I believe God has a dream for people today.

[deep]

It’s just not the same as the American Dream.

My take: Why my church rebelled against the American Dream

Editor’s Note: David Platt, Ph.D., is the author of the New York Times bestseller Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream and is senior pastor of the 4,000-member Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Alabama.

By David Platt, Special to CNN

We American Christians have a way of taking the Jesus of the Bible and twisting him into a version of Jesus that we are more comfortable with.

A nice middle-class American Jesus. A Jesus who doesn’t mind materialism and would never call us to give away everything we have. A Jesus who is fine with nominal devotion that does not infringe on our comforts.

A Jesus who wants us to be balanced, who wants us to avoid dangerous extremes, and who for that matter wants us to avoid danger altogether. A Jesus who brings comfort and prosperity to us as we live out our Christian spin on the American Dream.

But lately I’ve begun to have hope that the situation is changing.

The 20th-century historian who coined the term “American Dream,” James Truslow Adams, defined it as “a dream… in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are.”

But many of us are realizing that Jesus has different priorities. Instead of congratulating us on our self-fulfillment, he confronts us with our inability to accomplish anything of value apart from God. Instead of wanting us to be recognized by others, he beckons us to die to ourselves and seek above all the glory of God.

In my own faith family, the Church at Brook Hills, we have tried to get out from under the American Dream mindset and start living and serving differently.

Like many other large American churches, we had a multimillion-dollar campus and plans to make it even larger to house programs that would cater to our own desires. But then we started looking at the world we live in.

It’s a world where 26,000 children die every day of starvation or a preventable disease. A world where billions live in situations of such grinding poverty that an American middle-class neighborhood looks like Beverly Hills by comparison. A world where more than a billion people have never even heard the name Jesus. So we asked ourselves, “What are we spending our time and money on that is less important than meeting these needs?” And that’s when things started to change.

First we gave away our entire surplus fund - $500,000 - through partnerships with churches in India, where 41 percent of the world’s poor live. Then we trimmed another $1.5 million from our budget and used the savings to build wells, improve education, provide medical care and share the gospel in impoverished places around the world. Literally hundreds of church members have gone overseas temporarily or permanently to serve in such places.

And it’s not just distant needs we’re trying to meet. It’s also needs near at hand.

One day I called up the Department of Human Resources in Shelby County, Alabama, where our church is located, and asked, “How many families would you need in order to take care of all the foster and adoption needs that we have in our county?”

The woman I was talking to laughed.

I said, “No, really, if a miracle were to take place, how many families would be sufficient to cover all the different needs you have?”

She replied, “It would be a miracle if we had 150 more families.”

When I shared this conversation with our church, over 160 families signed up to help with foster care and adoption. We don’t want even one child in our county to be without a loving home. It’s not the way of the American Dream. It doesn’t add to our comfort, prosperity, or ease. But we are discovering the indescribable joy of sacrificial love for others, and along the way we are learning more about the inexpressible wonder of God’s sacrificial love for us.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love my country and I couldn’t be more grateful for its hard-won freedoms. The challenge before we American Christians, as I see it, is to use the freedoms, resources, and opportunities at our disposal while making sure not to embrace values and assumptions that contradict what God has said in the Bible.

I believe God has a dream for people today. It’s just not the same as the American Dream.

I believe God is saying to us that real success is found in radical sacrifice. That ultimate satisfaction is found not in making much of ourselves but in making much of him. That the purpose of our lives transcends the country and culture in which we live. That meaning is found in community, not individualism. That joy is found in generosity, not materialism. And that Jesus is a reward worth risking everything for.

Indeed, the gospel compels us to live for the glory of God in a world of urgent spiritual and physical need, and this is a dream worth giving our lives to pursue.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Platt.

My take: Why my church rebelled against the American Dream – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs




I no longer believe in religion.

I do believe in being kind and charitable towards others.

 

[BEAL]

While I am happy that he is making a difference in community/world, I just wish it had nothing to do with religion.

A lot of these people that are "saved" are grateful beyond a doubt, but do you have to spread the gospel too?

Anyway, at least this is a pretty good story.

 

[Just_Boy]

I no longer believe in religion.

I do believe in being kind and charitable towards others.

I never believed in religion or god. I do believe that militant atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists. But if he has the personality that Christians say he has, I'd say "HE SUCKS!"

Who cares if there's a god? What I can see, touch, hear, taste, smell, and feel is more important.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What makes "militant" atheists just as bad as religious fundamentalists?

It's such a common criticism levelled at Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett etc. but having read their books I cannot see the equivalence. On one side you have advocates for free inquiry, freedom of belief and scepticism and on the other (the religious fundamentalists) there is literalism and a strong tendency to accept claims uncritically.

Could somebody provide one example of "militant" atheists acting as badly as the average conservative religious group (Family Research Council, Catholic Church, 700 Club etc.)?

I'll just point to a rallying point where secularists have been doing some good Non-Believers Giving Aid - Support for the Haiti Tragedy and Beyond.

 

[PhilsFan]

If all religious people acted like this, I wouldn't mind religion nearly as much.

 

[Just_Boy]

What makes "militant" atheists just as bad as religious fundamentalists?

It's such a common criticism levelled at Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett etc. but having read their books I cannot see the equivalence. On one side you have advocates for free inquiry, freedom of belief and scepticism and on the other (the religious fundamentalists) there is literalism and a strong tendency to accept claims uncritically.

That was not what I meant.

I'm not familiar with this so called "common criticism". I'm not criticizing any 'advocates for free inquiry, freedom of belief and scepticism'.

You see, I was born in a society where being an atheist effectively means going to hell. Therefore, quite naturally I tried to live in harmony with all the religious beliefs however immoderate they may be. And I could have kept on doing it all my life. What pissed me off were those 'enlightened' people shoving their 'proper' ideals down my throat.

People who want to ban or illegalise religion are no better than those who want to 'guide' every single person that is 'lost'. If you demand your right to practice whatever you want, then you have to respect other people's right to practice whatever they want ! Everyone should be free to raise their kids and conduct their lives as they see fit.

But at the end of it you should be able to say 'I did what I thought was right' and not 'I made everyone do what I thought was right'.

 

[PhilsFan]

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ

So what does the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” really mean. I think when someone asks that they are really questioning their own belief. In a way they are asking “what makes you so special? “How come you weren’t brainwashed with the rest of us?” “How dare you say I’m a fool and I’m not going to heaven, fuck you!”

 

[Pearl]

Thanks deep for the article.

I'm glad I was never raised to be materialistic because my church said God wants you to be rich. It makes me suspicious of Joel and Victoria Osteen, who go around saying that. Not that God wants you to be poor, but there's more to life than materialism.

 

[anitram]

I no longer believe in religion.

I do believe in being kind and charitable towards others.

Same.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If all religious people acted like this, I wouldn't mind religion nearly as much.

. That bit about 160 families signing up for foster care/adoption stuff for children-that is awesome. Very, very cool. There's some kids who will have a happy time coming their way.

Despite my personal feelings about religion in general, I have no problem with most people who are religious, because I think a lot of religious people out there would agree with the man who wrote this article. The religious people I know certainly would.

As for "militant atheism"-I think basically it's just the fact that just as religious people constantly browbeating you with their message gets annoying to those who don't want to hear it, so does atheists doing the same. If religious people are happy believing what they believe, and they aren't bugging anyone else about it, aren't harassing people or doing evil, violent things in the name of their faith or whatever, leave 'em alone and let them have their faith. You can have a list of arguments proving that they're wrong all you want, and I personally wouldn't exactly disagree with you in many ways, but if you don't want them to bother you, don't bother them in return. Golden rule, and all that.

Angela

 

[A_Wanderer]

People who want to ban or illegalise religion are no better than those who want to 'guide' every single person that is 'lost'. If you demand your right to practice whatever you want, then you have to respect other people's right to practice whatever they want ! Everyone should be free to raise their kids and conduct their lives as they see fit.

Who are the people who want to ban or illegalise religion? By definition a secularist opposes government interference in peoples personal beliefs.

The issue of raising children in a religious tradition is an area where by your standard of people being free to practice what they want is contravened. If the child doesn't have the opportunity to make up their own mind about such matters should that "right" of the parents really be respected. It's not a coincidence that religions place such an emphasis on inculcating children and the damage which this causes in many cases shouldn't be overlooked. The apparently controversial position that the likes of Dawkins takes against faith-schools and labelling children goes against the grain but I think that he is right.

 

[Pearl]

As for "militant atheism"-I think basically it's just the fact that just as religious people constantly browbeating you with their message gets annoying to those who don't want to hear it, so does atheists doing the same. If religious people are happy believing what they believe, and they aren't bugging anyone else about it, aren't harassing people or doing evil, violent things in the name of their faith or whatever, leave 'em alone and let them have their faith. You can have a list of arguments proving that they're wrong all you want, and I personally wouldn't exactly disagree with you in many ways, but if you don't want them to bother you, don't bother them in return. Golden rule, and all that.

Well said, Angela

 

[flybabe]

I'm glad someone understands it that way for a change. I'm not going to be one to judge though.

Mildly off topic, but what is religion today anyway? Do you have to be religious to believe in God?

 

[Pearl]

Mildly off topic, but what is religion today anyway? Do you have to be religious to believe in God?

I see myself as more spiritual than religious. I see religion as a set of rules and dogmas you have to follow, while spirituality is more about your relationship with God.

So, no I don't believe you have to be religious to believe in God. The way I see it, religion gets in the way of your relationship with a Higher Being.

 

[financeguy]

I no longer believe in religion.

I do believe in being kind and charitable towards others.

MT...
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

 

[nathan1977]

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ

It's an interesting article, and he has some interesting points to make. I thought this response to his points was as good as any I've read. (Full disclosure: it was written by a friend.) The whole article is worth the read, but some of Gary's particularly cogent points are excerpted below:

...a worldview is a description of the stories that shape the principles that support the conventions that an individual uses to make their daily decisions. The problem is, nobody’s worldview is actually “personal.” While we each have unique experiences that form the backbone of the “story of our life,” we interpret these experiences through the stories transmitted to us by our larger cultures. Our personal worldview rests within concentric circles of larger and larger worldviews. In other words, (1) my (micro) worldview rests mostly within, (2) my family’s (slightly less micro) worldview, which rests mostly within (3) my sub-culture’s (even less micro) worldview, and (4) my current society’s (more macro) worldview, and (5) my historic civilization’s (macro) worldview.

While it is a gross oversimplification, you could say that the history of Western civilization has been comprised of the interplay of two key macro worldviews: what I will call physicalism and idealism.

Physicalism is a macro worldview that roots our understanding of reality in the physical world. Physicalism starts with what you can see, feel, touch, and taste as the only “really real” things in the world. If you can measure something’s length, weigh its mass, or quantify it in some way, then it is a reliable source of knowledge.

[...]Ricky Gervais’ Wall Street Journal essay is a beautiful example of using physicalism to defend atheism. Ricky explained the rationale for his lack of faith by asserting, “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe… (Science) bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence…” By “hard” evidence, Ricky means things you can touch, taste, see, and measure. If there is no “hard” physicalist evidence for God, then he won’t believe it. It is a common position for modern physicalists.

Idealism is a worldview that roots our understanding of reality in the world of ideas, values, spirits, and/or gods. Idealism starts with what you cannot see, touch, taste, see or feel as the only “really real” things in the world. You can’t weigh a pound of love, or measure a mile of justice, or put a soul in a beaker, yet idealists view these intuited unseen ideals as what really matters. As Immanuel Kant asserted, “All human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas.”

Idealists look beyond the hard realities of the physical world and point to something they view as much more “real.” When the Beatles sing, “All you need is love,” or Jean Valjean declares in Les Miserables, “To love another person is to see the face of God,” they are giving voice to an idealist worldview. They are not appealing to hard physical evidence, but to an ideal so intuitively true they need no “proof.” When Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” or MLK declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” they were appealing to something beyond the physical world and calling others toward it.


The struggle between these two worldviews is at least as old as the study of philosophy. Plato (and later Augustine and Kant) advocated for idealism, while Aristotle (and later Aquinas and Hume) sided with physicalism. Neither side has ever scored a decisive victory, yet the philosophical underpinnings of each era of Western history can often be described by the relationship between the two at a given cultural moment.

It's worth reading, for those who are interested...

Ricky Gervais and Sentimental Hogwash: It’s a Wonderful Life, Part 1 ?|?Two Handed Warriors

 

[financeguy]

Who are the people who want to ban or illegalise religion?

Seemingly, the next step in the evil atheist plan is to ban Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

[anitram]

It's an interesting article, and he has some interesting points to make. I thought this response to his points was as good as any I've read. (Full disclosure: it was written by a friend.)

I guess what I'm wondering is, why does Gervais' essay need a response? He says he's an atheist, he sets out why and how he came to be that way. What exactly is there to respond TO? I find this to be a typically Christian response. And it isn't that your friend wrote something that is poorly thought out or constructed, it's just that, to me, it's typical of a certain Christian worldview to even think that a personally held view somehow must be rebutted.

 

[the iron horse]

Gotta love that rebel from Narareth.

 

[financeguy]

Ricky Gervais and Sentimental Hogwash: It’s a Wonderful Life, Part 1 �|�Two Handed Warriors

I'm guessing that the writer's point is that the theology has not caught up with the technology. I'm not precisely sure why he needs to go on so long to demonstrate his point.

With all due respect to your friend, my response to these and similar essays is basically two words, to whit:

'So what?'

 

[PhilsFan]

It's an interesting article, and he has some interesting points to make. I thought this response to his points was as good as any I've read. (Full disclosure: it was written by a friend.) The whole article is worth the read, but some of Gary's particularly cogent points are excerpted below:



It's worth reading, for those who are interested...

Ricky Gervais and Sentimental Hogwash: It’s a Wonderful Life, Part 1 �|�Two Handed Warriors

Interesting response. Well thought out, for sure.

But I don't like the implication that because Gervais is an atheist he doesn't understand or appreciate "the world of ideas and values."

 

[Inner El Guapo]

to me, it's typical of a certain Christian worldview to even think that a personally held view somehow must be rebutted.

A personally held view published to the world.
A comedian's "holiday message" of atheism on/near a religious holiday.
I don't think Gervais would've been surprised to know that someone wanted to respond to his view. After all, he felt it needed to be shared. I notice you weren't as curious about that. Why is that? Because that's what people do on blogs? Right. That's what people do on most of the internet, even in discussion forums like this one or twitter. Everything posted is an invitation for "rebuttal".

 

[anitram]

After all, he felt it needed to be shared. I notice you weren't as curious about that. Why is that? Because that's what people do on blogs? Right. That's what people do on most of the internet, even in discussion forums like this one or twitter. Everything posted is an invitation for "rebuttal".

I wasn't curious about why he needed to share it precisely for the reason you stated.

Just like when a Jewish poster here posts about Jewish holidays or customs that they practice with their family, I wouldn't feel the need to rebut them. And just like when people post Christmas wishes and so on, I don't feel the need to step in and comment.

 

[maycocksean]

To be fair, I haven't read either Gervais article or the "rebuttal."

Nevertheless, is it really a stretch to suggest that had a Christian written an article about why they are believers, that an atheist might not have felt a desire to provide a "rebuttal"?

What I find annoying is the sanctimony with which both sides rebuke each other for essentially doing the same thing i.e. critiquing one anothers world views and somehow suggesting that the other worldview is somehow "less."

Let's be honest, neither the atheist nor the Christian feels that both viewpoints are "equally valid" so lets not get all mortified when either side fails to express that.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Nicely said, Sean. You are right, it's to be expected that people will respond to others' arguments about issues, especially those concerning a topic as controversial as this one. And I have no problem with a religious response to Gervais' essay, which was very well laid out, I might add. No disrespect, just simple honesty, this being my favorite part:

It’s strange that anyone who believes that an all-powerful all-knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are.

(And they feel the need to do that despite the fact that God kind of already told them he (she/it?) would take care of that task for them, which I also find odd)

But I think the one shared wasn't a very strong rebuttal. Reviewing a movie (which I've only seen once, but from my recollection, I didn't exactly get an overly strong anti-atheist vibe from it. I got a message about faith and love and hope, sure, but those concepts aren't relegated solely to Christianity, or religion in general) and other various ideals and beliefs and the history behind them are fascinating reading, but it didn't exactly address Ricky's essay itself. It kind of went off in tangents. Much like some of this post has .

I think we can boil everything down to this simple statement:

You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.

Is it really that hard to follow that instruction, no matter who you are, no matter what religious beliefs you do or don't have? It shouldn't be. It's about as simple as it can get.

Also, thanks, Pearl .

Angela

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I have nothing else to say..but he's the cutest pastor I've ever seen

I'd go to church every day

 

[nathan1977]

It's interesting that this is the defining attribute of God:

an all-powerful all-knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens

I see this over and over again as the defining element of God, when what's strange is that the Bible never describes God as being responsible for everything that happens. Humans have agency in the Scriptures; the devil has agency in the Scriptures; God has agency in the Scriptures. When it comes to the question of responsibility, it's pretty clear that God is by no means responsible for everything that happens. Quite the opposite, in fact. If the myth of Creation is to be believed at any level, God in fact turned over authority for running the world to us...authority that we abdicated, and have been ever since. (The commands to love our neighbor, care for the earth and its inhabitants, etc.)

I'm someone who believes that God knows everything -- the same way that, as a parent, I can see what my little girls are going to be like someday. But because God gives us agency in the world, He lets us figure things out, make mistakes, etc.

So I always find it strange that God gets blamed for all manner of things...when the reality may well be that we are far more culpable than we think. Our faults lie, not in our stars, but in our selves, is how the poet put it, and I don't think that's so wrong.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i think it's a good story, he definitely touches on what's kind of made me stray from attending church: these huge mega-churches, spending millions on continuous expansion of their property, making it all nice and air conditioned, then having the gall to ask me to donate as if it'll go towards something other than buying the pastor another suv. i'm a bigger fan of churches that have a congregation of a couple hundred, meeting in some rented place. any bigger and you're just a face in a crowd anyway, might as well stay home and watch it on tv.

anyway, back on topic, it's always refreshing to see people not be so materialistic and really striving to help out those in need, no matter what their beliefs are.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Who are the people who want to ban or illegalise religion? By definition a secularist opposes government interference in peoples personal beliefs.

I do believe North Korea has a ban on all religion, and religous activities.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's interesting that this is the defining attribute of God:



I see this over and over again as the defining element of God, when what's strange is that the Bible never describes God as being responsible for everything that happens. Humans have agency in the Scriptures; the devil has agency in the Scriptures; God has agency in the Scriptures. When it comes to the question of responsibility, it's pretty clear that God is by no means responsible for everything that happens. Quite the opposite, in fact. If the myth of Creation is to be believed at any level, God in fact turned over authority for running the world to us...authority that we abdicated, and have been ever since. (The commands to love our neighbor, care for the earth and its inhabitants, etc.)

I'm someone who believes that God knows everything -- the same way that, as a parent, I can see what my little girls are going to be like someday. But because God gives us agency in the world, He lets us figure things out, make mistakes, etc.

So I always find it strange that God gets blamed for all manner of things...when the reality may well be that we are far more culpable than we think. Our faults lie, not in our stars, but in our selves, is how the poet put it, and I don't think that's so wrong.

I actually fully agree with you on this. I think Gervais was just alluding to what he keeps hearing many religious people state on a regular basis. They may not blame God for everything that happens, but they sure love to give him credit for all the good stuff ("We survived ______ disaster because God was looking out for us." Never mind the people who died, though, I guess. "We won this game/award thanks to God". Etc., etc.). It's the contradiction in statements like that-if he can get the credit, is responsible for the good, why can't he get the blame and responsibility for the bad as well?-that I think he was calling out. And if a religious person truly does believe that God is responsible for all things, then why do they feel the need to cast judgment on and attack things/people that are supposedly the result of God's designs? Stuff like that.

But me, personally, I agree a lot more with your post. That tends to be how I feel as well.

Angela