live a hassle-free, trouble free life, and we know God loved Him.  None of the apostles lived a 'charmed life', in fact, all of them but one were murdered for their faith. God Himself warns us that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" [2 Timothy 3:12]

Another problem is that very often when people say these things, as I dig a little deeper, I find out that the "sold out play"

that they got tickets to was filled with profanity and immorality.  Or the 'bills I'm gonna pay' with that $500 are my cable bill with the HBO/Showtime package, where my kids are going to learn about sex in graphic detail at 2am, and a ticket I got for speeding while texting in a school zone.  Do we really think God is in the business of blessing us by specifically, minutely, and personally removing obstacles to and funding our immorality and bad choices?

The final problem I want to mention, which plays directly to the issue of faith is this.  If God loves you so much He will open up the best parking space at the mall for you, what do you say, how do you process it, what coping mechanism do you break out when you get cancer? 

Does God not love you anymore?  You just told me He gives you touchdowns and good parking places because He loves you and those who love their kids give them good things.  Remember?  you'd give your kid the good parking space...?  So, would you give your kid cancer?  No.  Would you cure them if you could?  Of course you would.  I've seen it over and over, people who believe [without any biblical evidence] that God walks along moving pebbles from their path, when they are faced with a boulder feel abandoned by God, and that becomes justification for abandoning God.

I want you to consider this question because your life will get hard sometimes, and when it does, if you've lived in the fairy tale world of "health, wealth and prosperity" thinking it is so because you

have found favor in God's eyes, you will be overwhelmingly tempted to turn on Him for abandoning you,when that hasn't happened at all. He didn't abandon Esther in her time of trouble, or David, or Sarah, or Deborah, or Abraham, or Daniel, or Mary, or Paul, or Job...and he won't abandon you.  Quit judging your life by circumstantial blessings, and judge it by the relationship you genuinely have with God and Jesus Christ His son.