Reformation Day round-up
Happy Reformation Day!
(And happy Hallowe’en, as well.)
There’s a lot of good stuff around commemorating today. Here’s quick round-up.
My friend Paul has a good summary of why Reformation Day is significant.
My friend James does too. (Also, check out his introduction to a good Reformation hymn.)
GA Junkie offers a different perspective on Reformation Day, also interesting.
Ligonier Ministries is giving away a nice Reformation Day gift: a “free” Reformation Study Bible with any donation.
Ed Stetzer offers an interesting perspective on haunted houses and “hell houses”.
Along the same subject, Internet Monk asks: where does the Bible say that Satan wants people to go to Hell?
You want to know what scares me? This (video below)-- which combines both Reformation Day and the scarier parts of Hallowe’en: the false gospel that is the prosperity gospel.
There’s a lot of good stuff around commemorating today. Here’s quick round-up.
My friend Paul has a good summary of why Reformation Day is significant.
My friend James does too. (Also, check out his introduction to a good Reformation hymn.)
GA Junkie offers a different perspective on Reformation Day, also interesting.
Ligonier Ministries is giving away a nice Reformation Day gift: a “free” Reformation Study Bible with any donation.
Ed Stetzer offers an interesting perspective on haunted houses and “hell houses”.
Along the same subject, Internet Monk asks: where does the Bible say that Satan wants people to go to Hell?
You want to know what scares me? This (video below)-- which combines both Reformation Day and the scarier parts of Hallowe’en: the false gospel that is the prosperity gospel.
|
Books for October, 2008
With the twins being
born, I didn’t get as much reading done this month as
I would have liked. Nevertheless, here’s my list for
October:
- Churched by Matthew Paul Turner. I’ve already reviewed this book here. (9+)
- Preaching to a Post-Everything World by Zack Eswine. Nevermind that Zack is a friend and a former professor of mine; this was one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. It was like a post-graduate course in homiletics (the study of preaching), and a much-needed and appreciated re-charge of my vision for my own preaching. Zack picks up where Bryan Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching leaves off and runs many miles further down that road. My one regret of reading this book is that I was only able to absorb about 10-15% of it, which means I need to re-read it every 6-12 months for the next several years. If you’re a preacher or teacher, this should go to the top of your must-read list. (10)
- How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. I’ve reviewed this one already, too. (5)
Book review: How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy
Oct. 29, 2008; 08:46 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Culture
I have to confess, I
was skeptical from the outset of the new
Waterbrook Press
title
How Would Jesus
Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry
Newcombe. In my view, this could have (and maybe
should have) been the shortest book Waterbrook has
ever published, with a single page declaring, “He
wouldn’t.” And I feared that this would be one
more piece of Christianized political propaganda
in a time when the church really needs solid,
biblical wisdom.
Was I right? Yes and no-- but, sadly, mostly yes.
The book is divided into three sections-- Jesus and Politics, The Issues, and Final Thoughts. The first section is very good, with good rationale for why a Christian ought to be concerned with the political process, a check on the notion that all of the answers are found in political solutions, and an encouragement toward a well-considered “World and Life View.” Though Kennedy’s political views are present in the three opening chapters, it isn’t offensively present. I found my skepticism being challenged, and I began to have hope that this book may be exactly the resource the church needs.
Let me take a moment to say what I mean by “offensive” in this context. Everyone has political opinions, even if their opinions are simply, “I don’t care.” But when someone who is influential in a non-political arena-- such as the church or an educational context-- utilizes their position to advance their personal political preferences and opinions, they are abusing their position and deceiving those under their leadership. I find this offensive, especially in the case of a pastor or other church leader.
Which leads me to the second section, The Issues. There are 10 important and considerable issues discussed here, and in spite of my initial skepticism I had hopes that Dr. Kennedy would handle them fairly and biblically, based on the general appreciation I had for the first section.
I was wrong. In almost every case, Dr. Kennedy presents only scant biblical support for the views and opinions he proffers in The Issues. Instead, he puts forth his opinions and biases, sometimes with Scriptural support and sometimes without much biblical input at all. Worst of all, he concludes each chapter in the section with a “How would Jesus Vote?” summary of his opinions.
Take the environment as an example. Are there biblical texts that speak to the environment and the Christian’s view of it? Absolutely. Can a believer extract a balanced understanding of how he or she ought to view matters (especially political matters) of environmental conscience? I think so. Does Dr. Kennedy expose us to these texts, and explain how we might derive a biblical worldview about the environment? No-- what he offers amounts to an attack on the current positions of the political liberals, especially the Democratic party, and pronounces arguments and evidence against them that is little different from any other Republican attack. There is little biblical support, and no consideration for a number of biblical texts that speak to the issue.
By and large, that is the case for all of the issues. In some of them, Dr. Kennedy does better, in others worse, with drawing out a full sense of the biblical position on a topic. The chief exception for that is the issue of immigration, where Dr. Kennedy actually does a very good job of working through the biblical words on the issue, and a good job of applying them (in general terms) to our context.
Other than that, though, much of what counts for biblical support is often Dr. Kennedy declaring his opinion, then searching for a proof-text to back it up. I cannot recommend the second section at all, and would urge readers to simply skip over it.
The closing section is something of a mixture of the other two, in terms of approach. The content in the final section is hit-or-miss, but largely it is acceptably good. I do appreciate the general tenor of it, proclaiming that there is something more important than politics.
Dr. D. James Kennedy is a dyed-in-the-wool, straight-ticket Republican. There is no denying that having read this book, and there’s nothing wrong with that, either-- he certainly has the right to hold whatever political convictions are his. But in How Would Jesus Vote? he draws a direct equation between his Republican positions and biblical Christianity. And there IS something wrong with that.
There is no doubt that a book that looks at each of the issues from a strictly biblical perspective is a needed tool and guide for Christians today. Make no mistake, though: How Would Jesus Vote? isn’t it. Such a book would need to at least straddle the various parties and where they are closer to a biblical perspective, or at best transcend the parties and consider only the biblical views-- NOT baptize a particular party’s platform under the auspices of biblical support.
I rate this book as a whole as a 5. (If Waterbrook were to cut out the middle section and just publish the first and last sections as a book (about 88 pages), I would probably rate it as an 8.)
Was I right? Yes and no-- but, sadly, mostly yes.
The book is divided into three sections-- Jesus and Politics, The Issues, and Final Thoughts. The first section is very good, with good rationale for why a Christian ought to be concerned with the political process, a check on the notion that all of the answers are found in political solutions, and an encouragement toward a well-considered “World and Life View.” Though Kennedy’s political views are present in the three opening chapters, it isn’t offensively present. I found my skepticism being challenged, and I began to have hope that this book may be exactly the resource the church needs.
Let me take a moment to say what I mean by “offensive” in this context. Everyone has political opinions, even if their opinions are simply, “I don’t care.” But when someone who is influential in a non-political arena-- such as the church or an educational context-- utilizes their position to advance their personal political preferences and opinions, they are abusing their position and deceiving those under their leadership. I find this offensive, especially in the case of a pastor or other church leader.
Which leads me to the second section, The Issues. There are 10 important and considerable issues discussed here, and in spite of my initial skepticism I had hopes that Dr. Kennedy would handle them fairly and biblically, based on the general appreciation I had for the first section.
I was wrong. In almost every case, Dr. Kennedy presents only scant biblical support for the views and opinions he proffers in The Issues. Instead, he puts forth his opinions and biases, sometimes with Scriptural support and sometimes without much biblical input at all. Worst of all, he concludes each chapter in the section with a “How would Jesus Vote?” summary of his opinions.
Take the environment as an example. Are there biblical texts that speak to the environment and the Christian’s view of it? Absolutely. Can a believer extract a balanced understanding of how he or she ought to view matters (especially political matters) of environmental conscience? I think so. Does Dr. Kennedy expose us to these texts, and explain how we might derive a biblical worldview about the environment? No-- what he offers amounts to an attack on the current positions of the political liberals, especially the Democratic party, and pronounces arguments and evidence against them that is little different from any other Republican attack. There is little biblical support, and no consideration for a number of biblical texts that speak to the issue.
By and large, that is the case for all of the issues. In some of them, Dr. Kennedy does better, in others worse, with drawing out a full sense of the biblical position on a topic. The chief exception for that is the issue of immigration, where Dr. Kennedy actually does a very good job of working through the biblical words on the issue, and a good job of applying them (in general terms) to our context.
Other than that, though, much of what counts for biblical support is often Dr. Kennedy declaring his opinion, then searching for a proof-text to back it up. I cannot recommend the second section at all, and would urge readers to simply skip over it.
The closing section is something of a mixture of the other two, in terms of approach. The content in the final section is hit-or-miss, but largely it is acceptably good. I do appreciate the general tenor of it, proclaiming that there is something more important than politics.
Dr. D. James Kennedy is a dyed-in-the-wool, straight-ticket Republican. There is no denying that having read this book, and there’s nothing wrong with that, either-- he certainly has the right to hold whatever political convictions are his. But in How Would Jesus Vote? he draws a direct equation between his Republican positions and biblical Christianity. And there IS something wrong with that.
There is no doubt that a book that looks at each of the issues from a strictly biblical perspective is a needed tool and guide for Christians today. Make no mistake, though: How Would Jesus Vote? isn’t it. Such a book would need to at least straddle the various parties and where they are closer to a biblical perspective, or at best transcend the parties and consider only the biblical views-- NOT baptize a particular party’s platform under the auspices of biblical support.
I rate this book as a whole as a 5. (If Waterbrook were to cut out the middle section and just publish the first and last sections as a book (about 88 pages), I would probably rate it as an 8.)
Sermon texts for November 2008
Oct. 28, 2008; 10:15 AM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
November 2 Guest
preacher: Doug Barcroft
November 9 Guest preacher: Doug Barcroft
November 16 Luke 9:37-62 -- (Mis)Understanding discipleship
November 23 Luke 10:1-24 -- The work of the disciples
November 30 Isaiah 25:6-26:6 -- The gift of anticipation
November 30 (evening) Various texts-- The gift of presence (Chrismon Service)
November 9 Guest preacher: Doug Barcroft
November 16 Luke 9:37-62 -- (Mis)Understanding discipleship
November 23 Luke 10:1-24 -- The work of the disciples
November 30 Isaiah 25:6-26:6 -- The gift of anticipation
November 30 (evening) Various texts-- The gift of presence (Chrismon Service)
Bits & Tidbits, 10/28/2008
- Good thoughts here (from a generally creative set of guys) on why stories are so effective.
- A while back, I recommended a set of lectures on Denominational Renewal. More recently, those lectures have received new attention as the Common Grounds blog has hosted a series of discussions on those lectures and their ideas. Some of the comments, in particular, ought to be taken with a grain of salt (or a block of it), but overall the articles themselves are helpful thoughts. I’d encourage you to listen to the lectures, then check out the discussion.
- Here’s a good piece on the Osteens, and it gives a taste of why they are both as popular (among the masses) and as unpopular (among theological conservatives) as they are. (If you want a little more than a taste, check the comments in the Internet Monk’s link to the same article.)
- My friend and classmate from seminary, Joel Hathaway, has penned a pretty good article on elections and politics for the current issue of byFaith magazine.
- This is an interesting insider piece about the growing bias in the mainstream media. (HT: Nick)
Twins
Here are some pictures of the
twins, who were born safely on Friday at 4:31
(and 4:32) pm. They are in the NICU, and are
improving in their eating.
This is Abbey (Abigail Ellis), who has been having difficulty learning to eat (thus the tube for feeding). Marcie worked with her to feed her right after this picture, and she drank only 3ccs of the 8ccs they wanted her to have. (approx. 30ccs is one ounce!) She was first-born, and weighed 5 pounds 4 ounces at birth.
Since these pictures, she has
begun regulating her own temperature-- which
means that she is bundled up with blankets when
she isn’t being fed or changed. She hasn’t
required any medication, but she has had a
couple of episodes of apnea, which means that
she has stopped breathing briefly. (The second
time was very minor, and she corrected herself
without assistance.) But her feeding is getting
better-- the tube is out now, and she is eating
from a bottle, although it takes a lot of time,
work, and patience. They bumped her up to 16ccs
yesterday morning, and 22ccs last night.
Here is Caroline (Anna
Caroline), who was born at 4 pounds 13 ounces.
She is a champion eater, and usually finishes
her bottles in a couple of minutes. This bottle
(only 8ccs, like her sister) took her less than
two minutes; when I fed her this morning, she
had 20ccs in less than five minutes.
Caroline hasn’t had difficulty with breathing at all, and she hasn’t had to have any medication either. But she has struggled with keeping her temperature up, so they have kept her bed heated.
You
can see from the second picture that they are
very small. Caroline’s head is a little bigger
than a baseball, but much smaller than a
softball. Abbey is a little bigger, but neither
has begun to gain weight since birth. They are
healthy and doing well, and the nurses are
usually more encouraging and affirming about
their improvements. Still, they are going to be
in the NICU for a while longer yet.
Here’s another picture of Abbey:
And here’s another picture of
Caroline:
Twins update
Marcie is
scheduled for a C-Section today at 4pm! Caroline's
fluid levels were still low this morning, so the
doctor felt that the safest thing would be to move
ahead.
As of yesterday, all indications were that both girls (well, all three really) are healthy. Both twins are over 5 pounds, both are showing signs of breathing movement, etc. Marcie is 34½ weeks right now, and 36 is considered full-term for twins-- which means that they were pretty close.
Marcie is feeling well, though a bit tired-- and both hungry and thirsty, since she hasn't had anything to eat or drink since midnight or so. She's a little anxious about the surgery, anesthesia, etc., but is otherwise bearing up.
Please join us in praying:
As of yesterday, all indications were that both girls (well, all three really) are healthy. Both twins are over 5 pounds, both are showing signs of breathing movement, etc. Marcie is 34½ weeks right now, and 36 is considered full-term for twins-- which means that they were pretty close.
Marcie is feeling well, though a bit tired-- and both hungry and thirsty, since she hasn't had anything to eat or drink since midnight or so. She's a little anxious about the surgery, anesthesia, etc., but is otherwise bearing up.
Please join us in praying:
- For Marcie's preparation and endurance for surgery
- That the surgery would go smoothly, without pain or complication
- For the health of the twins and Marcie as they come out of delivery
- For wisdom about follow-up issues: whether the twins need intensive care, how long before they could come home, etc.
Poll: How far to drive to worship?
Oct. 24, 2008; 11:49 AM
I asked this question
of
my book giveaway for Matthew Paul Turner’s
Churched,
but if you didn’t want a chance at the book (or you
preferred more anonymity than I offered), here’s a
poll that will shield your identity while allowing
you the opportunity to answer:
By the
way, there’s still time to get your name in for the
book drawing!
What does it mean to think theologically?
Oct. 22, 2008; 03:19 PM Filed in: Theology
LTD: The Either/Or Fallacy
Oct. 21, 2008; 12:41 PM Filed in: Theology
I read the following
comment recently on a website discussing the report
that the 2008 General Assembly voted NOT to form a
study committee on deaconesses and women in diaconal
service, which the Philadelphia Presbytery (and
others) had overtured the assembly to do:
Friends, you have before you a classic example of the logical fallacy known as the “Either/Or Fallacy,” the “False Dichotomy Fallacy,” the “False Dilemma Fallacy,” or “Bifurcation.”
In essence, this fallacy asserts that there are only two options to choose from, possible directions to move in, or answers to a question-- AND that both of them have been represented in the argument.
[An aside: the meaning of the prefix “di” is that there are two-- if there are more than two, that would change the prefix. For example, C.S. Lewis famously described a “trilemma” when he talked about the fact that Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or who He said He was.]
Now, it’s possible for there to be TRUE dichotomies, dilemmas, and either/or situations. We often face these-- this is one of the reasons why this fallacy so often appears acceptable. But when there is more than two options, it is fallacious to suggest that there are only two. (Thus, such a dichotomy is false.)
Very often, the false dichotomies or fallacious either/ors will be one (or more) of a few types:
So, here are some ways to prevent false dichotomies in your own arguments. Ask yourself:
I ponder the intention of the Philidelphia Presbytery in bringing this to the GA. Is it women seeking power over men, as was part of the Genesis curse, or is it men cowering from their mandate to lead the church?
Friends, you have before you a classic example of the logical fallacy known as the “Either/Or Fallacy,” the “False Dichotomy Fallacy,” the “False Dilemma Fallacy,” or “Bifurcation.”
In essence, this fallacy asserts that there are only two options to choose from, possible directions to move in, or answers to a question-- AND that both of them have been represented in the argument.
[An aside: the meaning of the prefix “di” is that there are two-- if there are more than two, that would change the prefix. For example, C.S. Lewis famously described a “trilemma” when he talked about the fact that Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or who He said He was.]
Now, it’s possible for there to be TRUE dichotomies, dilemmas, and either/or situations. We often face these-- this is one of the reasons why this fallacy so often appears acceptable. But when there is more than two options, it is fallacious to suggest that there are only two. (Thus, such a dichotomy is false.)
Very often, the false dichotomies or fallacious either/ors will be one (or more) of a few types:
- An over-simplification of a situation, attempting to categorize all of the options or choices into just two (or maybe three) ideas
- A misunderstanding of the full range of the problem, which leads to falling short of understanding the solutions or answers.
- A misunderstanding of the full range of the answers or solutions, often because of innocent ignorance or insufficient familiarity with the issues at hand.
- The result of a substantial bias which blinds the arguer from understanding the problem or issue, the answers or solutions, or both. (See the above example.)
So, here are some ways to prevent false dichotomies in your own arguments. Ask yourself:
- Do I have a full understanding of the problem or issue I’m discussing? Self-awareness of the limit of your knowledge-- whether due to a lack of study, a lack of experience, or the presence of bias-- is the best place to start.
- Have I been fair to the issue at hand? Would an “opponent” in this argument agree that I have dealt with all of the options clearly and fairly?
- Do I have a full understanding of the options, answers, or solutions to the matter at hand? Like the first question, this gets to the issue of limit of knowledge. This can be a more difficult question to answer, and might require consulting another person to verify your answer.
- Have I attempted to categorize or group ideas that don’t fit well together? Have I forced one or more options into subordination under another for the sake of my argument?
- Identify what other options are truly present. If you recognize options that aren’t presented, note them to yourself.
- If possible, draw connections between the missing options and the reason(s) for them. Likely, it will be one of the four types or reasons given above.
- Present both ideas at the same time. It’s best to do this in a question. For example, someone might say to the person who wrote the false dichotomy about the Philadelphia Presbytery: “You clearly stand on one side of this argument. Is it possible that your determined position has prevented you from seeing other options? It seems to me that the Presbytery might have had other issues that brought the discussion about, such as...”
Book giveaway: Churched by Matthew Paul Turner
Oct. 20, 2008; 09:45 PM
I
reviewed Churched
by Matthew Paul
Turner the other day. Waterbrook generously gave
me two extra copies to give away, and here’s
your chance to get one. I’ll have a drawing for
the two copies, chosen randomly from any names
who answer the following question:
How far is it reasonable to drive to worship?
- 10-15 minutes (10 miles) or less. I think we should worship as close to home as we can.
- 15-30 minutes (15-25 miles) or less. It's okay if I don't live that close to where I worship.
- 30-60 minutes (25-45 miles) or less. I don't mind going across town to worship at my church.
- More than 60 minutes/45 miles -- no limit. If I have to drive a long way to worship, then so be it.
- Other...
Please choose one of the above answers. If you choose “Other...” then explain, please. Thanks!
Bits & Tidbits, 10/20/2008
Oct. 20, 2008; 02:51 PM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
- Very cool: man decorates his basement with a Sharpie. This piece (and the basement itself) is both a nod to the creativity of a guy with a marker AND his well-lived life. (HT: Chris)
- An interesting quiz at Parchment and Pen: what are the essentials and non-essentials of belief? (Bonus points if you take the quiz and comment here, on my blog, with your results.)
- Is this going to change the way that football is played? If so, I might actually consider letting Jack play...
- I’m curious about Seeds Music-- family worship that actually sounds pretty good. Maybe we’ll pick some up. (HT: Nikki)
- Rant: yes, the man’s name is Gene Edward Veith-- but he goes by Ed. Not Gene. I know this may surprise some of you-- perhaps you think that Gene is a better name than Ed (I happen to disagree). And it doesn’t help that his blog’s URL is “geneveith.com”-- but still, he goes by Ed. So here’s my plea for those of you out there who like to refer to Gene Edward Veith as if he had supper at your house last night: either refer to him as Ed Veith, or referring to him in such a familiar way. (End rant.)
Book review: Churched by Matthew Paul Turner
Oct. 17, 2008; 01:24 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Culture
Waterbrook Press sent me a
copy of Churched
by Matthew Paul Turner
to review, as well
as two copies to give away! (More on that in a
moment...)
In Churched, Turner reflects on his childhood memories of growing up in the local “fundamental Baptist” church. We’re given a child’s view (and an insider’s look) at how a Baptist church in the 70s and 80s looked and felt. I won’t say that this is how ALL Baptist churches looked then (or today), but obviously at least one did... and I’ve seen a couple that could fit the bill here, too.
What’s so great about Turner’s portrayal is funny, and delights in the irony and awkwardness of these situations, yet it is also humble and stops short of bashing or attack. Turner does a good job of making this as much about him and his family-- and their understandings (and misunderstandings) about faith and practice-- as it is about the church and its teachings.
Nevertheless, Churched is funny, and it does expose some of the aspects of the Christian sub-culture that are at least embarrassing, if not shameful. There are other books that take more in-depth and pointed shots at this; Dave Burchett’s When Bad Christians Happen to Good People (also published by Waterbrook) comes to mind. Turner’s book is different in two ways: it is more personal, coming across as more of a memoir than just an idea book; and it refrains from an attack position, instead merely pointing out observations.
The critique aspect can still be found, because Turner is a great writer who communicates the damage and problems of a fundamentalist and sub-culture mindset through his personal story. In his wrap-up chapter, Turner gets a little bit closer to the critique, but even here it is more inwardly-focused, almost self-effacing. His insights-- in the closing chapter and throughout the book-- offer me, as a pastor, a helpful perspective. Maybe the most stinging words came in this paragraph (in the final chapter):
Even though I’m in my midthirties, I still struggle with being alone with a pastor. Furthermore, and more detrimental to my spiritual health, I also have a hard time trusting pastors. Whenever I find myself in the presence of one of God’s official spokespeople, part of me clams up with fear. It didn’t matter that Pete and I were the same age or that he looked like Ryan Seacrest. I still felt fear.
Which simultaneously makes me want to invite Turner to my church, and afraid of whether I give off the same impressions of the pastors of his past and present. Probably, both of these are good instincts for a pastor to have. Thanks, Matthew.
(My rating: 9+)
I’ll post an announcement about my give-away copies next week. Stay tuned-- you’ll want to read this one.
Love me some free hugs
Oct. 16, 2008; 09:09 AM Filed in: Culture
Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty
Oct. 15, 2008; 10:03 PM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
UPDATE: Marcie reminded me of another good piece of
information on poverty-- see the Miniature Earth link
below.
Today is “Blog Action Day” according to someone. The point is to bring awareness about poverty to those who read our blogs. I think it’s a good idea.
My friend John Allen recently posted an amazing set of myths and facts on his blog (which he himself copied from the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana), and I’m shamelessly copying it here:
Myth: They are not hungry. They are fat!
Fact: This is called the Obesity Paradox. The population that is forced to live on cheap, starchy foods are, in many cases, fat. In some cases they are morbidly obese. They are getting a lot of calories and little real nutrition. The end result of this is all kinds of health problems.
MYTH: They do not need help– they get food Stamps.
Fact: According to studies done by America’s Second Harvest, 40% of the people eligible for food stamps do not receive them. And , almost 84% of the families contacted for the 2000 hunger study reported that the food stamps they receive last for three weeks or less.
MYTH: Low-income families who need help do not work.
Fact: Seventy-one percent of low –income families work. In fact, the average annual work effort for low-income families is 2,500 hours, equal to 1.2 full time jobs.
MYTH: The kids get enough food through school lunch and breakfast programs.
Fact: These programs do not provide an evening meal the vast majority do not provide food during the summer, school breaks, and holidays.
MYTH: Low income families are illegal aliens, or immigrants.
Fact: Seventy-two percent of the low-income families have American-born parents only.
I’ve heard some of these statements (complaints? excuses?) used to justify inaction toward addressing poverty. We’ve got to stop. We have to begin to own the fact that Jesus himself spoke far more frequently about loving the poor and needy than he did about marriage, homosexuality, abortion, or war (incidentally, Jesus didn’t speak directly to either abortion or homosexuality, though other parts of Scripture-- all God’s Word-- do address these). Jesus-- and the New Testament apostles-- were equally as concerned with right belief AND right practice, the latter of which James summarizes as caring for those who are marginalized and without means (James 1:27).
For another look at the reality of poverty and wealth, this video from Miniature Earth is amazing.
Here’s my encouragement: check out these very helpful documents that the PCA offers, thanks to the amazing ministry of Randy Nabors:
Find more at the PCA’s urban and mercy ministries page under “Resources.”
Today is “Blog Action Day” according to someone. The point is to bring awareness about poverty to those who read our blogs. I think it’s a good idea.
My friend John Allen recently posted an amazing set of myths and facts on his blog (which he himself copied from the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana), and I’m shamelessly copying it here:
Myth: They are not hungry. They are fat!
Fact: This is called the Obesity Paradox. The population that is forced to live on cheap, starchy foods are, in many cases, fat. In some cases they are morbidly obese. They are getting a lot of calories and little real nutrition. The end result of this is all kinds of health problems.
MYTH: They do not need help– they get food Stamps.
Fact: According to studies done by America’s Second Harvest, 40% of the people eligible for food stamps do not receive them. And , almost 84% of the families contacted for the 2000 hunger study reported that the food stamps they receive last for three weeks or less.
MYTH: Low-income families who need help do not work.
Fact: Seventy-one percent of low –income families work. In fact, the average annual work effort for low-income families is 2,500 hours, equal to 1.2 full time jobs.
MYTH: The kids get enough food through school lunch and breakfast programs.
Fact: These programs do not provide an evening meal the vast majority do not provide food during the summer, school breaks, and holidays.
MYTH: Low income families are illegal aliens, or immigrants.
Fact: Seventy-two percent of the low-income families have American-born parents only.
I’ve heard some of these statements (complaints? excuses?) used to justify inaction toward addressing poverty. We’ve got to stop. We have to begin to own the fact that Jesus himself spoke far more frequently about loving the poor and needy than he did about marriage, homosexuality, abortion, or war (incidentally, Jesus didn’t speak directly to either abortion or homosexuality, though other parts of Scripture-- all God’s Word-- do address these). Jesus-- and the New Testament apostles-- were equally as concerned with right belief AND right practice, the latter of which James summarizes as caring for those who are marginalized and without means (James 1:27).
For another look at the reality of poverty and wealth, this video from Miniature Earth is amazing.
Here’s my encouragement: check out these very helpful documents that the PCA offers, thanks to the amazing ministry of Randy Nabors:
- Biblical Guidelines for Mercy Ministry
- Principles for Giving Assistance
- Five Common Questions for Evaluating Need
Find more at the PCA’s urban and mercy ministries page under “Resources.”
Essential man-skills quiz
Oct. 15, 2008; 10:36 AM Filed in: Personal
Truth and opinion: assertions and logic
This quote was
mentioned to me recently, and it brought to mind some
important ideas regarding logic-- thus, a
continuation of my Logic for Theological Discussion
series:
The difficulty is that there are different sorts of sentences that a candidate (or anyone else), and the media wants to categorize all of them into the same group when they aren't.
It is possible for a sentence to not be a "statement" or a truth claim. In logic, the term "statement" denotes a sentence that can be said to be true or false. Questions, exclamations, and declarations of opinion are not considered to be statements.
A real statement also can be subcategorized, into what we would call "supported" and "unsupported" statements. Those that need further verification in order to determine their truth value are considered supported, while those that are self-evident are unsupported.
Some sentences appear to be supported statements but are actually matters of opinion. For example, "it is cool in here" is only supported if the temperature is low-- let's say, close to freezing, or below 50 degrees. If it is 65 degrees, I might consider it comfortable while someone else may think it cool-- but it is then a matter of opinion. Meanwhile, some sentences are supported regardless of someone’s preference. For example, “That closet is dark when the light is off” is something that can be verified to be true, and no amount of opinion or preference for darkness will change that.
Furthermore, the difficulty with supported statements is that they are often made with reliance on evidence that itself is often questionable. So, if an expert in the field of economics, say, wages an opinion about the status of our financial crisis, his declaration may be quite credible (since he is an expert) but is nevertheless a matter of opinion. Someone else may offer a true statement about the matter, relying on the word of that expert as the supporting evidence for their statement. But this supported statement is based on expert opinion, which can be scrutinized, challenged, or counter-argued by other experts.
And here's the kicker: by far, most of the statements made by political candidates are either supported statements or declarations of opinions. So, for Campbell Brown (or any other journalist) to complain about whether they are allowed to report on them is spurious. NO journalist can adequately report these things with anything other than verbatim quotes, without becoming something of a wonk. It would simply take too much fact-checking and explanation to accomplish it in a journalistic way that is also reliable.
How does this apply to theology? Because we often do the same thing with theological matters. It is essential to see what claims are unsupported statements, which are supported statements, and which are not statements at all but simply matters of opinion.
Consider the following:
All of these are claims that might occur in a given theological discussion. Yet, they must not be treated with the same weight of authority, because they cannot all be taken in the same manner. An unsupported theological statement may be assumed in a way that the supported ones may not. My opinion may be correct, but you must come to that conclusion because of reasons that persuade you of it, not simply because I have said it.
How might we deal with different types of claims and sentences in theological (and other) discussions?
From a profile on CNN anchor Campbell Brown:...when you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day. I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.
The difficulty is that there are different sorts of sentences that a candidate (or anyone else), and the media wants to categorize all of them into the same group when they aren't.
It is possible for a sentence to not be a "statement" or a truth claim. In logic, the term "statement" denotes a sentence that can be said to be true or false. Questions, exclamations, and declarations of opinion are not considered to be statements.
A real statement also can be subcategorized, into what we would call "supported" and "unsupported" statements. Those that need further verification in order to determine their truth value are considered supported, while those that are self-evident are unsupported.
Some sentences appear to be supported statements but are actually matters of opinion. For example, "it is cool in here" is only supported if the temperature is low-- let's say, close to freezing, or below 50 degrees. If it is 65 degrees, I might consider it comfortable while someone else may think it cool-- but it is then a matter of opinion. Meanwhile, some sentences are supported regardless of someone’s preference. For example, “That closet is dark when the light is off” is something that can be verified to be true, and no amount of opinion or preference for darkness will change that.
Furthermore, the difficulty with supported statements is that they are often made with reliance on evidence that itself is often questionable. So, if an expert in the field of economics, say, wages an opinion about the status of our financial crisis, his declaration may be quite credible (since he is an expert) but is nevertheless a matter of opinion. Someone else may offer a true statement about the matter, relying on the word of that expert as the supporting evidence for their statement. But this supported statement is based on expert opinion, which can be scrutinized, challenged, or counter-argued by other experts.
And here's the kicker: by far, most of the statements made by political candidates are either supported statements or declarations of opinions. So, for Campbell Brown (or any other journalist) to complain about whether they are allowed to report on them is spurious. NO journalist can adequately report these things with anything other than verbatim quotes, without becoming something of a wonk. It would simply take too much fact-checking and explanation to accomplish it in a journalistic way that is also reliable.
How does this apply to theology? Because we often do the same thing with theological matters. It is essential to see what claims are unsupported statements, which are supported statements, and which are not statements at all but simply matters of opinion.
Consider the following:
- Everyone understands that there is right and wrong. (Unsupported statement)
- When Paul refers to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, he means the body of Christ. (Supported statement)
- The writers of the Westminster Confession would not have seen playing catch on a Sunday as permissible. (Opinion)
All of these are claims that might occur in a given theological discussion. Yet, they must not be treated with the same weight of authority, because they cannot all be taken in the same manner. An unsupported theological statement may be assumed in a way that the supported ones may not. My opinion may be correct, but you must come to that conclusion because of reasons that persuade you of it, not simply because I have said it.
How might we deal with different types of claims and sentences in theological (and other) discussions?
- Determine which type of sentence(s) you’re being offered-- or, that you’re offering. This alone can be all the difference in recognizing how acutely you need to deal with the truth claims involved.
- If the claim is an unsupported statement, is it true? This may seem like a simple question at first, but it isn’t. Does everyone really understand that there is right and wrong? Is darkness really dark? At least at a philosophical level, many such truth claims cannot be taken for granted these days. (Perhaps another time we’ll discuss how to address assertions of relative truth.)
- If the claim is a supported statement, ask yourself, “What evidence and supporting information would be needed to demonstrate the truth of this claim?” Then find out if that evidence and/or information is available. If the claim is yours, can you demonstrate its truth with support? If the claim is someone else’s, ask them key questions that would reveal how well-supported the claim is. In other words, make sure that enough is disclosed to verify the claim being made.
- If the claim is a statement of opinion, be constantly aware of this. Upon what is that opinion based? How much of an “expert” is the person waging the opinion? How vital is the reliability of this opinion in the overall argument? We place far too much weight on opinion when there is no merit for it; don’t allow this to become the deciding factor for you too easily.
- Keep this in mind: if you’re dealing with the opinion of someone else, you’re probably not going to change their mind in a single conversation (or maybe ever). Especially if they have arrived at an opinion through some significant consideration, they will remain unmoved for some time. There’s nothing wrong with this-- but you don’t have to share their opinion. By and large, conversations and discussions that boil down to one person’s opinion vs. another’s-- with little evidence or reason involved otherwise-- only bruise relationships. If you want to change their mind, ask if you can discuss the things that led to their opinion, and be willing to do this in small, incremental units.
Bits & Tidbits, 10/13/2008
Oct. 12, 2008; 05:54 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
- Ben Witherington has a very good guide to basic principles of hermeneutics (the study of the study of the Bible-- no, I didn’t stutter). Worth reading. (HT: John Allen)
- Who says Latin is dead? (Of course, I’ve known this for years, as I taught for six years at a school that offered Latin.)
- In case you don’t know, Zondervan books has a very good blog with regular posts from their most-known authors. My favorites are Mondays with Mounce (Biblical Greek insight from William Mounce, author of a popular seminary Greek text) and Hebrew Corner (from John Walton, an Old Testament professor and Hebrew scholar).
- What do you do with poo? Some creative conservationists in Asia and Europe have some good ideas.
- The Internet Monk has an interesting discussion, asking the question, “is it a sin to be a stay-at-home dad?”
- Too funny: the battle of the church signs.
- For those who are interested: Marcie has started a blog.
An open letter to the organizing generation
Oct. 09, 2008; 09:44 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
To the generation of
faithful men who, as Pastors and Elders, led the
formation of the Presbyterian Church in America
(PCA):
Dear fathers in the faith,
Thank you for the work that you did 35 years ago, in the
Dear fathers in the faith,
Thank you for the work that you did 35 years ago, in the