Faith & Life
On "conversion"
Nov. 04, 2009; 09:17 AM Filed in: Church Life
"Obviously, what Jesus
promises is highly desirable. Blessedness, freedom,
healing of internal sin, access to eternal life-- who
does not gladly hear of such things? Who would not
want to celebrate with the King? What hinders us,
since he calls to each of us and demands nothing in
return?
"But this misconstrues the intent of the goodness whose goal is to lead us to conversion. It is not shown to us so that we might remain what we are. It rather appeals to us to transcend our base drives and free ourselves from coarse desire. For the king remains the king, even when in his grace he opens his banquet to all. All his banquet serves his glorification, even if it bestows great blessedness upon us. The fellowship of those who celebrate with him is not the place to put our contempt for God on display. Nor is it an occasion to assert our resistance against his command. Without our cooperation, God's grace comes to us and lodges with anyone who places trust in it. But to trust in it is to recognize its greatness and treasure its value. For it is to know that it is God's grace. One can no longer live as though grace no longer claimed him, as if it were some negligible trifle or extra ingredient of only secondary importance. Grace, once received, obligates."
Adolf Schlatter, Do We Know Jesus? p.486.
"But this misconstrues the intent of the goodness whose goal is to lead us to conversion. It is not shown to us so that we might remain what we are. It rather appeals to us to transcend our base drives and free ourselves from coarse desire. For the king remains the king, even when in his grace he opens his banquet to all. All his banquet serves his glorification, even if it bestows great blessedness upon us. The fellowship of those who celebrate with him is not the place to put our contempt for God on display. Nor is it an occasion to assert our resistance against his command. Without our cooperation, God's grace comes to us and lodges with anyone who places trust in it. But to trust in it is to recognize its greatness and treasure its value. For it is to know that it is God's grace. One can no longer live as though grace no longer claimed him, as if it were some negligible trifle or extra ingredient of only secondary importance. Grace, once received, obligates."
Adolf Schlatter, Do We Know Jesus? p.486.
|
Responding to the fear-mongerers
Oct. 27, 2009; 10:06 AM Filed in: Church Life
While
Jerram Barrs was here over the weekend, I asked him
(among many other things!): How should we respond to
those who are trafficking in Gospel-denying fear
about political matters?
Part of his response was to point out how disrespectful talking about President Obama and others as some Christians do is-- not simply of our president, but of other Christians who have faced real threat and persecution.
This is such a key point. This video underscores it:
Part of his response was to point out how disrespectful talking about President Obama and others as some Christians do is-- not simply of our president, but of other Christians who have faced real threat and persecution.
This is such a key point. This video underscores it:
[HT:
Glen]
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
~Romans 8:15, emphasis added
Join the team
Oct. 14, 2009; 10:59 PM Filed in: Church Life
I've been
discussing church membership a lot lately.
The other day, I was interacting with someone about the importance of membership, and they offered the following argument:
Granted. But there's more that is telling about this analogy than just whether joining a church makes you a Christian.
You see, most Christians today assume that joining a church is akin to attending a football game. This is the big flaw in the conventional wisdom. Joining a church is more than merely attending a football game; it is even more than buying season tickets.
We're not just observers. We aren't "doing church" just so that we can watch. The degree to which we are called to participate in the life of the church is not simply to "cheer on" the professional Christians that we've hired to run plays.
If you want to use a football game analogy to describe joining the church, here you go:
You, my fellow Christian-- you, who are called by Christ to put off your old identity and take up the identity you are adopted into in Him-- YOU are a Left Tackle. Or a Strong Safety. Or a Fullback.
You get the picture? Maybe you've been a Left Tackle all your life. Perhaps you are the most promising Strong Safety in this year's class. It could be that you are the most well-developed Fullback this side of the Mississippi. But without a team to play on, you have only so much to offer. Without the other 10 guys on the field with you, your skills and talents-- even your crowd-wowing abilities-- are fairly useless.
So join the team. There's room on the depth chart for you.
The other day, I was interacting with someone about the importance of membership, and they offered the following argument:
"Joining a church doesn't make someone a Christian, any more than attending a football game makes you a sports fan."
Granted. But there's more that is telling about this analogy than just whether joining a church makes you a Christian.
You see, most Christians today assume that joining a church is akin to attending a football game. This is the big flaw in the conventional wisdom. Joining a church is more than merely attending a football game; it is even more than buying season tickets.
We're not just observers. We aren't "doing church" just so that we can watch. The degree to which we are called to participate in the life of the church is not simply to "cheer on" the professional Christians that we've hired to run plays.
If you want to use a football game analogy to describe joining the church, here you go:
You, my fellow Christian-- you, who are called by Christ to put off your old identity and take up the identity you are adopted into in Him-- YOU are a Left Tackle. Or a Strong Safety. Or a Fullback.
You get the picture? Maybe you've been a Left Tackle all your life. Perhaps you are the most promising Strong Safety in this year's class. It could be that you are the most well-developed Fullback this side of the Mississippi. But without a team to play on, you have only so much to offer. Without the other 10 guys on the field with you, your skills and talents-- even your crowd-wowing abilities-- are fairly useless.
So join the team. There's room on the depth chart for you.
John Piper has it backward
Oct. 12, 2009; 08:32 AM Filed in: Church Life
"Worship is first an identity before it's ever an activity."
~Paul David Tripp
Not quite 15 years ago, I began hearing a buzz about this Baptist pastor from Minnesota who had begun to change the way that some people were thinking about the Christian life. In fact, he was challenging the way that people thought about the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism! (This was WAY before the "young, restless, Reformed" movement-- so imagine my surprise that a Baptist pastor was even AWARE of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)
Of course, this pastor was John Piper, and he, through his writings, lectures, sermons, and other platforms, has continued to be formative in the lives of many believers-- Baptist, Presbyterian, and other identities altogether. That book that I was introduced to in the mid-90s, Desiring God, remains one of his most popular titles and, in fact, lent its name to the ministry that spun out of his Baptist congregation and serves as the launch-pad for so many of his ministries outside of Bethlehem Baptist Church.
These days, Desiring God Ministries is huge, and Dr. Piper has become almost a celebrity in some circles. He, along with literally just a few others, have spurred a movement of the introduction of Calvinism to the hearts and minds of believers. I've known people who are convinced that Dr. Piper is the pre-eminent leader of our generation, and others who can quote from his books as others quote from the Bible. A friend of mine coined the term "Piper-Calvinist": someone who isn't exactly "Reformed" but is familiar with Dr. Piper's brand of Calvinism and embraces it. Doubtless, John Piper is a brilliant man, and an influential thinker.
But I think, on at least one substantial point, he is wrong. Or rather, backward.
Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
~Westminster Shorter Catechism, question #1
I was given a copy of Desiring God, and I read it (and even read through it and discussed it with a good friend). The fundamental principle that drives the book-- and subsequently, so much of Dr. Piper's ministry-- is his idea of "Christian Hedonism", which he spins out of his adaptation of the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Dr. Piper's adaptation goes like this:
Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.
In other words, we seek our pleasures in God, and that is the most glorifying thing that we can do. When we find our delight in God, we are, in fact, glorifying Him.
Now, I'm not convinced that this is wrong. I think Dr. Piper has some fair points in his angle on this (though I think that, in several places, he takes it too far in the book). I believe that the basic principle is right, and even probably biblical: it IS glorifying to God to delight in Him.
But I don't think that is what the Westminster Divines (the guys who wrote the Westminster Shorter Catechism) meant. In fact, I think they would probably be fairly appalled at that interpretation of Question #1. And while I believe it to be a biblical assertion as one end, I don't think we find that in Scripture as man's chief end.
[An aside: To be frank, I think that the Westminster Divines would be fairly appalled, in general, at how we have venerated the Westminster Standards (the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms). I'm simply not convinced that they intended for that work to become a standard that some would elevate (almost) to the level of Scripture in its authority.]
This is where I think he has it backward: Dr. Piper asserts that the first part of man's chief end is dependent on the second. Thus:
I won't
elaborate; if you're quite interested in how he comes
to that conclusion, he develops the idea pretty
thoroughly in Desiring
God. As I
said above, I don't think the idea of glorifying God
by enjoying/delighting in Him is wrong; I just don't
think it is man's chief end.
As I read Scripture, however, I see that man's chief
end is precisely the inverse of Dr. Piper's
assertion: the second part of man's chief end is
wholly dependent on the first. Thus:
All of the Bible compels me to believe that we were
made to be worshipers-- and that God intended us to
find our ultimate fulfillment in the worship of Him.
To "glorify God" according to Scripture is inherently
tied to worship. And we cannot be truly worshiping
God if we are first of all seeking our own pleasure
and delight.
Instead, our identity must fundamentally become all
about the worship of God. As Paul David Tripp says
(see the opening quote), "worship is first an
identity before it is ever an activity." When this
becomes our identity,
then the consequence is that we enjoy God forever
through the satisfaction of fulfilling our own
identity!
This is, by our contemporary way of thinking, a
convoluted manner of understanding our enjoyment of
God. In part, this is because we are such
individualists that we default to a "me-first"
attitude-- and the notion of putting God first in our
chief end is incongruent. Also in part, this is
because we secretly suspect that God is not
interested in what gives us enjoyment-- we believe
His law to be oppressive, not freeing.
But it is largely difficult for us because it is
"upside-down" to our normal way of thinking. But this
is the way of the Gospel-- everything is upside-down.
The cross tells you everything you have heard in the world is wrong. Because the cross says the way up is down, the way to get real power is to give your power away, the way to get real riches is to give away your money radically and generously, the way to get tremendous self-esteem, assurance of your beauty, is to admit that you are such a terrible lost sinner that somebody had to come from heaven and die for you.
~Timothy Keller
To be perfectly fair, I believe that Dr. Piper would largely agree with much of what I've just said (though not entirely). But the way that many of his "disciples" apply his notion of "Christian Hedonism" is far afield from this way of thinking. Therfore, it may have been more accurate to label this "John Piper's disciples have it backward-- but then that wouldn't have gotten your attention as easily!
Two kinds of Homeschoolers
Sep. 17, 2009; 07:58 PM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
It's clear to me that
there are two kinds of homeschoolers-- that is, two
kinds of parents
who homeschool their
children.
The first kind are primarily concerned about the education of their children. Because of circumstances, opportunities, and/or necessity, they have chosen to take on the education of their children at home. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't accept another opportunity (even public schools) if it met their standards and/or was necessary; it simply means that, as things are, this is what is best for their children right now. It also means that they are open to different options in the future if, again, they considered it and determined it to be what is best. These homeschoolers are generally accepting of other people's decisions about how those people educate their children, because, after all, those parents are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children's education and overall health and well-being.
The second kind of homeschoolers would like for you to believe that their primary concern is the education of their children. They will even say that is their primary concern. But it isn't-- in fact, that is a secondary concern, at best. The primary concern for these homeschoolers is bound up in their worldview, political persuasion, and dogmatic views about what they believe is right for ALL children. They are convinced that they are "right" about all of their views-- not in the sense that they have carefully weighed it against all others and are acting on personal conviction, but in the sense that what they say goes for everyone else too. They have fallen into the fateful error of believing that they have unlocked "God's way" for understanding education, politics, social discussions, education, and everything else that interests them. As far as education goes, they have not only determined that what is best for their children is an education administered by them, but that there is no other biblical way that children can be rightly educated. This determination gives them a sense of superiority that empowers them to treat anyone who differs with them with condescension and belligerence.
In the Christian church, the first kind typically handles themselves in particular manner. They have come to their decision humbly, and regard others with the same humility. They are simply out to do their best, and are interested in connecting with others who homeschool because they recognize that many others are working in ways that they could learn from. While they may hold opinions about politics and social issues-- and even about whether others are making wise choices regarding their children's education-- they understand that those are their opinions. They do not view their homeschooling as necessarily motivated out of the "right" way to do all things, but out of what they believe is the best decision for their family; in fact, they acknowledge that sometimes homeschooling is a train-wreck for some families, and was a bad decision. They are grateful for the church as a refuge for broken people, a community of fellowship, and most importantly as a place where sinners may come to learn and grow in Christ's grace as those who were once the enemies of God but have now been adopted as His children. Many of them get concerned when the church loses its focus on the Gospel and emphasizes too much the things of this world.
In the Christian church, the second kind also handles themselves in apredictable
particular manner.
Regardless of the manner in which they have come to
their decision (humbly or not), they tend not to
regard others with humility. They are out to prove a
point-- and nearly every contact with them begins or
ends with that point being pushed on others. They
regard their opinions about politics and social
matters, as well as education, to be definitive, and
anyone who disagrees with them is obviously in sin.
They have no problem with foisting their every
political comment and complaint on whoever will
listen (and many who won't), under the guise of
"keeping people informed" but in the form of a
presentation that is not only biased but frequently
disrespectful and undignified. They typically
equivocate "Christian" with "Republican" and assume
certain shibboleths (such as "pro-life" and
"pro-family") to be the markers of "real"
Christians-- indeed, that these are all but required
alongside a profession of faith for the profession to
be valid. They believe that the church is a place for
the righteous, a coalition of the like-minded, and
most importantly as a place where everyone should go
to be shown all of the right ways of thinking about
the issues they care about. They get concerned when
their preacher doesn't call people to the carpet for
their political, social, educational, or other
failures.
Homeschoolers: which one are you?
To the first group, I say this: thank you for your humble and tireless efforts to raise your children as best as you are able. I know that it is often difficult, and you sometimes wonder if you have made a mistake in choosing this path. Your humility is affirming of the fact that you are approaching this with the right attitude, and that counts for a lot. Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us behind you. You give homeschooling the good name that it (usually) deserves.
To the second group, I say this: please reconsider the over-confidence and absolute certainty with which you approach this and many other positions that you hold. I cannot say with any conviction that your attitudes or positions are inherently "blessed" by Scripture or by God, as you seem so persuaded is the case. I am certain of this: there is no requirement of political or educational uniformity in Scripture, and you are misrepresenting the church, the Gospel, and Christ Himself in much of the way you portray them. I fear that your presentation of what it means to be a Christian is a hindrance for many who otherwise long for the grace of the Cross.
The first kind are primarily concerned about the education of their children. Because of circumstances, opportunities, and/or necessity, they have chosen to take on the education of their children at home. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't accept another opportunity (even public schools) if it met their standards and/or was necessary; it simply means that, as things are, this is what is best for their children right now. It also means that they are open to different options in the future if, again, they considered it and determined it to be what is best. These homeschoolers are generally accepting of other people's decisions about how those people educate their children, because, after all, those parents are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children's education and overall health and well-being.
The second kind of homeschoolers would like for you to believe that their primary concern is the education of their children. They will even say that is their primary concern. But it isn't-- in fact, that is a secondary concern, at best. The primary concern for these homeschoolers is bound up in their worldview, political persuasion, and dogmatic views about what they believe is right for ALL children. They are convinced that they are "right" about all of their views-- not in the sense that they have carefully weighed it against all others and are acting on personal conviction, but in the sense that what they say goes for everyone else too. They have fallen into the fateful error of believing that they have unlocked "God's way" for understanding education, politics, social discussions, education, and everything else that interests them. As far as education goes, they have not only determined that what is best for their children is an education administered by them, but that there is no other biblical way that children can be rightly educated. This determination gives them a sense of superiority that empowers them to treat anyone who differs with them with condescension and belligerence.
In the Christian church, the first kind typically handles themselves in particular manner. They have come to their decision humbly, and regard others with the same humility. They are simply out to do their best, and are interested in connecting with others who homeschool because they recognize that many others are working in ways that they could learn from. While they may hold opinions about politics and social issues-- and even about whether others are making wise choices regarding their children's education-- they understand that those are their opinions. They do not view their homeschooling as necessarily motivated out of the "right" way to do all things, but out of what they believe is the best decision for their family; in fact, they acknowledge that sometimes homeschooling is a train-wreck for some families, and was a bad decision. They are grateful for the church as a refuge for broken people, a community of fellowship, and most importantly as a place where sinners may come to learn and grow in Christ's grace as those who were once the enemies of God but have now been adopted as His children. Many of them get concerned when the church loses its focus on the Gospel and emphasizes too much the things of this world.
In the Christian church, the second kind also handles themselves in a
Homeschoolers: which one are you?
To the first group, I say this: thank you for your humble and tireless efforts to raise your children as best as you are able. I know that it is often difficult, and you sometimes wonder if you have made a mistake in choosing this path. Your humility is affirming of the fact that you are approaching this with the right attitude, and that counts for a lot. Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us behind you. You give homeschooling the good name that it (usually) deserves.
To the second group, I say this: please reconsider the over-confidence and absolute certainty with which you approach this and many other positions that you hold. I cannot say with any conviction that your attitudes or positions are inherently "blessed" by Scripture or by God, as you seem so persuaded is the case. I am certain of this: there is no requirement of political or educational uniformity in Scripture, and you are misrepresenting the church, the Gospel, and Christ Himself in much of the way you portray them. I fear that your presentation of what it means to be a Christian is a hindrance for many who otherwise long for the grace of the Cross.
Remembering 9/11
Sep. 11, 2009; 02:42 PM Filed in: Culture
The
8th anniversary of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks is upon us. There may be a
thousand other things now competing for your
attention; there certainly are mine. But I wanted to
take a moment anyway to remember and grieve, and to
encourage you to do so.
I remember...
A number of things have come to pass since then...
Still, it is worth remembering the events themselves. Remember the brokenness, beloved, that we might mourn with those who still mourn, and cry with those who still cry. That we might continue to struggle together against the brokenness, and yearn together for redemption and reconciliation. Remember, that we might together long for the soon return of Christ and meet that day in which he will wipe away every tear, and there will be no more mourning.
In case you have forgotten, here is a reminder:
I remember...
- Hearing about what was happening on the radio, having just dropped Marcie off at work and while on the way to the seminary campus.
- Finding my friend Bryan and the two of us immediately hitting the internet to try to learn what was happening.
- Realizing with relief that no one I knew well, personally, was a direct victim of these attacks-- but also that more other people than not were in the other position, having lost someone to the attacks.
- Everyone I knew walking around in a sort of daze for weeks, with no sense of humor or levity seeming appropriate.
- Finally beginning to feel some sense of healing, after Bryan Chapell preached THIS sermon in chapel.
- Many of my friends responding with anger, with a sense of vengeance in their hearts.
- One friend eventually feeling led to obtain a handgun and a concealed-carry permit, so that he might take responsibility to stop others who might perpetuate hate and violence.
- My heart, on the other hand, being wrung with grief not only for the victims, but for those who committed such acts and organized or called for them; and finding, not vengeance or even outright cold justice, but redemption as the greatest hope that I might have for them.
A number of things have come to pass since then...
- I had a son just over a year after (on 9/13/2002), and the memories are more filled with joy now than shock and grief.
- As a culture we've forgotten the unity that was brought about by those events, and have become more fractured than at any time recent memory can recall.
- Many have continued to be wracked with grief and sadness, unable to overcome the horror of that day.
- Even within a few years, however, my students at the school where I taught in seminary did not have much memory, if any, of the events of that day.
- This driving desire in me for redemption and hope of reconciliation that arose in response to these events eventually brought me to where I am today, where I am much closer to being a pacifist than anyone else that I know, and I find myself deeply committed to non-violent solutions.
Still, it is worth remembering the events themselves. Remember the brokenness, beloved, that we might mourn with those who still mourn, and cry with those who still cry. That we might continue to struggle together against the brokenness, and yearn together for redemption and reconciliation. Remember, that we might together long for the soon return of Christ and meet that day in which he will wipe away every tear, and there will be no more mourning.
In case you have forgotten, here is a reminder:
Spiritual gifts-- some thoughts
Aug. 28, 2009; 02:01 PM Filed in: Church Life
I’ve had a few recent
conversations on spiritual gifts, and I thought I
would offer some thoughts.
I don’t claim to represent the views of the PCA on this, although to the best of my knowledge my views are not out of accord with the PCA. (The predominant view of PCA pastors on spiritual gifts, especially on the apostolic or “sign” gifts, can be found in this Pastoral Letter, which is a good summary.)
I don’t claim to represent the views of the PCA on this, although to the best of my knowledge my views are not out of accord with the PCA. (The predominant view of PCA pastors on spiritual gifts, especially on the apostolic or “sign” gifts, can be found in this Pastoral Letter, which is a good summary.)
- I am a “Cessationist” when it comes to the apostolic or “sign” gifts. That is, I believe that they have “ceased” to manifest. These were, from everything I can tell from Scripture, gifts given to evidence the presence of the Holy Spirit in the churches, primarily so that New Testament-era believers could discern when the teaching they were receiving was orthodox or not. Two things convince me that such signs are no longer necessary: first, that we have the Bible-- and therefore we have a different, and better, measure of orthodoxy; second, that we have the completed Bible-- which means that ongoing revelation (which appears to have been the immediate content of the manifestation of these gifts) is unnecessary and, in fact, contrary to our views of Scripture. Also, I don’t hold that against others-- I’ve had good friends who have believed in the continuation of the apostolic gifts, and it hasn’t been reason to break fellowship.
- I expect that the exercise of spiritual gifts is to be done in a biblical manner. One of my professors from seminary mentioned in class once (in an appropriate context) that he was not a Cessationist, but that he looked for, not the gifts of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit as evidence that someone is a believer. This view comes out of a right understanding of what Scripture-- and especially the New Testament-- says regarding how we might be confident in someone’s faith. It also happens to fly in the face of the practice of many, who claim that someone who has not evidenced one or more certain gifts (and they are always the apostolic or “sign” gifts) must not have the Holy Spirit present in their lives. Not surprisingly, there are other biblical manners by which the gifts of the Holy Spirit are prescribed to be exercised, which are ignored by many who engage in their practice. For example, 1 Corinthians 14 clearly requires that, in the case of speaking in tongues, an interpreter must be present-- and if one is not present, then the speaker should keep quiet. It also stipulates that, at most, two or three people should offer prophecy, and not more; whereas, I have known of times when dozens of people have claimed to have prophecies in some Charismatic churches. As I mentioned above, I don’t have a strong conscience about other Christians’ belief in the continuation of these gifts; my problem is with the unbiblical exercise of them.
- I believe that, in general, it is helpful to consider spiritual gifts. For a while in the 80s and 90s, you couldn’t swing a dead skunk without knocking someone’s “spiritual gift inventory” off of a table-- there was great fervor for spiritual gifts, and frequently what seemed to me to be an over-emphasis on them. In our typical “all-or-nothing” way, many Christians summarily rejected spiritual gifts as unimportant, mainly out of reaction to the zeal. I don’t think either is appropriate; it seems clear from Scripture that there are spiritual gifts that are present in the lives of believers, and therefore it seems right that we should investigate and consider our spiritual giftedness-- but not in isolation or to the exclusion of other aspects of how God has made us. There is nothing wrong with completing a “spiritual gift inventory” and learning more about your spiritual gifts. In fact, we have some information about these in the Resources section of the HWPC website.
- I think that spiritual gifts are connected to “natural” gifts. It seems to me that what it means for someone to receive a spiritual giftedness in a certain way simply means that they already had some natural talent, ability, or giftedness that was "sanctified" in their conversion for spiritual usefulness. There are plenty of people who are gifted teachers, for example, who are not believers; when they get converted, however, the Spirit appropriates their natural talents for teaching for Kingdom-usefulness. I don't believe that, ordinarily, one should expect his/her spiritual gifts to be altogether different from something that they already had some capacity for. I've never known it to be the case, for example, that someone who stammered and stuttered, and who was terrified to the point of hyperventilating to stand before a crowd, upon conversion suddenly becomes a preacher. If it has happened, then it is extraordinary, not ordinary. (Before you tell me that John Piper was afraid to speak, remember that he was already converted long before he overcame that fear.) This also means that there is spiritual gifting that includes more than simply what is listed in the New Testament letters, because there are areas of natural giftedness beyond these areas. For example, one spiritual gift inventory I saw listed "music" as a spiritual gift-- appropriately corresponding to the obvious natural abilities that some have (though not others) for musical skills. I think this is right, even though there is no mention of music at all in Paul's lists.
- I have found that investigations of spiritual gifts are helpful to "connect the dots" for some. Someone recently asked me why spiritual gift inventories are valuable, especially if they are simply extensions, if you will, of natural gifts. In my experience, there are two ways. First, someone may not immediately or intuitively recognize how their natural talents and abilities are useful for Kingdom purposes; for whatever reason, they may have a misunderstanding that some interest, ability, passion, or talent that they have is not holy and profitable for Christ's service. A spiritual gift inventory may open their eyes to the contrary, and help them see how their unique giftedness fits into Christ's transforming work. Secondly, Christians often affect a self-effacing denial of their own value, believing that it is the path to humility; consequently, they begin to believe that they are worth little, and eventually their identities as children of the living God are squelched by this false view. A spiritual gift inventory can counteract this by directly exposing the aspects of a person's character and being that are useful and valuable to God.
- I am convinced that spiritual gifts are just a part of who we are. One of the results of the enthusiasm toward the spiritual gifts craze of recent years was that some began to understand their identity in Christ primarily by way of their spiritual giftedness. This had two consequences, both negative. It suggested a hierarchy in worth, because some people obviously had more spiritual gifts than others; thus, some became envious of others' gifts, or simply became depressed because they weren't all that. Also, it denied the many other aspects of who someone is, and how Christ might transform them into His image; this even, at times, had the unfortunate result of creating large "blind-spots" in someone's spiritual growth, because the focus was so much on the spiritual gifts. God has made us as complex creatures, and the more we might know about ourselves, the better. In my experience, there is wisdom to be gained from considering, not only spiritual gifts, but also temperament, communication style, natural talents and abilities, leadership style, key life experiences, major influences, and even passions and dreams. (A good book to look at these comprehensively, by the way, is Aubrey Malphurs's Maximizing Your Effectiveness: How to Discover and Develop Your Divine Design.)
Redemption
Jun. 29, 2009; 01:09 PM Filed in: Church Life
Here’s a
great and amazing video. It offers a redemptive view
of a tragic circumstance.
What I love about this short account is that these believers aren’t pie-in-the-sky about their faith or passé about their situation. They are simply grateful for what God has given them, and for the hope that He has redeemed, is redeeming, and will redeem this broken world.
I’m undone.
What I love about this short account is that these believers aren’t pie-in-the-sky about their faith or passé about their situation. They are simply grateful for what God has given them, and for the hope that He has redeemed, is redeeming, and will redeem this broken world.
I’m undone.
(HT: Glen)
Full of Christ
Jun. 24, 2009; 09:34 AM Filed in: Theology
The pace of ministry
Jun. 09, 2009; 11:53 AM Filed in: Ministry
We have
an antique rocking chair at home that has been in my
family for generations. I remember it sitting in my
grandmother’s living room for years, with this blue
flannel blanket draped over it. After that, it found
its way into a barn for a season, before landing in
my apartment before I was married. It has been in my
possession since.
This particular rocker has a cane seat and back, which makes it very comfortable to sit in. Unfortunately, it also means that the cane periodically wears out. I remember my mother having the back re-caned after recovering it from the barn, before it became mine. Early in our marriage, the seat also wore out. When a caned seat or back wears out, the result is a hole that unweaves more and more until essentially you have nothing to sit or lean on-- so the chair went back into storage for a long time.
Recently, though, I’ve been working on restoring it. I decided to do the caning myself, and even received a few special caning tools as a Christmas present last year. This process has been interesting, and a good metaphor for ministry, I think.
The cane seat of this rocker is held in place by a “spline” which is glued and wedged into a channel that goes around the entire seat. Replacing the cane means removing the old spline and installing a new one with the new cane. The work I’ve been doing so far has been mostly removing this spline.
You should know this about caning and splines: if they’re done well, they are VERY difficult to remove. Naturally, you don’t want the spline simply slipping out and the seat collapsing on you! Thus, getting the old one out is an intense act of labor, where I take a very small chisel and, little by little, begin removing parts of the old spline.
I had to start by finding the end, then gradually working the chisel under it. Once it was wedged in there, I pried out what I could, as gently as I could. From there, I worked my way around. At times, I had to shave off a little at a time until I got to the bottom of the spline. At other times, I had to work the edge away from the carcass of the chair, or split the spline with a larger chisel, or use a razor-blade to trim away parts. Underneath the spline is a good bit of glue, which also must be removed.
At the same time, I must be very careful with the carcass of the chair. While the old spline will be discarded and completely replaced, if I’m not careful I could do serious damage to the body of the chair. A slip of the chisel, or too much pressure from gripping in the wrong place, and my antique could break beyond repair. I also have to be careful with myself: my chisel slipped off of the spline and dug into the pad of my thumb once; now I’m cautious about where I place my hands!
This is laborious work. Sometimes it is quite rough and even violent. At other times it requires extraordinary gentleness. There are times when I must work for a while on an area, then leave it for another area out of frustration. Real, substantial progress is measured in inches and fractions of inches. All of it-- every shave of the chisel-- has a significant part in a larger end-goal.
From my point of view, this is what real ministry is like.
It is slow-paced and careful. It takes a long time. Real progress is made in very incremental ways. It can be frustrating. It can be rough and even painful, but most of the time requires gentleness-- and even the rough parts must be done with care.
Yet, all of it has a part in a larger purpose. And if that purpose is kept in view, every shave of the chisel is worth it.
I finished removing the spline last night. I have just a little glue left to remove, and then I’ll be able to replace the cane seating. I’ll post a picture when I’m done-- may it be a picture of the worthiness of a slow and careful ministry.
This particular rocker has a cane seat and back, which makes it very comfortable to sit in. Unfortunately, it also means that the cane periodically wears out. I remember my mother having the back re-caned after recovering it from the barn, before it became mine. Early in our marriage, the seat also wore out. When a caned seat or back wears out, the result is a hole that unweaves more and more until essentially you have nothing to sit or lean on-- so the chair went back into storage for a long time.
Recently, though, I’ve been working on restoring it. I decided to do the caning myself, and even received a few special caning tools as a Christmas present last year. This process has been interesting, and a good metaphor for ministry, I think.
The cane seat of this rocker is held in place by a “spline” which is glued and wedged into a channel that goes around the entire seat. Replacing the cane means removing the old spline and installing a new one with the new cane. The work I’ve been doing so far has been mostly removing this spline.
You should know this about caning and splines: if they’re done well, they are VERY difficult to remove. Naturally, you don’t want the spline simply slipping out and the seat collapsing on you! Thus, getting the old one out is an intense act of labor, where I take a very small chisel and, little by little, begin removing parts of the old spline.
I had to start by finding the end, then gradually working the chisel under it. Once it was wedged in there, I pried out what I could, as gently as I could. From there, I worked my way around. At times, I had to shave off a little at a time until I got to the bottom of the spline. At other times, I had to work the edge away from the carcass of the chair, or split the spline with a larger chisel, or use a razor-blade to trim away parts. Underneath the spline is a good bit of glue, which also must be removed.
At the same time, I must be very careful with the carcass of the chair. While the old spline will be discarded and completely replaced, if I’m not careful I could do serious damage to the body of the chair. A slip of the chisel, or too much pressure from gripping in the wrong place, and my antique could break beyond repair. I also have to be careful with myself: my chisel slipped off of the spline and dug into the pad of my thumb once; now I’m cautious about where I place my hands!
This is laborious work. Sometimes it is quite rough and even violent. At other times it requires extraordinary gentleness. There are times when I must work for a while on an area, then leave it for another area out of frustration. Real, substantial progress is measured in inches and fractions of inches. All of it-- every shave of the chisel-- has a significant part in a larger end-goal.
From my point of view, this is what real ministry is like.
It is slow-paced and careful. It takes a long time. Real progress is made in very incremental ways. It can be frustrating. It can be rough and even painful, but most of the time requires gentleness-- and even the rough parts must be done with care.
Yet, all of it has a part in a larger purpose. And if that purpose is kept in view, every shave of the chisel is worth it.
I finished removing the spline last night. I have just a little glue left to remove, and then I’ll be able to replace the cane seating. I’ll post a picture when I’m done-- may it be a picture of the worthiness of a slow and careful ministry.
"Christ-Follower"
Jun. 04, 2009; 09:21 AM Filed in: Church Life
I’ve
noticed, actually for several years now, that many
believers have eschewed the label “Christian” in
favor of “Christ-Follower”.
Now, there are some valid reasons for wanting to distance oneself from a label that has taken on too much baggage. In the earlier half of the 20th century, those who wished to define themselves as faithful to Scripture as the inerrant, inspired Word of God called themselves “fundamentalists”; yet today that term is used almost as a slander, even by Christians. The term “evangelical” seems to be moving in a similar direction: it has become so broad as to mean very little, and now you have churches whose name (or even whose denominational name) includes the word “evangelical” who are actually the very antithesis of what the word was/is supposed to mean, and some folks talking about being “post-evangelical”.
But this new shift-- from “Christian” to “Christ-follower”-- is different. And maybe even a bit dangerous.
On the one hand, there are many in the Gospels who are called “followers of Christ” who, in fact, were not Christians; instead, they followed Jesus because they wanted to be a part of the masses who followed Him, or because they misunderstood His role as Messiah (and they wanted a military or political leader), or because they found the trappings of this world too great for them to take up their crosses as He called them to do. Jesus Himself seems, at times, to distinguish between being a “follower” and a “disciple” though this distinction is somewhat ambiguous.
And that’s a big part of the problem: when we simply talk about being a “follower” of Christ, where is the boundary drawn? Those who align themselves with His movement? Those who appreciate His philosophies and moral teachings? Or those who are regenerate, who have saving faith in Him because of the Holy Spirit? All three of these categories are, at different times in the Gospels, called “followers of Christ”.
On the other hand, when we decide that the term “Christian” is something to abandon, we must realize that we have abandoned a Bible word, not just a convenient label. Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 all employ the word “Christian” to describe those who, in faith, are saved by grace through Christ alone. This suggests to me that God, through the inspiration of His Word, intends His people to be known as Christians (among other labels that He Himself gives, like believers, the Body, etc.)
What does it suggest when we decide that a Bible word no longer “works”? Should we do the same for sin-- why not just talk about “mistakes”? How about salvation-- should we call it “life-change”? Both of these have the same net effect as the rejection of “Christian” for “Christ-Follower”-- positively, they replace a term with a lot of history (and therefore a lot of baggage) with a more contemporary, less heavy-laden term; but negatively, they introduce ambiguity where the Bible word is clear.
Now, those who promote the “Christ-Follower” monicker will say that Jesus Himself appealed to the 12 Disciples with the call, “follow me”-- and that there is therefore good precedent for using that label. And that is true-- but Christ also called others with the same words, who did not answer the call. And I’m not one of those 12, and neither are you, and those guys fulfilled a very special and particular role in the early church, so we have to be careful of how much we extract from their experiences as normative for us today.
Besides, I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider ourselves followers of Christ-- not at all! My point is this: we aren’t merely “followers” in a sense that Christ is our great leader, and He will take us down the path we should go. If we have saving faith in Him, then our identity is much more than that-- we aren’t just followers of Christ, but are His adopted brothers, co-heirs, and are being re-made into His image. That’s why the label “Christian”-- which some have suggested literally translates as “little Christs”-- is fitting.
Now, there are some valid reasons for wanting to distance oneself from a label that has taken on too much baggage. In the earlier half of the 20th century, those who wished to define themselves as faithful to Scripture as the inerrant, inspired Word of God called themselves “fundamentalists”; yet today that term is used almost as a slander, even by Christians. The term “evangelical” seems to be moving in a similar direction: it has become so broad as to mean very little, and now you have churches whose name (or even whose denominational name) includes the word “evangelical” who are actually the very antithesis of what the word was/is supposed to mean, and some folks talking about being “post-evangelical”.
But this new shift-- from “Christian” to “Christ-follower”-- is different. And maybe even a bit dangerous.
On the one hand, there are many in the Gospels who are called “followers of Christ” who, in fact, were not Christians; instead, they followed Jesus because they wanted to be a part of the masses who followed Him, or because they misunderstood His role as Messiah (and they wanted a military or political leader), or because they found the trappings of this world too great for them to take up their crosses as He called them to do. Jesus Himself seems, at times, to distinguish between being a “follower” and a “disciple” though this distinction is somewhat ambiguous.
And that’s a big part of the problem: when we simply talk about being a “follower” of Christ, where is the boundary drawn? Those who align themselves with His movement? Those who appreciate His philosophies and moral teachings? Or those who are regenerate, who have saving faith in Him because of the Holy Spirit? All three of these categories are, at different times in the Gospels, called “followers of Christ”.
On the other hand, when we decide that the term “Christian” is something to abandon, we must realize that we have abandoned a Bible word, not just a convenient label. Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 all employ the word “Christian” to describe those who, in faith, are saved by grace through Christ alone. This suggests to me that God, through the inspiration of His Word, intends His people to be known as Christians (among other labels that He Himself gives, like believers, the Body, etc.)
What does it suggest when we decide that a Bible word no longer “works”? Should we do the same for sin-- why not just talk about “mistakes”? How about salvation-- should we call it “life-change”? Both of these have the same net effect as the rejection of “Christian” for “Christ-Follower”-- positively, they replace a term with a lot of history (and therefore a lot of baggage) with a more contemporary, less heavy-laden term; but negatively, they introduce ambiguity where the Bible word is clear.
Now, those who promote the “Christ-Follower” monicker will say that Jesus Himself appealed to the 12 Disciples with the call, “follow me”-- and that there is therefore good precedent for using that label. And that is true-- but Christ also called others with the same words, who did not answer the call. And I’m not one of those 12, and neither are you, and those guys fulfilled a very special and particular role in the early church, so we have to be careful of how much we extract from their experiences as normative for us today.
Besides, I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider ourselves followers of Christ-- not at all! My point is this: we aren’t merely “followers” in a sense that Christ is our great leader, and He will take us down the path we should go. If we have saving faith in Him, then our identity is much more than that-- we aren’t just followers of Christ, but are His adopted brothers, co-heirs, and are being re-made into His image. That’s why the label “Christian”-- which some have suggested literally translates as “little Christs”-- is fitting.
No balance
One of
the leaders of Youth Specialties, a large resource
for youth ministry in the Christian church,
recently announced that he was
cutting out Facebook, Twitter, and
blogging because
of a re-evaluation of priorities in his life. Good
for him.
Several of the comments he received pleaded with him to reconsider. At least one of them (I didn’t read them all) appealed to the goal of “balance” as the solution to continuing these activities. You don’t have to quit altogether, said he, but just scale back.
I have three responses to this:
First-- seriously?!? This guy’s just announced that he has prayerfully considered how he uses his time, and he’s giving up three online time-sponges in order to spend more time on his ministry and with his family. You want him to reconsider because you’d miss reading his blog? (And this is from people who work in vocational ministry...) I don’t have any problem with any of those activities, but I both understand and respect when people thoughtfully decide to purge them from their lives.
Second-- there are dozens of online “social” tools available (and more daily, it seems), and all of them have some value and purpose. But two things stand out to me in this vein: first, if you can’t articulate a good reason (even if it is, “harmless fun”) for using any one of them, then you’re wasting your time. Second, if you’re using them just to “build your brand” then I think you ought to take a closer look at the Scriptures and consider whether “building your personal brand” has anything to do with discipleship.
Third-- and this is the main point: people talk to me often about “balance” in their lives. Some are folks I minister to, others are people I consult with (because I do some consulting in addition to pastoral ministry, and that sometimes includes consulting about “productivity”), and a unifying fact about all of them is that they have too much going on in their lives. The popular solution to this in today’s culture is to look for “balance.”
But as I read the Bible I see nothing whatsoever about balance. Sure, you could argue that the texts on stewardship apply to time as well-- and they do-- but that doesn’t amount to a Divine declaration in favor of balance. In fact, there really isn’t a warrant for balance even in the stewardship texts.
What I see in the Bible is this: learn what are the priorities of the Kingdom, and utterly abandon everything that isn’t them.
If you’re looking for balance, here’s how you accomplish it in a biblical way: cut out some of the busyness that has little or no real value, and suddenly your life will feel balanced. Discern what God has created and called you to do and be, and stop trying to do or be more than this. Spend your time on what God declares to be important, and you won’t feel imbalanced.
Several of the comments he received pleaded with him to reconsider. At least one of them (I didn’t read them all) appealed to the goal of “balance” as the solution to continuing these activities. You don’t have to quit altogether, said he, but just scale back.
I have three responses to this:
First-- seriously?!? This guy’s just announced that he has prayerfully considered how he uses his time, and he’s giving up three online time-sponges in order to spend more time on his ministry and with his family. You want him to reconsider because you’d miss reading his blog? (And this is from people who work in vocational ministry...) I don’t have any problem with any of those activities, but I both understand and respect when people thoughtfully decide to purge them from their lives.
Second-- there are dozens of online “social” tools available (and more daily, it seems), and all of them have some value and purpose. But two things stand out to me in this vein: first, if you can’t articulate a good reason (even if it is, “harmless fun”) for using any one of them, then you’re wasting your time. Second, if you’re using them just to “build your brand” then I think you ought to take a closer look at the Scriptures and consider whether “building your personal brand” has anything to do with discipleship.
Third-- and this is the main point: people talk to me often about “balance” in their lives. Some are folks I minister to, others are people I consult with (because I do some consulting in addition to pastoral ministry, and that sometimes includes consulting about “productivity”), and a unifying fact about all of them is that they have too much going on in their lives. The popular solution to this in today’s culture is to look for “balance.”
But as I read the Bible I see nothing whatsoever about balance. Sure, you could argue that the texts on stewardship apply to time as well-- and they do-- but that doesn’t amount to a Divine declaration in favor of balance. In fact, there really isn’t a warrant for balance even in the stewardship texts.
What I see in the Bible is this: learn what are the priorities of the Kingdom, and utterly abandon everything that isn’t them.
If you’re looking for balance, here’s how you accomplish it in a biblical way: cut out some of the busyness that has little or no real value, and suddenly your life will feel balanced. Discern what God has created and called you to do and be, and stop trying to do or be more than this. Spend your time on what God declares to be important, and you won’t feel imbalanced.
Spiritual Life Conference
May. 29, 2009; 02:11 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
We’ve just started actively
promoting our Spiritual
LIfe Conference for 2009. The dates will be October
23-25, and the topic is Prayer. Our speaker will
be Jerram Barrs, professor of Covenant Seminary
and Scholar in residence of the Francis A.
Schaeffer Institute.
The conference will include several lectures from Jerram, a Question & Answer Luncheon with him on Saturday, and he will preach during morning worship on Sunday. There will also be a prayer service Saturday morning, and the sanctuary will be open for prayer all afternoon on Saturday.
One thing that our brochure DOESN’T say is that there will be a Pastors’ Luncheon on Friday, in addition to all of the other activities.
To learn more and to register, visit the website: slc.hickorywithepc.org. And keep an eye on it, because there may be some additions yet to come in the plans and offerings.
Hank Hill on choosing churches
May. 05, 2009; 11:08 AM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
One of my
favorite clips from King of the Hill, which happens
to be a show that I think offers some of the most
poignant cultural critique today:
Prayer 7: a primer on fasting
Mar. 20, 2009; 09:05 AM Filed in: Church Life
Our Session has
determined that we will have a congregational day of
fasting for all who feel led to participate, on March
28th.
I wanted to take an opportunity to answer some
questions and offer some guidance about this.
Why do we fast? This basic question occurs to all of us at some point. A writer named Scot McKnight defines fasting as, “a whole-body response to a grievous sacred moment.” This definition helps us understand why we fast: we are responding to something that is spiritual enough, and grievous enough, to merit such a response. We are spiritual beings, and often respond to grievous occasions in a spiritual way (prayer, for example); but we are also physical, body-dwelling creatures, and we can and should respond with our bodies as well.
On this occasion, the Session has recognized that there have been many “grievous sacred moments” over the past several years, some of which still linger in the hearts and minds of our members. We want to respond appropriately, with fasting and prayers for repentance (both personal repentance and congregation-wide repentance) and forgiveness.
Some may ask, “Should I participate?” The answer is, yes— if you believe that you should. Fasting is something that some people incorporate into their spiritual lives on a regular basis— even weekly for some. Others seldom, if ever, fast. If you have never fasted— or if it has been a long time since you did so— you might try it, keeping an open mind. You may find that it is a practice you would like to continue.
There are some people who should NOT fast because of health or medical reasons; if you aren’t sure about this, it might be worthwhile to call your doctor before you decide to fast. Some will find that fasting can become something they approach in a legalistic way, and these people should be careful about whether they should fast, and what their motives are for fasting. No one should feel compelled to fast if they don’t feel led to, nor should they feel judged by others if they choose not to fast.
What is involved in a fast? Strictly speaking, a fast is giving up all food for a period of time. Some people do what is called a “liquid fast” which means that they do not eat solid foods, but they still allow themselves liquids such as juices and other drinks. Another type of fast is called an “absolute fast” which is when the one fasting gives up all food and drink for the duration of the fast. In most cases, a fast involves no solid foods and no drinks but water.
Sometimes people will speak of giving up certain foods for a time— during Lent, for example. This is not technically a fast, but an “abstention,” as they are simply abstaining from certain foods. This can be a good exercise, too, in a similar way to fasting. Some who are not able to fast due to medical need might find that they can participate in a group or congregational fast by abstention.
A natural question is, “How long will we fast?” In this case, the Session has called for a “half-day” fast to start on the 28th. What that means is that we ask those who participate to fast from after lunchtime on Saturday until a congregation-wide breakfast on Sunday. We aren’t asking you to give up ALL meals on Saturday! Eat breakfast and lunch, then eat nothing more until breakfast the next morning, at the church, at 10:00am (instead of Sunday School).
Someone asked me, “What do I do during the fast?” This, like fasting itself, is largely up to your conscience. However, I am glad to offer some suggestions. You might spend the time you would normally take for meals in prayer, reading the Bible, or singing hymns. You may decide to calculate what you would normally spend on those meals and snacks and give that amount of money to the Deacons’ Fund at HWPC, or to a charitable cause.
In this case, because the Session has called for both fasting AND prayer about a specific topic— repentance for our personal and corporate sins— you should spend some extra time in prayer. One “cue” that I have used in the past is that, whenever my stomach growls or I feel a hunger pang, I take that as a prompting to pray. You should pray in your own way, and as you feel led to do so.
Jesus tells of how we should NOT spend our times of fasting: flaunting it before the world. When we fast, he says, we should not do it like the hypocrites, making a big deal about it and drawing attention to ourselves (Matt. 6). Thus, if you choose to participate in this fast (and/or to fast at other times), you should be cautious that you don’t do so hypocritically or in a manner that draws attention to your fasting.
Finally, we understandably ask, “What does fasting DO?” Sometimes we feel we must “get something out of” an exercise like fasting. And truthfully, God does, at times, bless our fasting with a response of granting us something— He will answer our prayers in the manner that we asked for, or will begin (or continue) a work in our midst that represents a blessing. But (like prayer and so many other spiritual activities) we must be careful not to approach fasting with wrong motives, or to view it as some sort of special tool that will help us to get our way with God. Fasting is not a spiritual crow-bar for leveraging our desires into the will of God.
Going back to McKnight’s definition of fasting: what fasting does is to serve as an appropriate response. We don’t fast to get something; we fast to be something— or someone: specifically, a child of God. When we are grieved by our sin, by the lack of repentance in our hearts, by our neglect of the poor, by a tragedy or loss, or by any of a number of other reasons why we might be grieved, fasting is a natural and proper response for the children of God. If we get anything from it— if fasting DOES anything in these moments— then the most important thing it does is to help us to draw closer to the God who we call Father.
I hope you will search your hearts and pray about whether you would participate in the day of fasting that we have scheduled. May the Lord be with you as you do.
Why do we fast? This basic question occurs to all of us at some point. A writer named Scot McKnight defines fasting as, “a whole-body response to a grievous sacred moment.” This definition helps us understand why we fast: we are responding to something that is spiritual enough, and grievous enough, to merit such a response. We are spiritual beings, and often respond to grievous occasions in a spiritual way (prayer, for example); but we are also physical, body-dwelling creatures, and we can and should respond with our bodies as well.
On this occasion, the Session has recognized that there have been many “grievous sacred moments” over the past several years, some of which still linger in the hearts and minds of our members. We want to respond appropriately, with fasting and prayers for repentance (both personal repentance and congregation-wide repentance) and forgiveness.
Some may ask, “Should I participate?” The answer is, yes— if you believe that you should. Fasting is something that some people incorporate into their spiritual lives on a regular basis— even weekly for some. Others seldom, if ever, fast. If you have never fasted— or if it has been a long time since you did so— you might try it, keeping an open mind. You may find that it is a practice you would like to continue.
There are some people who should NOT fast because of health or medical reasons; if you aren’t sure about this, it might be worthwhile to call your doctor before you decide to fast. Some will find that fasting can become something they approach in a legalistic way, and these people should be careful about whether they should fast, and what their motives are for fasting. No one should feel compelled to fast if they don’t feel led to, nor should they feel judged by others if they choose not to fast.
What is involved in a fast? Strictly speaking, a fast is giving up all food for a period of time. Some people do what is called a “liquid fast” which means that they do not eat solid foods, but they still allow themselves liquids such as juices and other drinks. Another type of fast is called an “absolute fast” which is when the one fasting gives up all food and drink for the duration of the fast. In most cases, a fast involves no solid foods and no drinks but water.
Sometimes people will speak of giving up certain foods for a time— during Lent, for example. This is not technically a fast, but an “abstention,” as they are simply abstaining from certain foods. This can be a good exercise, too, in a similar way to fasting. Some who are not able to fast due to medical need might find that they can participate in a group or congregational fast by abstention.
A natural question is, “How long will we fast?” In this case, the Session has called for a “half-day” fast to start on the 28th. What that means is that we ask those who participate to fast from after lunchtime on Saturday until a congregation-wide breakfast on Sunday. We aren’t asking you to give up ALL meals on Saturday! Eat breakfast and lunch, then eat nothing more until breakfast the next morning, at the church, at 10:00am (instead of Sunday School).
Someone asked me, “What do I do during the fast?” This, like fasting itself, is largely up to your conscience. However, I am glad to offer some suggestions. You might spend the time you would normally take for meals in prayer, reading the Bible, or singing hymns. You may decide to calculate what you would normally spend on those meals and snacks and give that amount of money to the Deacons’ Fund at HWPC, or to a charitable cause.
In this case, because the Session has called for both fasting AND prayer about a specific topic— repentance for our personal and corporate sins— you should spend some extra time in prayer. One “cue” that I have used in the past is that, whenever my stomach growls or I feel a hunger pang, I take that as a prompting to pray. You should pray in your own way, and as you feel led to do so.
Jesus tells of how we should NOT spend our times of fasting: flaunting it before the world. When we fast, he says, we should not do it like the hypocrites, making a big deal about it and drawing attention to ourselves (Matt. 6). Thus, if you choose to participate in this fast (and/or to fast at other times), you should be cautious that you don’t do so hypocritically or in a manner that draws attention to your fasting.
Finally, we understandably ask, “What does fasting DO?” Sometimes we feel we must “get something out of” an exercise like fasting. And truthfully, God does, at times, bless our fasting with a response of granting us something— He will answer our prayers in the manner that we asked for, or will begin (or continue) a work in our midst that represents a blessing. But (like prayer and so many other spiritual activities) we must be careful not to approach fasting with wrong motives, or to view it as some sort of special tool that will help us to get our way with God. Fasting is not a spiritual crow-bar for leveraging our desires into the will of God.
Going back to McKnight’s definition of fasting: what fasting does is to serve as an appropriate response. We don’t fast to get something; we fast to be something— or someone: specifically, a child of God. When we are grieved by our sin, by the lack of repentance in our hearts, by our neglect of the poor, by a tragedy or loss, or by any of a number of other reasons why we might be grieved, fasting is a natural and proper response for the children of God. If we get anything from it— if fasting DOES anything in these moments— then the most important thing it does is to help us to draw closer to the God who we call Father.
I hope you will search your hearts and pray about whether you would participate in the day of fasting that we have scheduled. May the Lord be with you as you do.
Ash Wednesday
Feb. 25, 2009; 08:40 AM Filed in: Church Life
Today is Ash Wednesday, which is
the first day of the liturgical season called
Lent.
If you have friends who are Roman Catholics, they will likely attend a Mass today and have ashes smeared onto their foreheads in the shape of a cross. This is done as a reminder of death and mortality-- ashes to ashes, dust to dust, as we say at funerals. When people leave the Mass and walk around in public with ashen crosses upon them, they are reminders that we are all, apart from Christ, literally walking dead people.
(Incidentally, these ashes traditionally come from burnt palm fronds from last year’s Palm Sunday.)
Today is a good day to fast (if you haven’t already eaten breakfast!), in response to, and in penitence for, the sin that brought death and fallenness into the world, which you share in the culpability for. Even if you simply miss a single meal, I’d recommend it.
I blogged about Lent a bit last year, and it’s worth a re-consideration. I’ll probably have a bit more to say about it later in the season. Meanwhile, have a good Ash Wednesday, everyone.
Back soon...
Feb. 13, 2009; 04:30 PM Filed in: Personal
Events have conspired
against me this week (well, for the last several
weeks lately) which is why my blogging pace has
slowed so substantially.
My personal commitment to this blog (and to blogging in general) is always subject to the more important matters of family and ministry. In other words, when life gets busy, blogging will always be among the first things to go.
I’ve got about a dozen blog posts started with about a sentence or two, reminding me of the general idea I wanted to (eventually) write about. Hopefully those will make their way to you soon. Meanwhile, thanks for your patience!
My personal commitment to this blog (and to blogging in general) is always subject to the more important matters of family and ministry. In other words, when life gets busy, blogging will always be among the first things to go.
I’ve got about a dozen blog posts started with about a sentence or two, reminding me of the general idea I wanted to (eventually) write about. Hopefully those will make their way to you soon. Meanwhile, thanks for your patience!
Christian Cultural Identity, part one
Feb. 06, 2009; 08:24 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Culture
Rachel Gardner is a
literary agent whose blog I read regularly. This
morning, she posted about an e-mail she recently
received,
where someone who had come across her blog asked
why she self-identified as a “Christian” on her
blog about being a literary agent. She responded,
but also invited others to comment. I’d like to
offer my thoughts here.
The question-- and the answer(s)-- are a symptom of a problem that the Kingdom of God has had for some time now: is it good and right to have a “Christian” writer, musician, literary agent, artist, etc.? Why not simply have a literary agent? A musician? An artist?
Over the last several hundred years, a cultural shift took place that cemented our current environment with the above problem as a definitive element. Christians, perhaps offended at the moral/ethical degradation of society as reflected in such cultural artifacts as music, literature, art, and so on, slowly concluded that the best solution would be to offer a niche in each of these arenas that was intentionally and overtly “Christian” in its content. Thus, the industries of Christian sub-culture were born, and now we have Christian publishing houses, Christian music labels, Christian television networks, Christian movie studios...
[An aside: what is ironic is that, in the last several decades, most of these companies have been purchased by larger companies that are not distinctively identified with a particular faith or religious group, but are-- shhh-- “secular” companies! Oh no!]
Now, everyone who has ever set out to defend this sub-culture to me has appealed to one of several angles:
I would put it to you, however, that, if it does any of those, it does not necessarily do them well. Rather, it may be the case that this sub-culture often does NONE of those things!
Let me offer an example: when I was in college, a good friend of mine had come to faith recently enough that her tastes in music were still largely untouched by her perceptions of how to practice her faith. I recall overhearing a conversation that she had with an older student who, at the time, worked for a Christian bookstore. He was counseling her about what music to listen to, and encouraged her to “try this band, they sound like X, and this band sounds like Y...”
At one point I asked her: why don’t you keep listening to the bands you like? She said, “listening to them makes me angry.” So I suggested, could it be the form of their music-- the sound, style, pace, etc.-- that affects her mood, at least as much as the content (lyrics)? She confessed that she didn’t actually pay that much attention to the lyrics. Why, then, would she want to find a “Christian” version of the same anger?
The problem with my friend wasn’t that she was seeking change to better live out her faith. It was that the change she was seeking wasn’t enough. She was interested in keeping just enough of the “old self” (Eph. 4:22-24) to be comfortable, but just enough of the “new self” to make appearances. She wanted change, but not too much change.
Is this sort of music a tool for evangelism? Perhaps in a weak, bait-and-switch way, since you’ll surreptitiously slip “good” content (in the lyrics) in using familiar styles of music-- assuming the two don’t contradict each other, or that the listener pays close enough attention to the lyrics (and that they are well-written enough!) to actually get the message. But I doubt it is “healthy” for a Christian, as I suggested above. (I’ll address the biblical concepts of creativity and work at a later point.)
[Another aside: I’m not at all endorsing a perspective that certain kinds of music are inherently bad or evil. If that is true, I don’t think we can consider ourselves to be fair and objective measures of it. Rather, let me highlight that music is a highly emotive art form, and it evokes real and distinct responses from people; if the music you listen to causes you to stumble into a sinful attitude toward others, simply changing the lyrics is unlikely to help-- unless, of course, you’re listening to hymns that are full of bad theology and sinning in that way...]
Of course, the alternative in the Christian sub-culture is no better. In contrast to the “sound-alike” artists and bands, a good bit of what is marketed as “CCM” (=Contemporary Christian Music) is musically and lyrically poor, something like a mix of Muzak with bubblegum pop and a dash of lounge act thrown in. This may actually be the preferred style/genre for some, but I haven’t met them. Rather, most people I have known who listen to this style of CCM do so out of a sense of obligation. Certainly, it fails in terms of any evangelistic effort-- non-believers won’t subject themselves to it! But it also fails in terms of offering a “healthy” alternative, as it is something like the spiritual equivalent to diet pills: they taste bad, and while you will lose weight, you’ll also mess up your system while denying yourself the right enjoyment of creative and well-prepared meals.
In other words, in the search for change through “Christian” music one typically either finds too much change (where the actual inherent quality of the music suffers as a result) or not enough change (where there is too much latent worldliness and unholiness to accomplish the goal of holiness and sanctification). You rarely find a winning combination there.
This is why Michael Horton once said, “When people become Christians, they throw out all of their secular music; when they become [theologically] Reformed, they throw out all of the Christian music!” He affirmed in that statement that the sub-culture approach to music offers little help to the thoughtful, intentional Christian.
But what of the many musicians who are Christians, writing excellent music and lyrics and recording good songs about real life-- but who don’t feel the need to distinguish themselves as overtly “Christian,” either in their identity as musicians or through their musical content? Not that they hide their faith, or put on pretense; rather, their perspective is that if their music is good, they are fulfilling their calling as musicians and as Christians. (Now we’re beginning to dip into the biblical mandate for work and creativity...)
In my next post on this subject, I’ll take that topic up.
The question-- and the answer(s)-- are a symptom of a problem that the Kingdom of God has had for some time now: is it good and right to have a “Christian” writer, musician, literary agent, artist, etc.? Why not simply have a literary agent? A musician? An artist?
Over the last several hundred years, a cultural shift took place that cemented our current environment with the above problem as a definitive element. Christians, perhaps offended at the moral/ethical degradation of society as reflected in such cultural artifacts as music, literature, art, and so on, slowly concluded that the best solution would be to offer a niche in each of these arenas that was intentionally and overtly “Christian” in its content. Thus, the industries of Christian sub-culture were born, and now we have Christian publishing houses, Christian music labels, Christian television networks, Christian movie studios...
[An aside: what is ironic is that, in the last several decades, most of these companies have been purchased by larger companies that are not distinctively identified with a particular faith or religious group, but are-- shhh-- “secular” companies! Oh no!]
Now, everyone who has ever set out to defend this sub-culture to me has appealed to one of several angles:
- It offers a good opportunity for evangelism of the lost
- It provides a “healthy” alternative to secular media for Christians
- It fulfills biblical concepts of work, creativity, etc.
I would put it to you, however, that, if it does any of those, it does not necessarily do them well. Rather, it may be the case that this sub-culture often does NONE of those things!
Let me offer an example: when I was in college, a good friend of mine had come to faith recently enough that her tastes in music were still largely untouched by her perceptions of how to practice her faith. I recall overhearing a conversation that she had with an older student who, at the time, worked for a Christian bookstore. He was counseling her about what music to listen to, and encouraged her to “try this band, they sound like X, and this band sounds like Y...”
At one point I asked her: why don’t you keep listening to the bands you like? She said, “listening to them makes me angry.” So I suggested, could it be the form of their music-- the sound, style, pace, etc.-- that affects her mood, at least as much as the content (lyrics)? She confessed that she didn’t actually pay that much attention to the lyrics. Why, then, would she want to find a “Christian” version of the same anger?
The problem with my friend wasn’t that she was seeking change to better live out her faith. It was that the change she was seeking wasn’t enough. She was interested in keeping just enough of the “old self” (Eph. 4:22-24) to be comfortable, but just enough of the “new self” to make appearances. She wanted change, but not too much change.
Is this sort of music a tool for evangelism? Perhaps in a weak, bait-and-switch way, since you’ll surreptitiously slip “good” content (in the lyrics) in using familiar styles of music-- assuming the two don’t contradict each other, or that the listener pays close enough attention to the lyrics (and that they are well-written enough!) to actually get the message. But I doubt it is “healthy” for a Christian, as I suggested above. (I’ll address the biblical concepts of creativity and work at a later point.)
[Another aside: I’m not at all endorsing a perspective that certain kinds of music are inherently bad or evil. If that is true, I don’t think we can consider ourselves to be fair and objective measures of it. Rather, let me highlight that music is a highly emotive art form, and it evokes real and distinct responses from people; if the music you listen to causes you to stumble into a sinful attitude toward others, simply changing the lyrics is unlikely to help-- unless, of course, you’re listening to hymns that are full of bad theology and sinning in that way...]
Of course, the alternative in the Christian sub-culture is no better. In contrast to the “sound-alike” artists and bands, a good bit of what is marketed as “CCM” (=Contemporary Christian Music) is musically and lyrically poor, something like a mix of Muzak with bubblegum pop and a dash of lounge act thrown in. This may actually be the preferred style/genre for some, but I haven’t met them. Rather, most people I have known who listen to this style of CCM do so out of a sense of obligation. Certainly, it fails in terms of any evangelistic effort-- non-believers won’t subject themselves to it! But it also fails in terms of offering a “healthy” alternative, as it is something like the spiritual equivalent to diet pills: they taste bad, and while you will lose weight, you’ll also mess up your system while denying yourself the right enjoyment of creative and well-prepared meals.
In other words, in the search for change through “Christian” music one typically either finds too much change (where the actual inherent quality of the music suffers as a result) or not enough change (where there is too much latent worldliness and unholiness to accomplish the goal of holiness and sanctification). You rarely find a winning combination there.
This is why Michael Horton once said, “When people become Christians, they throw out all of their secular music; when they become [theologically] Reformed, they throw out all of the Christian music!” He affirmed in that statement that the sub-culture approach to music offers little help to the thoughtful, intentional Christian.
But what of the many musicians who are Christians, writing excellent music and lyrics and recording good songs about real life-- but who don’t feel the need to distinguish themselves as overtly “Christian,” either in their identity as musicians or through their musical content? Not that they hide their faith, or put on pretense; rather, their perspective is that if their music is good, they are fulfilling their calling as musicians and as Christians. (Now we’re beginning to dip into the biblical mandate for work and creativity...)
In my next post on this subject, I’ll take that topic up.
Prayer 3: Ministry Focus
Jan. 30, 2009; 09:35 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
I
mentioned a while back that I would talk about our
“Ministry Focus” soon, so I’d better do it!
Our Session (the body of the Ruling and Teaching Elders, gathered to lead the church) has decided that we will establish a “Ministry Focus” for each church year, where we will focus on one aspect of spiritual life and formation and order the ministries of our church around it. We are committed to doing the following as a part of this:
Our Ministry Focus for 2009 is Prayer, obviously.
As an example of how our Ministry Focus is going to take root, here are a few things we’ll be doing over the coming couple of months (if not already) to integrate a Ministry Focus of prayer into our worship:
I’m very excited about the idea of Ministry Focus in general, the Ministry Focus on prayer in particular, and how things are already beginning to develop. Keep a watch for regular posts on prayer.
Our Session (the body of the Ruling and Teaching Elders, gathered to lead the church) has decided that we will establish a “Ministry Focus” for each church year, where we will focus on one aspect of spiritual life and formation and order the ministries of our church around it. We are committed to doing the following as a part of this:
- Providing specific resources related to the Ministry Focus for individuals and households
- Enfolding the Ministry Focus into our existing congregational ministries and activities
- Developing new events, activities, and ministries to advance the Ministry Focus as necessary
Our Ministry Focus for 2009 is Prayer, obviously.
As an example of how our Ministry Focus is going to take root, here are a few things we’ll be doing over the coming couple of months (if not already) to integrate a Ministry Focus of prayer into our worship:
- We have expanded our Prayers of the People a bit, including a few new elements that we will pray for weekly.
- I will take a moment to briefly describe a part of our corporate prayers immediately before the Prayers of the People.
- We will have several sermons and sermon series on prayer during the course of the year.
- I will be including prayer in my explanation and/or application in every sermon.
- During the liturgical season of Lent, we will focus on personal and congregational mourning and repentance of sin, and will utilize prayers of lament during our time of corporate confession of sin.
I’m very excited about the idea of Ministry Focus in general, the Ministry Focus on prayer in particular, and how things are already beginning to develop. Keep a watch for regular posts on prayer.
Prayer 2: How to pray for the President
Jan. 20, 2009; 06:41 AM Filed in: Church Life
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ~1 Timothy 2:1-4
Scripture clearly portrays the faithful follower of Christ as one who extends respect, submission, and regular prayer to the leaders and authorities that God has placed over him or her. In our Ministry Focus on prayer this year, one of the lessons we might learn is how to pray for the President of the United States, who God has sovereignly and providentially given to us.
Here are some ways that you might be in prayer for the President:
- That, above all else, he would humble himself in the sight of the Lord, and be exalted by the victory of Christ on the cross to atone for his sins and bring him into a reconciled relationship with God the Father.
- That he would love his family faithfully, and in the face of the pressures and stress of the presidency remain committed and able to be the husband and father that God has created him to be.
- That God would grant him wisdom, courage, and commitment to lead and serve the citizens of our country faithfully and well, and that he would not bow to the idols of esteem, power, or pandering even when all around him beg him to do so.
- That his presidency would be marked by love, mercy, justice, and truth at every turn and in every decision.
- That he would be quick to repent, publicly when necessary, owning his failures and fallibility and resting in the grace of Christ, not in the illusion of moral, ethical, or political perfection.
- That God would grant him humility and repentance in the face of wrong policies and positions, and that he would search the Scriptures, his own conscience, and the counsel of the Body of Christ for wisdom and discernment in each decision, policy, signing of law, or other act; and that, with a teachable spirit and humble mind, he would readily reverse even his own decisions when convicted by the Holy Spirit that he erred in them.
- That God would use him as an instrument of grace, justice, truth, and reconciliation, both within our country and across the world, and that he would be known more as a man of peace than a man of the sword.
- That he would know his own strengths, and that he would use them for the good of the country and the world, not merely for the good of his own political agenda or that of his political party.
- That he would know his own weaknesses, and that he would own them freely, granting room for those whose strengths complement his weaknesses and humbly delegating leadership to them for the good of the country and the world.
- That he would find love, respect, and support from Christ’s church as we fulfill the commands of Scripture, and that we, the church-- through our actions, our attitude, and our prayers-- might encourage him ever closer to Christ.
MLK
Jan. 19, 2009; 10:24 AM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
One of my
former co-workers once said to me, “I don’t get this
whole Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.”
I said, “Have you ever read, listened to, or watched
his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech?”
“No,” he replied.
That explained it all to me.
This year, MLK Day has peculiar significance, as you
know. If YOU don’t “get” it, then let me offer the
following as an introduction to what makes it so
important.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Pastor and
preacher, and was compelled by the convictions of his
faith to speak out against the oppression and racism
that was so prevalent in his day, and in many ways
remains so in ours (if perhaps more subtly at times).
His speech-- almost a sermon-- entitled, “I Have a
Dream,” draws on the heritage of our country and what
the ideas and principles behind the constitution
stand for; more importantly, though, it draws even
more heavily on biblical themes, particularly themes
of redemption, love, and longing for glory, and is a
heralding call to everyone-- ESPECIALLY Christians--
to live out these biblical principles.
In short, King responded to racism, hate, and
oppression by calling for MORE Christianity, and a
closer adherence to biblical Christianity.
Here
is the text of “I Have a Dream”:
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose
symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the
Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came
as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro
slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering
injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the
long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not
free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro
is still sadly crippled by the manacles of
segregation and the chains of discrimination. One
hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely
island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of
material prosperity. One hundred years later, the
Negro is still languished in the corners of American
society and finds himself an exile in his own land.
And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful
condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash
a check. When the architects of our republic wrote
the magnificent words of the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence, they were signing a
promissory note to which every American was to fall
heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes,
black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed
the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that
America has defaulted on this promissory note,
insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.
Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America
has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which
has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is
bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are
insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity
of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this
check, a check that will give us upon demand the
riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind
America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time
to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the
tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to
make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time
to rise from the dark and desolate valley of
segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now
is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of
racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of
God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the
urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the
Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until
there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and
equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a
beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed
to blow off steam and will now be content will have a
rude awakening if the nation returns to business as
usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility
in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship
rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to
shake the foundations of our nation until the bright
day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people,
who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the
palace of justice: In the process of gaining our
rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful
deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for
freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and
hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the
high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not
allow our creative protest to degenerate into
physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to
the majestic heights of meeting physical force with
soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the
Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all
white people, for many of our white brothers, as
evidenced by their presence here today, have come to
realize that their destiny is tied up with our
destiny. And they have come to realize that their
freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall
always march ahead.
We cannot turn back.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil
rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be
satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the
unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never
be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the
fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels
of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We
cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic
mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We
can never be satisfied as long as our children are
stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their
dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We
cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi
cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has
nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not
satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until
"justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness
like a mighty stream."
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here
out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you
have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of
you have come from areas where your quest -- quest
for freedom left you battered by the storms of
persecution and staggered by the winds of police
brutality. You have been the veterans of creative
suffering. Continue to work with the faith that
unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to
Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South
Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana,
go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern
cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and
will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to
you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today
and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream
deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up
and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of
Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of
former slave owners will be able to sit down together
at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of
Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of
injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression,
will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and
justice.
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.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with
its vicious racists, with its governor having his
lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and
"nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama
little black boys and black girls will be able to
join hands with little white boys and white girls as
sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be
exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made
low, the rough places will be made plain, and the
crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory
of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see
it together
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go
back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the
mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith,
we will be able to transform the jangling discords of
our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
With this faith, we will be able to work together, to
pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail
together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing
that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when
all of God's children will be able to sing with new
meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of
thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's
pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must
become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops
of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New
York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of
Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of
California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of
Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every
hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be
able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,
Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands
and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Here
is the speech on video:
Jobs
Jan. 16, 2009; 09:56 AM Filed in: Personal
I’ve
commented (not on the blog) about the fact that I’ve
had a lot of jobs in my life. Part of that is due to
the fact that I started working fairly early-- #2
began when I was only 14, while #3-7 all happened
while still in high school. Part of it, too, is due
to the fact that I’ve sometimes had to hold more than
one job at a time. And part of it is because I had a
few jobs that just didn’t work out.
Mostly, though, I’m pleased to say that most of the people I have worked for have expressed gratitude for my work, and indicated that they were sad to see me go. I’m grateful that my father, my mother, and the man who discipled me through college-- along with some better managers and bosses-- instilled a strong work-ethic in me fairly early on.
So, here’s the master list: all of the jobs I’ve held, starting with the earliest regular job I had (mowing the lawn and cleaning the pool for my family, which I started doing when I was big enough to push the lawn mower at age 11!). These are only the jobs I had for pay; there were other “jobs” or positions I held, but only as a volunteer, so they are excluded from this list.
Mostly, though, I’m pleased to say that most of the people I have worked for have expressed gratitude for my work, and indicated that they were sad to see me go. I’m grateful that my father, my mother, and the man who discipled me through college-- along with some better managers and bosses-- instilled a strong work-ethic in me fairly early on.
So, here’s the master list: all of the jobs I’ve held, starting with the earliest regular job I had (mowing the lawn and cleaning the pool for my family, which I started doing when I was big enough to push the lawn mower at age 11!). These are only the jobs I had for pay; there were other “jobs” or positions I held, but only as a volunteer, so they are excluded from this list.
- Lawn mowing/pool cleaning-- to “earn” my allowance, once it was no longer an allowance but pay for this work. I also mowed for the office building where my father’s office was. (6 years)
- Janitor-- in the building where my father’s office was. (3 years+)
- Handyman’s Assistant-- helping with room additions, plumbing, carpentry, other various tasks. (1 summer)
- General manual labor-- for a neighbor, moving gravel (9 tons) and sand (7 tons) from his driveway, uphill, to the drainage ditch around the pool he was building, with a shovel and wheelbarrow. (2 months during summer)
- Gutter-cleaning/Yard work-- good money going door-to-door in my neighborhood. (2 summers and falls)
- Clown, juggler, and magician-- I started doing this as a volunteer with a fellow magician friend at a festival, and we were offered paying work at a party. It turned into a regular thing, and was great fun. (3 years)
- Host/Server/everything else-- California Dreamin’, a restaurant in Columbia, SC. I started as a host, but I also ran food (=delivered it to tables), worked as a “bar back” (washing glasses mostly), washed dishes, worked in the kitchen, waited tables-- pretty much everything but tend bar (I wasn’t legally old enough) and manage. I consider this my first “real” job, even though I had earned a lot of money already by this point (I was only 17 when I started this one). (14 months)
- Server-- Garfield’s, another restaurant. (1 summer)
- Timothy’s/Bailey’s-- yet another restaurant; this one was my first introduction to “fine dining,” as it was a really swanky place. The ownership changed right before I started there, and thus the name change. (6 months)
- Typist/Transcriber-- “independent.” In 1991 (my freshman year in college), I was one of the only people in my dorm who had a computer of their own, and a handful of guys in my English Composition class hated typing their papers (or simply couldn’t type!). I capitalized on this by offering my services for 5¢ per word, which they gladly paid; since I was already at about 50-60 words per minute, I made pretty good money with this. Even better, when they were assigned the task of editing the papers, they brought the edits to me to prepare-- and I had saved the originals, so they paid twice for many of those words. (Just so you know: I disclosed this fact to them, and they were unconcerned.) I did this for two semesters. (10 months)
- TGI Friday’s-- yes, another. This one was weird, as we took a three-week family vacation about a month after I started, and they basically replaced me before I got back. (2 months)
- Computer Lab Assistant--University of South Carolina. My first job using my burgeoning computer interests. (6 months)
- Theater Technician--University of South Carolina. I worked in the scene studio; hung, focused, and ran lights; worked with the sound systems; organized props; even a little bit in the costume studio here and there. (6 months)
- Server-- Key West Grill and Raw Bar. A quick job, mostly because it was so far from where I lived. (3 months)
- Landscaping-- for a friend and colleague of my mother’s. I had dropped out of school at this point, and took any work I could get-- clearing lots mostly; my first exposure to a chainsaw. (4 months)
- Construction-- again, through my mom’s friend and colleague. I was just about useless to them, so they had me scraping spilled mortar off of concrete slabs with a flat-end shovel-- what a loud and annoying task. (1 month)
- Sales/Stock-- Structure. This was my first dip into the retail world, though I spent most of it in the stock room. Nice clothes, but not my style, and there was a lot of pressure to wear them (as well as participate in the employee stock purchase program), and it was a 45-minute drive from my house. (2 months)
- Sales-- Be Beep, a Toy Shop. Was a great job, selling toys, putting them together, delivering larger items to some customers, and generally playing with kids and grown-ups alike. I loved this job. (18 months)
- Cook/Sales-- Little Caesar’s Pizza. After I left Structure, this was my second job. I learned how to toss dough, and I’m pleased to say I’ll still eat Little Caesar’s pizza even after working there. (8 months) [An aside: it was at this point in my life that I began to learn how to handle multiple tasks and responsibilities simultaneously: I was working two jobs, going to school full-time, serving with Young Life as a Volunteer Leader, and leading the worship team for Fellowship of Christian Athletes-- AND I had a girlfriend.]
- Youth Minister-- Southeast Presbyterian Church/Rose Hill Presbyterian Church/ Covenant Presbyterian Church. I started out with Southeast part-time, while still working at Be Beep. (Jobs #20, 21, 22, and 23 also were concurrent with Southeast.) Southeast eventually merged with Rose Hill, and shortly after that I also began to work with Covenant in a united youth ministry. This job was formative in more ways than I can enumerate here. (4 years)
- Server/Sales-- Columbia Bread and Bagel Co. I opened, which meant (for a bakery) I went in at 4am. Still, it was a good job, and I learned a lot about bread. I needed something full-time, though. (3 months)
- Sales/Lab Technician-- Jackson Camera and Video. I worked mostly in the lab, and I learned a ton about how color photos are processed (prior to that, I had only done B&W in a lab); I also sold cameras, mostly when my co-worker wasn’t there. (10 months)
- Sales/Lab Technician-- Columbia Photo Supply. This was a great improvement over Jackson Camera, in part because I did mostly sales here. Great folks to work with and for, and they helped me re-emerse myself in photography as a hobby and business. I only left because I was moving to full-time with the church. (18 months)
- Photographer-- independent.” I mostly worked with one guy, who took me under his wing, doing wedding photography. Ironically, he had learned photography from my father, who had taken HIM under his wing. He taught me a ton; I still do this occasionally, even though I’ve “retired” about five times! (13+ years?)
- Writer-- “independent.” I started writing a long time ago, but I started getting paid for it in 1998. Since then, I’ve continued to write as much as I can, and every now and then I still get paid for it! (11+ years)
- Website Developer-- “independent.” Really, I was a subcontractor for my mom, who needed someone to handle this for the family company. I only did it until she found someone in-house to do it. Still, this was 1998, so there weren’t many folks who could take this on at that point. (7 months)
- Youth Minister-- Westminster Presbyterian Church. Having finally finished college, this was my first post-undergraduate ministry job, in Roanoke, Virginia. There were some great folks there, and I still miss a number of the students and families that I worked with, even though it has been almost 10 years. (19 months)
- Basketball Coach-- Faith Christian School. A local school in Roanoke asked me to do this while I was serving at Westminster. It was fun, even though we lost every game: almost none of the kids had any organized sports experience, and many had never even played pickup games. We drilled on skills, sportsmanship, and being a part of a team. (5 months)
- Construction-- M&M Construction Company. When we first moved to seminary, we were flat broke and still looking for a job for Marcie, plus there were a couple of weeks before my teaching job started. So I worked construction, working on a deck, insulating and drywalling a room, and doing demo. Nice folks, too. (3 weeks)
- Yardwork/Landscaping-- “independent.” Again, during the first weeks in St. Louis, I was looking for work wherever I could find it. I found a couple of households that needed some yardwork and landscaping done, and I served them for most of the first semester. (4 months)
- House-cleaning-- “independent.” And again-- ad-hoc work during seminary. While I had never planned to return to janitorial work, this family paid well enough to coax me back into it. Unfortunately, they hit financial trouble and couldn’t afford to continue. (2 months)
- Teacher/Consultant/Administrator-- Wildwood Christian School. I worked here throughout seminary, and for a year after finishing. I taught Logic, Advanced Literature, Rhetoric, Bible, and a Senior Research Seminar. I also helped them plan for marketing, did a staff evaluation, and organized the administrative side of things for a while. I’m glad to be out of the education world-- at least for now-- but it was a good place to work, and they were good to us. (5½ years)
- Photographer-- Covenant Seminary. Apart from a variety of ways that I’ve worked as a photographer “independently” I was also on the staff of the seminary as a photographer for the Advancement department. For a while, many of the shots that were featured in seminary promotional materials were taken by me-- that was pretty neat. (3 years)
- Sound Technician-- Francis Schaeffer Institute. The Schaeffer Institute ran a program called “Friday Nights @ FSI” that (ironically) was hosted by Borders bookstores, and they would have speakers address a variety of topics. My job was to run sound for them, record the lectures, and participate in hospitality. This was fun, but it got a little tedious after a while-- every other Friday almost year-round. (2 years)
- Adult Ministries Pastoral Intern-- The Covenant Presbyterian Church. This started as a volunteer internship, but after a semester or so the church graciously began to pay me for my work. Mostly, I served one of the Associate Pastors for the church, handling a number of administrative, organizational, and service tasks so that he could focus on teaching and counseling ministry. (2½ years)
- Teaching Assistant-- Dr. Philip Douglass, Covenant Seminary. I graded and evaluated a lot of Dr. Douglass’s assignments for several years, and also occasionally worked with students more individually than he was able to do. (4 years)
- Consultant-- Douglass & Associates. My relationship with Phil Douglass graduated from T.A. to associate, and I still work with him-- though only vaguely these days-- in this capacity. My work with him as included hands-on work with churches, writing and editing, website development, marketing and promotion. (4+ years)
- Computer/Productivity Consultant-- “independent.” During my transition from seminary into ordained ministry, I began working with several families on their Apple Macintosh computers, as well as with productivity and organization. I still do this, though to a much lesser degree. (2+ years)
- Pastor-- Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. Which brings us to the present. My best job yet, and hopefully one I’ll be able to serve in for a long time to come. (1+ years)
Prayer 8: Praying for your pastor
May. 13, 2009; 04:02 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
Here’s
a good piece from Ligon
Duncan, a
PCA pastor in Jackson, MS, on how to pray for your
pastor. Duncan has put together a list of 17
specific ways you can pray for your pastor.
And here’s another good one, this time from Thom Rainer (an author and church leader) on the same. Rainer doesn’t offer a list, but instead a testimony of how vital to ministry is a member (and a congregation) that prays for their pastor.
And here’s another good one, this time from Thom Rainer (an author and church leader) on the same. Rainer doesn’t offer a list, but instead a testimony of how vital to ministry is a member (and a congregation) that prays for their pastor.
Post-Evangelical?
I agree
with 99% of what Michael says here about “what
[he] means by
Post-Evangelical.”
I find much of the baggage of evangelicalism stifling to my faith, my ministry, and the life of the church. I appreciate his gentle critique, and find it helpful to have some new categories to think in.
What do you think of it? Could you consider yourself a “Post-Evangelical” according to these criteria?
I find much of the baggage of evangelicalism stifling to my faith, my ministry, and the life of the church. I appreciate his gentle critique, and find it helpful to have some new categories to think in.
What do you think of it? Could you consider yourself a “Post-Evangelical” according to these criteria?
Thanksgiving wishes
Nov. 27, 2008; 09:56 AM Filed in: Personal
Happy
Thanksgiving to all!
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
"Felling the idols"
Nov. 08, 2008; 08:05 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Culture
Many people struggle
with weight-- either being overweight (most of us)
or, in some cases, being underweight. In some cases
(on either end), the struggle is a truly dangerous
one.
To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.
But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?
A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”
The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.
The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?
This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.
So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.
So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.
A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.
Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.
Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?
This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.
Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.
I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.
Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.
But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.
What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?
There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.
But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.
What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?
It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.
To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.
But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?
A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”
Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols. ~John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ch. 11, sec. 8
The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.
The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?
This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.
So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.
So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~Matthew 5:27-28
A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.
Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.
Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?
This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.
Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.
I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.
Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.
But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ~Matthew 23:23
What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?
There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.
But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.
What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?
It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.
Understanding the undecided vote
Nov. 03, 2008; 03:04 PM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
I’ve heard or read a
number of people who are simply mystified by the
relatively large “undecided” category of voters in
this election. Beyond mystified, actually-- many of
them scoff at the idea of being undecided at this
point.
My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)
Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.
The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:
Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?
My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)
Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.
The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:
- Categories of faith: this could be seen as a “neither,” “both,” or “really? him?” category. Senator Obama is a professing believer, and has spoken openly about his Christian faith. Senator McCain is, at best, tight-lipped about whatever faith he professes (some will say that his choice of Governor Palin was a direct appeal to the faith-based vote). Even if you doubt the sincerity of Senator Obama’s profession-- or worse, believe the misinformation about him being an alleged closet-Muslim-- that, at best, makes him and Senator McCain even on what is typically a category where the Republican candidate has strength. (As an aside: I think President George W. Bush has done a lot to erode this as a Republican stronghold. While I don’t doubt his faith, he has been inconsistent, at best, in applying his faith to the decisions he has made.)
- Categories of role: I think almost everyone has assumed that the first woman elected to be president or vice-president would be a political liberal-- thus, most Christians were comfortable that they could oppose the politics behind the leader, and not have to speak to the gender or role issues. Governor Palin turned that on its head, stepping forth as a professing evangelical Christian AND a Feminist (she’s a member of Feminists for Life) and breaking all of the stereotypes. Now Christians are forced to decide: do they really oppose Feminism? Do they inherently oppose a woman in leadership? Can they be consistent in voting for a ticket that could put a woman in the Oval Office, while still maintaining that she mustn’t hold an ecclesiastical office? There are no easy answers here, but I think most Christians who hold a complementarian view about women’s roles recognize that they have a difficult decision in supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.
- Categories of ability: There’s no doubt that Senator McCain has more experience and preparation to serve as president, by far: distinguished military service, multiple decades in national politics, and broad and deep familiarity with foreign policy (and the people involved) add up to an impressive resumé, and Senator Obama cannot hope to compete at this level. However, Senator McCain faces an obstacle of inability that his experience has no sway over: perception, both domestically and internationally. Given that the perception of Senator McCain is that he would essentially represent a continuation of current policies-- which have been increasingly unpopular-- he is facing something of a lame-duck posture, whether he is actually that close to President Bush’s policies or not. On the other hand, Senator Obama is seen worldwide (and, for the most part, within the U.S.) as a break from status quo and a pursuit of true change. Couple that with Senator Obama’s support with congress, which will probably increase in number of Democrats, and whatever ability Senator McCain has is balanced out.
- Categories of issue: Yes, some of the single-issue topics polarize the candidates. On abortion, for example, there is little doubt that Senator Obama supports legislation that protects abortion rights, while Senator McCain is a strong opponent of abortion (and its legalization). On other issues, however, what should be important to Christians is not necessarily a shared priority with Senator McCain. Education and poverty, for example, don’t really rank as significant issues with Senator McCain, but Senator Obama has highlighted both as areas of priority. Even on the abortion issue, Senator McCain’s lack of substance on poverty undercuts the viability of any progress there, since a decrease in abortion will certainly amount to an increase in social need. Isolating the issues doesn’t help the voter understand which candidate is a better one. The media hasn’t helped, with some painting Obama as a socialist (he’s not), while others declare McCain as a warmonger (he’s not).
- Categories of tradition: Some voters are beginning to question the assumption that the “right candidate” will automatically equal the advancement of their political agenda. After 20 years of Pro-Life presidents in the White House, the legality and restriction of abortion is roughly the same as it was 30 years ago. With health care taking a prominent place in the election process for the past 20 years, the reforms that have been advanced by subsequent presidents have not made much headway in improving care or making it more affordable. Many of the undecided voters seem to be favorable to looking past these sorts of issues (what have been “traditional” deciding points for elections) and at other factors.
- No “good” candidates: More than anything I’ve heard this season, the comment I’ve gotten the most is, “I’ll have to pick the lesser of two evils.” This seems utterly unsatisfactory when it comes to how we pick our next president. My sense from the undecideds I’ve talked to is that their consciences are heavy about this attitude, and they have been holding out for further input that might shape the idea of “good” or “bad” perceptions of the candidates-- or inwardly debating a write-in.
Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?
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.
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.)
What does it mean to think theologically?
Oct. 22, 2008; 03:19 PM Filed in: Theology
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.”
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.
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.
Suspicion on the basis of difference
Not long
ago, I was talking with an acquaintance about the
liturgy at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. I
specifically mentioned that we were beginning to make
use of the liturgical calendar more intentionally. He
wrinkled his nose, furrowed his brow, and replied, “I
don’t know... that’s sort of like the Roman Catholic
and orthodox churches.”
I said, “Sort of.”
He responded, “But aren’t you a Presbyterian church?”
Even though we talked about it for a few more minutes, I could tell the conversation was over at this point.
This fellow, and many like him, approach such matters from the same perspective: they are inherently suspicious of anyone-- or anything-- that is different from what they understand and practice. In this case, his experiences and personal practices had suggested to him that all Presbyterians had plain, unadorned, even stoic worship that varied not by season nor circumstance. Therefore, he concluded, any church that diverged from this path, even though they may be Presbyterian, was not practicing proper Presbyterian worship. They-- and in this case, we-- must be in error.
Why must this be the case? Is it so that the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are utterly wrong? Could it be possible that they might teach and/or practice some things with which we might disagree, but not all things? Couldn’t the same thing be true of other Christian traditions?
When faced with questions such as these, I’ve found that “Suspicion because of difference” will grant my premises. Yet, when it comes to actually practicing this, they have no interest, and in fact they are sometimes fearful.
This is natural, I think: we are all fearful of what we don’t know and understand. Most of us are insecure enough to interpret differences as a conscious and active condemnation of our point of view, rather than simply a thoughtful and purposeful acceptance of another point of view. And we are prideful enough to look on something that is different from what we do, think, or feel as wrong by default.
But we must be careful when our default position is to be suspicious of something simply because it is different. Look at it this way: most, if not all, of how you spend your time today, what you think about, and the beliefs that you hold, are inherently different from what you did, thought, or believed a decade or two ago. In many of us, the differences are drastic-- and we are grateful that they are! In fact, if someone cannot honestly say that this is at least somewhat true of them-- that they are a good bit different today than 10 years ago-- then they either aren’t being honest with themselves or they haven’t demonstrated any personal growth over that time.
If I, 10 years ago, had met the “me” from today, would I even recognize myself? Would I be suspicious of the differences I saw in this other person? If that is true of me-- and you-- then shouldn’t we give those who are different from us some benefit of the doubt?
What are we looking for when we demand conformity to our own images in this way? Are we simply looking for affirmation? Are we attending to some deep insecurities that cause us to second-guess ourselves, and therefore others as well?
Or are we asking for some shibboleth that Scripture itself doesn’t require? Tim Keller once said, “No matter where you are, there is someone to your right, as it were, who thinks you sold out the Gospel.” Is this what we’re getting at when we get so suspicious so quickly?
Two nights ago I had a conversation with someone who noted that, in visiting a different Presbyterian church, he had observed a surprising number of things that harkened back to Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic practices. He was surprised.
“Why?” I asked him. “I think John Calvin and Martin Luther would have wanted it that way.”
“Do you really think so?” He asked.
“Yes-- after all, Luther and Calvin didn’t want to not be Roman Catholic-- they simply wanted the Roman Catholic church to be biblically faithful.”
But we forget that. And we forget that our differences-- whether they be about worship practices, liturgical calendars, theologies of baptism, or how actively we must pursue a certain social agenda-- ought not be something that we are inherently suspicious of.
One of my favorite TV shows was (and is!) The West Wing. In one episode, a group of Chinese refugees were trying to flee religious persecution in their homeland, and President Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) was seeking affirmation that they were legitimately Christians and not just being coached. Meanwhile, China is demanding that the refugees be returned.
I said, “Sort of.”
He responded, “But aren’t you a Presbyterian church?”
Even though we talked about it for a few more minutes, I could tell the conversation was over at this point.
This fellow, and many like him, approach such matters from the same perspective: they are inherently suspicious of anyone-- or anything-- that is different from what they understand and practice. In this case, his experiences and personal practices had suggested to him that all Presbyterians had plain, unadorned, even stoic worship that varied not by season nor circumstance. Therefore, he concluded, any church that diverged from this path, even though they may be Presbyterian, was not practicing proper Presbyterian worship. They-- and in this case, we-- must be in error.
Why must this be the case? Is it so that the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are utterly wrong? Could it be possible that they might teach and/or practice some things with which we might disagree, but not all things? Couldn’t the same thing be true of other Christian traditions?
When faced with questions such as these, I’ve found that “Suspicion because of difference” will grant my premises. Yet, when it comes to actually practicing this, they have no interest, and in fact they are sometimes fearful.
This is natural, I think: we are all fearful of what we don’t know and understand. Most of us are insecure enough to interpret differences as a conscious and active condemnation of our point of view, rather than simply a thoughtful and purposeful acceptance of another point of view. And we are prideful enough to look on something that is different from what we do, think, or feel as wrong by default.
But we must be careful when our default position is to be suspicious of something simply because it is different. Look at it this way: most, if not all, of how you spend your time today, what you think about, and the beliefs that you hold, are inherently different from what you did, thought, or believed a decade or two ago. In many of us, the differences are drastic-- and we are grateful that they are! In fact, if someone cannot honestly say that this is at least somewhat true of them-- that they are a good bit different today than 10 years ago-- then they either aren’t being honest with themselves or they haven’t demonstrated any personal growth over that time.
If I, 10 years ago, had met the “me” from today, would I even recognize myself? Would I be suspicious of the differences I saw in this other person? If that is true of me-- and you-- then shouldn’t we give those who are different from us some benefit of the doubt?
What are we looking for when we demand conformity to our own images in this way? Are we simply looking for affirmation? Are we attending to some deep insecurities that cause us to second-guess ourselves, and therefore others as well?
Or are we asking for some shibboleth that Scripture itself doesn’t require? Tim Keller once said, “No matter where you are, there is someone to your right, as it were, who thinks you sold out the Gospel.” Is this what we’re getting at when we get so suspicious so quickly?
Two nights ago I had a conversation with someone who noted that, in visiting a different Presbyterian church, he had observed a surprising number of things that harkened back to Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic practices. He was surprised.
“Why?” I asked him. “I think John Calvin and Martin Luther would have wanted it that way.”
“Do you really think so?” He asked.
“Yes-- after all, Luther and Calvin didn’t want to not be Roman Catholic-- they simply wanted the Roman Catholic church to be biblically faithful.”
But we forget that. And we forget that our differences-- whether they be about worship practices, liturgical calendars, theologies of baptism, or how actively we must pursue a certain social agenda-- ought not be something that we are inherently suspicious of.
One of my favorite TV shows was (and is!) The West Wing. In one episode, a group of Chinese refugees were trying to flee religious persecution in their homeland, and President Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) was seeking affirmation that they were legitimately Christians and not just being coached. Meanwhile, China is demanding that the refugees be returned.
Instructive.
After all, this is the sum of it, and any
further shibboleth
that I
construct is wrong. Let’s be a bit less
suspicious.*
*Don’t
get me wrong here: I’m not suggesting that it is
wrong to have theological standards for, say,
ordination-- but simply that when I don’t “get” the
way another Christian practices their faith, I must
be careful not to assume that their faith therefore
isn’t real.
Great insight into our current crisis
Oct. 07, 2008; 07:36 AM Filed in: Culture
Carl Trueman, Chair of
the department of Church History at Westminster
Seminary (Philadelphia), has offered
one of the most insightful and
relevant reflections on the current economic and
political crises that I’ve encountered.
I’ve cherry-picked a few of the choicer quotes below, but the entire essay is, I think, a must-read.
Regarding our current election, Trueman says:
On who bears the responsibility for the economic collapse:
Why the markets didn’t self-correct:
How Christians should respond:
Read the entire essay here.
I’ve cherry-picked a few of the choicer quotes below, but the entire essay is, I think, a must-read.
Regarding our current election, Trueman says:
Despite the Manichean, apocalyptic rhetoric that you get from both sides, the current American election is, indeed, an election about almost nothing, given that, if past records are anything to go by, a victorious Republican will likely be as socially liberal in practice as a Democrat, and a victorious Democrat as fiscally prudent (or not) as a Republican.
On who bears the responsibility for the economic collapse:
When we look at the crisis in the markets and try to play the blame-game, then we should avoid reducing the problem to one individual or even to groups. Cries of `It's the President', `It's Congress', `It's the Democrats', `It's the Republicans' and `It's the banks' all have a certain appeal. After all, it's always good to blame `them' rather than 'us.'
Why the markets didn’t self-correct:
Market forces are ultimately functions of human behaviour, albeit on a macro-level; and human beings, being as depraved and as blinded as they are, generate market forces which reflect that depravity.
How Christians should respond:
How should Christians respond to all this? I want to sow three thoughts in your minds. First, realize that, while free markets might be the best way of organizing economies at the moment, they are simply the best of a bad lot.
Read the entire essay here.
What it means to love the sinner and hate the sin
Oct. 06, 2008; 10:46 AM Filed in: Church Life
My daughter wrote on
the sofa the other day. It wasn’t an accident-- it
was a letter “p” and a little design beside it. When
Marcie and I discovered it, we were naturally upset.
We asked her about it, and she said she did it
“because she wanted to.” She confirmed that she knew
she wasn’t supposed to do this sort of thing. So we
disciplined her for it, and talked with her about how
writing on anything other than paper is very bad
behavior.
But here’s the thing: throughout the discussion and discipline, I noted in my head how many times we also affirmed that we loved her so much, unconditionally, and no amount of disobedience would cause us to stop loving her. After the discipline was done, she wanted to snuggle, and though she cried for a moment she did not withdraw her affection or affirmation that she trusted our love deeply.
I read something not long ago surrounding a discussion of how the church treats homosexuals. This particular comment came from someone who professed saving faith in Jesus Christ, and who also stated their inclination toward homosexuality. It was clear from his comment that he had been treated with varying degrees of “badly” over the years, particularly by the church.
The discussion they were participating in focused on how the church ought to treat those who are homosexuals, or who are inclined toward homosexuality. One phrase that kept coming up was the old standby: “love the sinner, hate the sin.” This fellow, though, responded strongly to that, saying, “I hate ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’ If you hate my sin of homosexuality, then you hate me.”
I can understand how he might have arrived at this conclusion. Chances are good that some of those who he had encountered in the past had done a poor job of loving the sinner while hating his sin-- it probably didn’t feel much like love OR a differentiation between the sinner and his sin.
But, just as we faced when we disciplined our daughter for her sin, it is possible to love the sinner deeply, forgivingly, even unconditionally, while despising their sin and its effect. Had we overlooked Molly’s sin and disobedience-- had we simply said, “that is no big deal” and not addressed it at all-- we would have loved her less, not more. I think we instinctively know this about parenting; often, the judgments that are waged against “bad parents” are focused on their willingness or ability to discipline their children.
But we don’t seem to instinctively know this in other relationships. Somehow, loving another in a non-parental relationship implies that we overlook their sin and error more than we address it. In fact, the precedent suggested by this hurting young man creates an environment where it is impossible to love someone AND keep them accountable.
Luke 6:41-42 is often invoked in defense of that view. How dare we discuss the speck in our brother’s eye? Of course we must deal with the log in our own eye first. But a more careful reading of Luke 6:42 reveals that, in the end, both the log in my eye and the speck in yours are removed.
What would it look like to love those who’s sins are highlighted in our Christian culture? How do we love the sinner and hate the sin, when the sin is child abuse or molestation, or adultery, or homosexuality? And are we right to elevate those sins above the others as sins we hate?
But here’s the thing: throughout the discussion and discipline, I noted in my head how many times we also affirmed that we loved her so much, unconditionally, and no amount of disobedience would cause us to stop loving her. After the discipline was done, she wanted to snuggle, and though she cried for a moment she did not withdraw her affection or affirmation that she trusted our love deeply.
I read something not long ago surrounding a discussion of how the church treats homosexuals. This particular comment came from someone who professed saving faith in Jesus Christ, and who also stated their inclination toward homosexuality. It was clear from his comment that he had been treated with varying degrees of “badly” over the years, particularly by the church.
The discussion they were participating in focused on how the church ought to treat those who are homosexuals, or who are inclined toward homosexuality. One phrase that kept coming up was the old standby: “love the sinner, hate the sin.” This fellow, though, responded strongly to that, saying, “I hate ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’ If you hate my sin of homosexuality, then you hate me.”
I can understand how he might have arrived at this conclusion. Chances are good that some of those who he had encountered in the past had done a poor job of loving the sinner while hating his sin-- it probably didn’t feel much like love OR a differentiation between the sinner and his sin.
But, just as we faced when we disciplined our daughter for her sin, it is possible to love the sinner deeply, forgivingly, even unconditionally, while despising their sin and its effect. Had we overlooked Molly’s sin and disobedience-- had we simply said, “that is no big deal” and not addressed it at all-- we would have loved her less, not more. I think we instinctively know this about parenting; often, the judgments that are waged against “bad parents” are focused on their willingness or ability to discipline their children.
But we don’t seem to instinctively know this in other relationships. Somehow, loving another in a non-parental relationship implies that we overlook their sin and error more than we address it. In fact, the precedent suggested by this hurting young man creates an environment where it is impossible to love someone AND keep them accountable.
Luke 6:41-42 is often invoked in defense of that view. How dare we discuss the speck in our brother’s eye? Of course we must deal with the log in our own eye first. But a more careful reading of Luke 6:42 reveals that, in the end, both the log in my eye and the speck in yours are removed.
What would it look like to love those who’s sins are highlighted in our Christian culture? How do we love the sinner and hate the sin, when the sin is child abuse or molestation, or adultery, or homosexuality? And are we right to elevate those sins above the others as sins we hate?
Pass the salt
Sep. 29, 2008; 11:51 AM Filed in: Theology
Another core idea in
Logic-- in general, as well as in logic for
theological discussion-- is Consistency.
The fundamental definition of consistency is this: two or more ideas may be true at the same time, in the same context. If two statements can both be said to be true at the same time and in the same context, they are said to be consistent.
All of us are inconsistent. One of my philosophy professors pointed this out in a profound-- and humorous-- manner: “everyone is inconsistent; even a determinist will ask you to pass the salt!”
But our inconsistency matters the most when we attempt discourse and discussion-- particularly when there is disagreement involved. This is because our inconsistencies undermine our more salient points by causing others to question, second-guess, or even outright doubt all of our points.
A couple of recent political events demonstrate inconsistency well. For one, John McCain stood up on Monday, September 15, and declared that our economic system is “fundamentally sound” while addressing the concerns about the Lehman and AIG failures. (He has since backpedaled on that statement, which further underscores the inconsistency.) Meanwhile, Senator Obama (and the rest of the Democrats in congress) have strongly supported a bailout plan approaching $700 billion-- money which will effectively buy off the financial problems of the wealthiest of Americans-- while simultaneously demanding an increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans. (I guess that is their plan to pay for the bailout.)
Similarly, the entire financial crisis is being blamed largely on the economic policies of President Bush, while President Clinton’s presidency and economic accomplishments have been lauded and praised. But the crisis we are facing now is the fallout of poor policies of a decade ago, just as a significant amount of the economic prosperity of the Clinton presidency was the fruit of the presidencies that preceded him. It turns out that what we do today actually has impact on tomorrow-- go figure.
A good example from the theological discussion world covers the debates of the past decade or so in the PCA. Back in 2002, the debate du jour was over “good-faith subscription” vs. “strict subscription.” A number of guys opposed the idea of good-faith subscription because, some of them said, it would open the door for too many differing positions on various theological issues. Fast-forward to 2006, and the new debate has turned to a theological view called the “Federal Vision” position-- which was, and is, a variation on the historic position on the prominence of individual salvation. Ironically, many of those who came under fire during the Federal Vision debates, and who took cover under the “good-faith subscription” blanket, were some of the same guys who opposed the passage of the good-faith subscription amendment. In short, many of the same men who would end up benefiting the most from the good-faith subscription vote were those who spoke most vehemently against it.
The difficulty about consistency is that it can’t easily be corrected or improved. Unlike bad argument styles, for example, you cannot simply evaluate arguments by asking a set of questions that will reveal the problems of consistency. To recognize inconsistency in your own arguments, you must begin to learn how to see how ideas connect. You must also develop a memory of what you have said and done, and recognize how those things affect the next thing.
Unlike fallacies, however, defeating inconsistencies doesn’t really require strategies or counter-examples. It simply needs to be pointed out. Once you’ve shown someone to be inconsistent, they will often make things worse by disclaiming, excusing, or digging deeper.
The fundamental definition of consistency is this: two or more ideas may be true at the same time, in the same context. If two statements can both be said to be true at the same time and in the same context, they are said to be consistent.
All of us are inconsistent. One of my philosophy professors pointed this out in a profound-- and humorous-- manner: “everyone is inconsistent; even a determinist will ask you to pass the salt!”
But our inconsistency matters the most when we attempt discourse and discussion-- particularly when there is disagreement involved. This is because our inconsistencies undermine our more salient points by causing others to question, second-guess, or even outright doubt all of our points.
A couple of recent political events demonstrate inconsistency well. For one, John McCain stood up on Monday, September 15, and declared that our economic system is “fundamentally sound” while addressing the concerns about the Lehman and AIG failures. (He has since backpedaled on that statement, which further underscores the inconsistency.) Meanwhile, Senator Obama (and the rest of the Democrats in congress) have strongly supported a bailout plan approaching $700 billion-- money which will effectively buy off the financial problems of the wealthiest of Americans-- while simultaneously demanding an increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans. (I guess that is their plan to pay for the bailout.)
Similarly, the entire financial crisis is being blamed largely on the economic policies of President Bush, while President Clinton’s presidency and economic accomplishments have been lauded and praised. But the crisis we are facing now is the fallout of poor policies of a decade ago, just as a significant amount of the economic prosperity of the Clinton presidency was the fruit of the presidencies that preceded him. It turns out that what we do today actually has impact on tomorrow-- go figure.
A good example from the theological discussion world covers the debates of the past decade or so in the PCA. Back in 2002, the debate du jour was over “good-faith subscription” vs. “strict subscription.” A number of guys opposed the idea of good-faith subscription because, some of them said, it would open the door for too many differing positions on various theological issues. Fast-forward to 2006, and the new debate has turned to a theological view called the “Federal Vision” position-- which was, and is, a variation on the historic position on the prominence of individual salvation. Ironically, many of those who came under fire during the Federal Vision debates, and who took cover under the “good-faith subscription” blanket, were some of the same guys who opposed the passage of the good-faith subscription amendment. In short, many of the same men who would end up benefiting the most from the good-faith subscription vote were those who spoke most vehemently against it.
The difficulty about consistency is that it can’t easily be corrected or improved. Unlike bad argument styles, for example, you cannot simply evaluate arguments by asking a set of questions that will reveal the problems of consistency. To recognize inconsistency in your own arguments, you must begin to learn how to see how ideas connect. You must also develop a memory of what you have said and done, and recognize how those things affect the next thing.
Unlike fallacies, however, defeating inconsistencies doesn’t really require strategies or counter-examples. It simply needs to be pointed out. Once you’ve shown someone to be inconsistent, they will often make things worse by disclaiming, excusing, or digging deeper.
Why stereotypes are treacherous, and other logical puzzles
Sep. 22, 2008; 09:34 AM Filed in: Theology
Continuing my Logic for
Theological Discussion thread, here are a couple of
fallacies that are very common.
I had lunch with a pastor-friend recently, and he told me of a man in his congregation who has begun to doubt. Specifically, these doubts have focused on the man’s belief in a literal Hell-- the man doesn’t believe that there is literally a place that is Hell as the Scriptures describe.
As a consequence of this, the guy thinks he must abandon the rest of his beliefs in biblical truth as well-- in fact, he is beginning to wonder whether this doubt should compel him to abandon his faith altogether. His rationale is that, because he has serious doubts and even disbelief about one teaching of the Bible, he must abandon his belief in all of the teachings of the Bible.
This man is falling into the trap of the Fallacy of Composition. This fallacy follows a basic and common pattern: what is true of the parts that compose a thing must also be true of the whole thing. The tricky part of this fallacy is that the line of thinking is sometimes true-- but we are inclined to believe that it is true all of the time, because it is true some of the time (which is, itself, a Fallacy of Composition).
So, we reason: every blade of grass in my yard is green (true), therefore my lawn is green (also true). If that is true, then it must also be the case that: taking one pill from the bottle of prescription drugs is not poisonous, therefore, taking all of the pills at the same time would also not be poisonous. Or, every atom that makes up my body is invisible to the naked eye, therefore my body must be invisible to the naked eye.
As you can see from these examples, you cannot rely simply on the pattern of thought processes in the argument to determine whether an argument is sound or not. Therefore, this young man’s fallacy goes like this: I doubt one particular teaching of the Bible, therefore I must doubt all of the teachings of the Bible.
A closely related fallacy to Composition is the Fallacy of Division. It is the converse of the Fallacy of Composition, and follows this line of thought: what is true of the whole of a thing is also true of the parts of that thing.
Once again, because it is sometimes true, we often assume it to be always true. But that is not the case. Consider: An airplane can fly through the air for miles and miles; therefore, this hunk of metal I took off of an airplane can fly through the air for miles and miles. Or, I am able to see my desk without help from magnification, so I ought to be able to see the atoms that compose my desk without magnification.
Clearly, as you see, it doesn’t always hold up. Here’s what is interesting: these fallacies are based on the same kinds of conclusions, or inferences, as stereotypes. In other words, based on what we believe to be true of a whole group, we infer an opinion about the members of that group (Division); OR, based on our observations of members of a group, we infer a general principle about that group (Composition). Sometimes these inferences are true and sound, while at other times they are not. This is what makes stereotypes so dangerous.
So we might reason thusly: Everyone I know who has installed Microsoft Vista thinks it is awful; therefore, Vista must be a bomb. (Fallacy of Composition or not? It depends on how you measure it. On the one hand, several hundred million copies of Vista have sold, making it an inherent financial success. On the other hand, as of August, Windows XP -- the six year old predecessor to Vista-- was still outselling Vista, and the numbers of people who have switched to the Apple Mac platform have increased substantially.)
Or this: Presbyterian churches are stuffy and dull; so this Sunday’s worship at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church will probably be stuffy and dull, too. (Fallacy of Division? I hope not. Although it is true that some Presbyterian churches-- and some other churches, as well-- are stuffy and dull, this may be an unfair stereotype. It also may be an inference made out of ignorance: someone who is uninterested in worshiping God might find ANY church worship service dull, and even stuffy.)
So what do we do about the fallacies of Composition and Division? It all comes down to a simple question:
I had lunch with a pastor-friend recently, and he told me of a man in his congregation who has begun to doubt. Specifically, these doubts have focused on the man’s belief in a literal Hell-- the man doesn’t believe that there is literally a place that is Hell as the Scriptures describe.
As a consequence of this, the guy thinks he must abandon the rest of his beliefs in biblical truth as well-- in fact, he is beginning to wonder whether this doubt should compel him to abandon his faith altogether. His rationale is that, because he has serious doubts and even disbelief about one teaching of the Bible, he must abandon his belief in all of the teachings of the Bible.
This man is falling into the trap of the Fallacy of Composition. This fallacy follows a basic and common pattern: what is true of the parts that compose a thing must also be true of the whole thing. The tricky part of this fallacy is that the line of thinking is sometimes true-- but we are inclined to believe that it is true all of the time, because it is true some of the time (which is, itself, a Fallacy of Composition).
So, we reason: every blade of grass in my yard is green (true), therefore my lawn is green (also true). If that is true, then it must also be the case that: taking one pill from the bottle of prescription drugs is not poisonous, therefore, taking all of the pills at the same time would also not be poisonous. Or, every atom that makes up my body is invisible to the naked eye, therefore my body must be invisible to the naked eye.
As you can see from these examples, you cannot rely simply on the pattern of thought processes in the argument to determine whether an argument is sound or not. Therefore, this young man’s fallacy goes like this: I doubt one particular teaching of the Bible, therefore I must doubt all of the teachings of the Bible.
A closely related fallacy to Composition is the Fallacy of Division. It is the converse of the Fallacy of Composition, and follows this line of thought: what is true of the whole of a thing is also true of the parts of that thing.
Once again, because it is sometimes true, we often assume it to be always true. But that is not the case. Consider: An airplane can fly through the air for miles and miles; therefore, this hunk of metal I took off of an airplane can fly through the air for miles and miles. Or, I am able to see my desk without help from magnification, so I ought to be able to see the atoms that compose my desk without magnification.
Clearly, as you see, it doesn’t always hold up. Here’s what is interesting: these fallacies are based on the same kinds of conclusions, or inferences, as stereotypes. In other words, based on what we believe to be true of a whole group, we infer an opinion about the members of that group (Division); OR, based on our observations of members of a group, we infer a general principle about that group (Composition). Sometimes these inferences are true and sound, while at other times they are not. This is what makes stereotypes so dangerous.
So we might reason thusly: Everyone I know who has installed Microsoft Vista thinks it is awful; therefore, Vista must be a bomb. (Fallacy of Composition or not? It depends on how you measure it. On the one hand, several hundred million copies of Vista have sold, making it an inherent financial success. On the other hand, as of August, Windows XP -- the six year old predecessor to Vista-- was still outselling Vista, and the numbers of people who have switched to the Apple Mac platform have increased substantially.)
Or this: Presbyterian churches are stuffy and dull; so this Sunday’s worship at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church will probably be stuffy and dull, too. (Fallacy of Division? I hope not. Although it is true that some Presbyterian churches-- and some other churches, as well-- are stuffy and dull, this may be an unfair stereotype. It also may be an inference made out of ignorance: someone who is uninterested in worshiping God might find ANY church worship service dull, and even stuffy.)
So what do we do about the fallacies of Composition and Division? It all comes down to a simple question:
What is the justification for
making that inference?
In other words, why do I feel safe in drawing the
conclusion I have? What are the unstated factors in
the argument? Is there a point of data-- or more than
one-- that connects the part and the whole? If so,
does that data hold up as good reason to draw the
inference I have?
In the Microsoft example, there are points of data
that might support the conclusion, but you still
might question whether the starting point is the best
one.
With the young man who doubts the Bible, the
connecting points that are unstated are likely based
on someone teaching the guy that he had to believe
the whole Bible to be a Christian. While the Bible is
the Word of God, and we cannot know the truth about
salvation apart from it, attaching a required belief
onto the saving grace of the gospel makes it into
works salvation. While I want every believer-- and
every unbeliever too-- to hear and receive Scripture
as God’s Word, I cannot deny others their doubts. In
short, one can be a Christian and not believe that
everything written in Scripture is true.
Use of the Old Testament
Sep. 23, 2008; 03:57 PM Filed in: Bible
How do the New
Testament writers make use of the Old Testament? In
what ways did the Old Testament writers understand
the inspiration of their writings?
Your answer to these questions shapes your view on Scripture, and these issues are the focus of a new book coming out this fall, called Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. It looks like it will be interesting, and it is certainly the case that some of these matters are hot topics currently.
If you’re interested in knowing where you fit in the three views, here’s a quick quiz that will give you a general sense. Some of these were questions I had never considered before, and may be new concepts to you, also-- but even if you feel a little lost or confused by these, they’re useful for insight into how complicated this issue is.
Your answer to these questions shapes your view on Scripture, and these issues are the focus of a new book coming out this fall, called Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. It looks like it will be interesting, and it is certainly the case that some of these matters are hot topics currently.
If you’re interested in knowing where you fit in the three views, here’s a quick quiz that will give you a general sense. Some of these were questions I had never considered before, and may be new concepts to you, also-- but even if you feel a little lost or confused by these, they’re useful for insight into how complicated this issue is.
Fun quizzes,
surveys &
blog quizzes by 
|
(HT: Koinonia)
Bad argument styles #3: you can't, but we can
Sep. 18, 2008; 08:17 AM Filed in: Theology
When I was in college, I
took a public speaking class (didn’t everyone?), and my
last assignment was to present a persuasive speech. The
topic had to be approved by the professor, and I wrote
a proposal to deliver a speech on the topic, “Why we
can trust the Bible.”
My professor denied my topic, because, as he said, in order to speak on that topic I would have to appeal to the authority of the Bible, and he wouldn’t allow that. Imagine my surprise when one of the first speeches given by one of my classmates was on the topic, “The Bible is just a bunch of myths and legends.”
(What made it worse was that the guy basically appealed to the fact that the contents of the Bible has been referred to as, “the greatest story ever told,” and we all know that a story is fiction. Yep, that was the gist of his argument-- persuasive, right? See my forthcoming post on the fallacy of equivocation...)
This is a classic example of what I call the “you can’t, but we can” argument style. The essence of it is this: one party declares a certain topic, appeal, source of authority, term or phrase, or whatever, to be off-limits. The other side agrees. Then the first side proceeds to appeal to that topic, phrase, etc.; but when the other side brings it up, they are reprimanded for speaking on an off-limits topic.
This has plagued the political campaigns this year. Senator Clinton committed it when she castigated others for holding her gender against her, only to turn around and declare that a vote for her is a step of progress for women everywhere. Senator Obama has done something similar with regard to race (and his “youthfulness” as well). Most recently, the McCain/Palin campaign has employed it, first saying that Governor Palin’s pregnant daughter should be “out of bounds” for political discussion, then parlaying it into a mark in her favor as a Pro-Life candidate.
But it happens in the church, too-- and that’s where I’m even more concerned about it. A good example is this excerpt from one of my favorite books on the sacrament of Baptism, William the Baptist by James M. Chaney. This is a dialogue between William, a devoted Baptist, and his wife’s Presbyterian pastor, on whether immersion is a biblical mode of administering the sacrament (from pp.30-32):
William: ...I cannot express my astonishment to learn that you regard immersion as an unscriptural mode of baptism. You will find but few who will agree with you in that extreme view.
Pastor: Immersionists are zealous in their labors to make such an impression, but it is very erroneous. The ministers of our Church, as a body, agree with me. A few, regarding it as a mere external, look upon it with such supreme indifference that they can scarcely be said to have an opinion on it; and such may sometimes make concessions which our opposers are very quick to catch up and use to their own advantage. I have know a few who would push this question of indifference to such an extreme that, while unhesitatingly declaring immersion unscriptural as a mode of baptism, would yet, on request, administer the rite in that way. The Presbytery of Lafayette, in answer to a memorial, declared by a unanimous vote that, “it is inexpedient and IMPROPER for a Presbyterian minister to administer the rite of baptism by immersion.”
William: Such facts are new to me. But are you not mistaken as to the number of those who make such concessions? I have heard many sermons on the subject by immersionists, and by their quotations and statements they succeeded in making the impression on me that all Pædo-bapists agree in concessions that would seem to render the further discussion of the question unnecessary.
Pastor: Such concessions form the burden of their books and sermons on the subject. Some years ago I put myself to some trouble to hear a Baptist minister, who proposed to discuss the subject purely from a Bible standpoint. I was anxious to know what a man could say in favor of immersion, in three sermons an hour each, who would confine himself to the Bible, and let lexicons and Pædo-baptist concessions alone.
A worthy Baptist minister introduced the services by an earnest prayer, the burden of which was praise to God for His Word, for the clearness of its revelations, and its sufficiency in all things. I was delighted with the prayer: I regarded it as a prelude to a Bible discussion, and thought that a desire, long entertained, to hear such a discussion, was about to be gratified.
A gospel song was sung, and the minister, with only the open Bible before him, began his task. For about fifteen minutes I was charmed with an eloquent eulogy on the Bible. It was in the spirit of the prayer that preceded it. The massive Book, with its pages opened, was held up to our gaze; and “here,” said the speaker, “not in Creeds and Confessions of Faith, but here, in the Word of God, are we to look and find the mind of the Lord. TO THE LAW and the TESTIMONY if they speak not according to this word, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.”
What more could I desire? A Bible discussion of baptism! what I had so longed to hear.
As the sound of the speaker’s voice (in giving the quotation) was dying away, in a most reverent manner he gently closed the sacred volume, and with as much reverence as the case would admit of, he slowly pushed the source of light to his extreme left, taking one step to enable him to get it sufficiently far. The movement was inexplicable. But, in less time than it requires to tell you, the speaker was almost hidden behind books, large and small, which he piled before him, and on his right and left.
And now the Bible discussion!! For two hours we were treated to a learned dissertation-- by one who knew nothing of the Greek language-- on the meaning of “baptidzo.” Greek lexicons and Pædo-baptist commentators and writers were the sole witnesses. The Bible was wholly ignored. It was not mentioned once. No text was quoted from it!!
If it had been but a human production, I could but pity it on account of such treatment. Sacred volume, lifted so high to fall so low!
My disappointment was great, but I went to hear the second and third discourses, “et ab uno, disce omnes.” The discussion of the subject, in all, occupied more than five hours, and only at the close, and then only for about fifteen minutes, did the Bible receive any notice, and then all that was done was to quote a few favorite passages, taking it for granted that they were conclusive in favor of immersion, but making no attempt at proof.
William: In all the books I have read on the subject, and in all the discussions to which I have listened, I have noticed that such was their method, and I think it proper. It served to establish me in my views. with such concessions, and the plain teachings of the Bible, I have come to regard the question as removed from any debatable ground, and I cannot express to you my astonishment that you would intimate that a Pædo-baptist would undertake to uphold his views from the Bible alone! Am I correct in drawing the inference that any one would undertake such a task?
Pastor: Do you think any other method legitimate and satisfactory?
William: I certainly thing such a method best; but I see no objection to other aids, especially to the ad hominem arguments to which you have referred.
The gist: the Baptist pastor asserts “no creeds or confessions of faith” are admissible, but “the Word of God alone”-- in other words, “you can’t use your creeds or confessions” (which is convenient, since the Baptist church is ostensibly a “non-creedal” body). Yet, out come the commentators and Baptist resources-- perhaps what we might construe as the confessions of faith for a group that eschews confessions of faith.
So, here are some questions to ask to avoid this argument style:
My professor denied my topic, because, as he said, in order to speak on that topic I would have to appeal to the authority of the Bible, and he wouldn’t allow that. Imagine my surprise when one of the first speeches given by one of my classmates was on the topic, “The Bible is just a bunch of myths and legends.”
(What made it worse was that the guy basically appealed to the fact that the contents of the Bible has been referred to as, “the greatest story ever told,” and we all know that a story is fiction. Yep, that was the gist of his argument-- persuasive, right? See my forthcoming post on the fallacy of equivocation...)
This is a classic example of what I call the “you can’t, but we can” argument style. The essence of it is this: one party declares a certain topic, appeal, source of authority, term or phrase, or whatever, to be off-limits. The other side agrees. Then the first side proceeds to appeal to that topic, phrase, etc.; but when the other side brings it up, they are reprimanded for speaking on an off-limits topic.
This has plagued the political campaigns this year. Senator Clinton committed it when she castigated others for holding her gender against her, only to turn around and declare that a vote for her is a step of progress for women everywhere. Senator Obama has done something similar with regard to race (and his “youthfulness” as well). Most recently, the McCain/Palin campaign has employed it, first saying that Governor Palin’s pregnant daughter should be “out of bounds” for political discussion, then parlaying it into a mark in her favor as a Pro-Life candidate.
But it happens in the church, too-- and that’s where I’m even more concerned about it. A good example is this excerpt from one of my favorite books on the sacrament of Baptism, William the Baptist by James M. Chaney. This is a dialogue between William, a devoted Baptist, and his wife’s Presbyterian pastor, on whether immersion is a biblical mode of administering the sacrament (from pp.30-32):
William: ...I cannot express my astonishment to learn that you regard immersion as an unscriptural mode of baptism. You will find but few who will agree with you in that extreme view.
Pastor: Immersionists are zealous in their labors to make such an impression, but it is very erroneous. The ministers of our Church, as a body, agree with me. A few, regarding it as a mere external, look upon it with such supreme indifference that they can scarcely be said to have an opinion on it; and such may sometimes make concessions which our opposers are very quick to catch up and use to their own advantage. I have know a few who would push this question of indifference to such an extreme that, while unhesitatingly declaring immersion unscriptural as a mode of baptism, would yet, on request, administer the rite in that way. The Presbytery of Lafayette, in answer to a memorial, declared by a unanimous vote that, “it is inexpedient and IMPROPER for a Presbyterian minister to administer the rite of baptism by immersion.”
William: Such facts are new to me. But are you not mistaken as to the number of those who make such concessions? I have heard many sermons on the subject by immersionists, and by their quotations and statements they succeeded in making the impression on me that all Pædo-bapists agree in concessions that would seem to render the further discussion of the question unnecessary.
Pastor: Such concessions form the burden of their books and sermons on the subject. Some years ago I put myself to some trouble to hear a Baptist minister, who proposed to discuss the subject purely from a Bible standpoint. I was anxious to know what a man could say in favor of immersion, in three sermons an hour each, who would confine himself to the Bible, and let lexicons and Pædo-baptist concessions alone.
A worthy Baptist minister introduced the services by an earnest prayer, the burden of which was praise to God for His Word, for the clearness of its revelations, and its sufficiency in all things. I was delighted with the prayer: I regarded it as a prelude to a Bible discussion, and thought that a desire, long entertained, to hear such a discussion, was about to be gratified.
A gospel song was sung, and the minister, with only the open Bible before him, began his task. For about fifteen minutes I was charmed with an eloquent eulogy on the Bible. It was in the spirit of the prayer that preceded it. The massive Book, with its pages opened, was held up to our gaze; and “here,” said the speaker, “not in Creeds and Confessions of Faith, but here, in the Word of God, are we to look and find the mind of the Lord. TO THE LAW and the TESTIMONY if they speak not according to this word, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.”
What more could I desire? A Bible discussion of baptism! what I had so longed to hear.
As the sound of the speaker’s voice (in giving the quotation) was dying away, in a most reverent manner he gently closed the sacred volume, and with as much reverence as the case would admit of, he slowly pushed the source of light to his extreme left, taking one step to enable him to get it sufficiently far. The movement was inexplicable. But, in less time than it requires to tell you, the speaker was almost hidden behind books, large and small, which he piled before him, and on his right and left.
And now the Bible discussion!! For two hours we were treated to a learned dissertation-- by one who knew nothing of the Greek language-- on the meaning of “baptidzo.” Greek lexicons and Pædo-baptist commentators and writers were the sole witnesses. The Bible was wholly ignored. It was not mentioned once. No text was quoted from it!!
If it had been but a human production, I could but pity it on account of such treatment. Sacred volume, lifted so high to fall so low!
My disappointment was great, but I went to hear the second and third discourses, “et ab uno, disce omnes.” The discussion of the subject, in all, occupied more than five hours, and only at the close, and then only for about fifteen minutes, did the Bible receive any notice, and then all that was done was to quote a few favorite passages, taking it for granted that they were conclusive in favor of immersion, but making no attempt at proof.
William: In all the books I have read on the subject, and in all the discussions to which I have listened, I have noticed that such was their method, and I think it proper. It served to establish me in my views. with such concessions, and the plain teachings of the Bible, I have come to regard the question as removed from any debatable ground, and I cannot express to you my astonishment that you would intimate that a Pædo-baptist would undertake to uphold his views from the Bible alone! Am I correct in drawing the inference that any one would undertake such a task?
Pastor: Do you think any other method legitimate and satisfactory?
William: I certainly thing such a method best; but I see no objection to other aids, especially to the ad hominem arguments to which you have referred.
The gist: the Baptist pastor asserts “no creeds or confessions of faith” are admissible, but “the Word of God alone”-- in other words, “you can’t use your creeds or confessions” (which is convenient, since the Baptist church is ostensibly a “non-creedal” body). Yet, out come the commentators and Baptist resources-- perhaps what we might construe as the confessions of faith for a group that eschews confessions of faith.
So, here are some questions to ask to avoid this argument style:
- What are the topics, terms, phrases, ideas, appeals to authority, etc., that I consider “off-limits?” Why do I regard them as such?
- Is my desire for such a limitation an emotional response, or do I have reasons for it? What are the reasons?
- Is my perspective on these topics, etc., fair and just? Do I consider them “off-limits” because I am trying to cripple my discussion partner? If I allowed them into the discussion, would I simply have more work and research to do, or would I be admitting a harmful element into the debate?
- Am I willing to subject myself to the same (or similar) limitations? Have I represented my position and/or argument as one that IS subject to the same limitations, but have failed to fulfill that?
- Is the limitation I am proposing a matter of vital importance, or simply a difference of opinion? Would my discussion partner categorize it in the same way? (And what is suggested by an answer of “no” to that last question?)
More on the Lord's Supper
Sep. 10, 2008; 03:20 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
Following up (again) on
my recently completed series on the
Lord’s Supper, I thought this brief (< 1
min.) video from Tim Keller might be another helpful
summary of what happens in the sacrament of
Communion.
Identity in Christ
Sep. 26, 2008; 10:38 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
I have believed for a
long time that the essence of my ministry-- regardless
of where it is or to whom-- is to teach people of the
truth of the Gospel, our need for it, and its
transforming power to give us new identities in Christ.
My primary goal at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church
has been, and is, to focus on that.
Here is PCA pastor Tim Keller talking about that transformed identity, in a better way than I am able to explain it:
Here is PCA pastor Tim Keller talking about that transformed identity, in a better way than I am able to explain it:
Learning the words
Sep. 19, 2008; 05:04 PM Filed in: Church Life
When I was in college, I
took modern Hebrew as my foreign language. I had it in
my head that this would give me a head-start on
seminary (and it did, to a degree).
As a result, I learned a lot about the Israeli and Hebrew culture. For one thing, my university required that we take a history class that was related to one of our disciplines-- and I chose a “History of Judaism” class that was taught by one of the local rabbis. For another, my Hebrew teacher was an Israeli herself-- she married an English Literature professor when he was doing a sabbatical in Jerusalem-- and she had a good sense that the connection between learning a language and learning a culture was essential.
One of the key “meta-lessons” I learned from this (apart from the interesting stuff about the culture of the Hebrew-speaking people) was how important it is to learn the “language” of a culture. By this, I mean the words, phrases, and concepts that have particular and special meaning to that culture.
This is as true in the church as it is anywhere. The church is a culture (and sometimes it degrades into a sub-culture; more on this another time), and the people of that culture have their own language. Sometimes this is almost comical, but in the ways that it is serious and important, we must learn the language of that culture.
I’m thinking about terms and phrases like these:
Here’s the thing: these are words taken straight out of the Bible. They aren’t just lingo for stuffy theology professors, but are supposed to be the stock-in-trade of the Christian. There are others, too-- and you ought to learn them.
No one takes up a hobby without expecting to learn some new terminology. If you know what a Birdie is to a golfer, if you can describe a car’s differential, or if you understand what RAM does in a computer, then you bothered to learn terms that were, previously, esoteric and irrelevant to your life. Why would you treat your faith-- which is what grants you eternal life and security-- with less appreciation for the terms and language that accompanies it?
Along those lines, Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul discuss this idea briefly in part of their conversation from a recent episode of the White Horse Inn, a (normally) audio resource that is available in podcast form. Here is the interview:
As a result, I learned a lot about the Israeli and Hebrew culture. For one thing, my university required that we take a history class that was related to one of our disciplines-- and I chose a “History of Judaism” class that was taught by one of the local rabbis. For another, my Hebrew teacher was an Israeli herself-- she married an English Literature professor when he was doing a sabbatical in Jerusalem-- and she had a good sense that the connection between learning a language and learning a culture was essential.
One of the key “meta-lessons” I learned from this (apart from the interesting stuff about the culture of the Hebrew-speaking people) was how important it is to learn the “language” of a culture. By this, I mean the words, phrases, and concepts that have particular and special meaning to that culture.
This is as true in the church as it is anywhere. The church is a culture (and sometimes it degrades into a sub-culture; more on this another time), and the people of that culture have their own language. Sometimes this is almost comical, but in the ways that it is serious and important, we must learn the language of that culture.
I’m thinking about terms and phrases like these:
- Justification
- Salvation by grace alone
- Atonement
- Propitiation
- The inerrancy of Scripture
Here’s the thing: these are words taken straight out of the Bible. They aren’t just lingo for stuffy theology professors, but are supposed to be the stock-in-trade of the Christian. There are others, too-- and you ought to learn them.
No one takes up a hobby without expecting to learn some new terminology. If you know what a Birdie is to a golfer, if you can describe a car’s differential, or if you understand what RAM does in a computer, then you bothered to learn terms that were, previously, esoteric and irrelevant to your life. Why would you treat your faith-- which is what grants you eternal life and security-- with less appreciation for the terms and language that accompanies it?
Along those lines, Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul discuss this idea briefly in part of their conversation from a recent episode of the White Horse Inn, a (normally) audio resource that is available in podcast form. Here is the interview:
Application summary from the Lord's Supper series
Sep. 08, 2008; 02:08 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
As I wrapped up
a brief sermon
series on The Lord’s Supper yesterday, I thought it may be
helpful to summarize the applications, or “answers”
to the questions I posed about the sacrament (which
were, “what is it?” “when is it?” and “how is it?”):
- The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a covenantal meal, which means it is a family meal-- thus, it’s not primarily an individual thing, but much more of a group thing, and in a mysterious spiritual way, it is a time of true, living fellowship with God Himself, through which He nourishes our souls with grace.
- The sacrament is something that we should be devoted to doing: devoted to doing it in the context of worship, accompanied by Word and prayer, because these are the spiritual food that God has given us for nourishment; and devoted to doing it often-- as often as we are able-- because we long to be fed and nourished all the more on the grace of God.
- The sacrament is something for believers gathered together, not for unbelievers: if we know salvation through Christ alone, we are welcomed through the Gate to take part in this spiritual feast; but if we approach it wrongly-- in an unbelieving way, whether because we misunderstand what the sacrament is for, or because we presume on it meaning that it doesn’t have-- then we are warned of the consequences of judgement being increased on us.
On counseling and medication
An interesting discussion
on counseling and medication over at another blog
raised a good point
that I’ve often found is a stumbling block to
Christians. David Powlison, quoting the Director of
the National Institute on Mental Health, said:
This is something that is apparently difficult to understand for those who have not had immediate contact with the effects of this kind of medication (known as “psychotropic” medication).
I once had a student whose comment revealed that even those who HAVE had contact sometimes misunderstand. She said in an off-hand manner, “I’ve taken anti-depressants. They make you happy!”
The truth is, they don’t. They might help you to be normal (in a chemical sense), but they don’t make you “happy.” My concern deepened as I counseled this student about this, because she had faced mild-to-moderate depression for so long that she had come to assume that her depressed state was “normal”-- thus, having that edge of depression taken off was “happy” feeling to her.
Here’s my best analogy of what psychotropic drugs offer: Suppose you love running, and have your heart dead-set on running a marathon in a year. In preparation for a training regimen, you visit your doctor, who informs you that the slight pain in your knee is actually a problem that needs to be addressed surgically; in short, if you don’t have your knee scoped, you won’t be able to train for the marathon, let alone complete it.
Here’s the analogy: if you have your knee scoped, is that going to make you ready for the marathon? No. You’ll still have a lot of work to do to condition your body (and your mind) for running the marathon. But if you don’t have your knee scoped, you are guaranteed that you won’t be able to run the marathon.
So it is with psychotropic medication: they won’t overcome your depression for you, but they might address the physical/physiological obstacles that would keep you from being able to do the work of overcoming depression. (Likewise with anxiety and other clinical mental health issues.)
Psychiatric medications can sometimes take the edge off symptoms, but they can't give people what they really need. People need meaning and relationships. Psychiatry can't give that. Medication can't give that.
This is something that is apparently difficult to understand for those who have not had immediate contact with the effects of this kind of medication (known as “psychotropic” medication).
I once had a student whose comment revealed that even those who HAVE had contact sometimes misunderstand. She said in an off-hand manner, “I’ve taken anti-depressants. They make you happy!”
The truth is, they don’t. They might help you to be normal (in a chemical sense), but they don’t make you “happy.” My concern deepened as I counseled this student about this, because she had faced mild-to-moderate depression for so long that she had come to assume that her depressed state was “normal”-- thus, having that edge of depression taken off was “happy” feeling to her.
Here’s my best analogy of what psychotropic drugs offer: Suppose you love running, and have your heart dead-set on running a marathon in a year. In preparation for a training regimen, you visit your doctor, who informs you that the slight pain in your knee is actually a problem that needs to be addressed surgically; in short, if you don’t have your knee scoped, you won’t be able to train for the marathon, let alone complete it.
Here’s the analogy: if you have your knee scoped, is that going to make you ready for the marathon? No. You’ll still have a lot of work to do to condition your body (and your mind) for running the marathon. But if you don’t have your knee scoped, you are guaranteed that you won’t be able to run the marathon.
So it is with psychotropic medication: they won’t overcome your depression for you, but they might address the physical/physiological obstacles that would keep you from being able to do the work of overcoming depression. (Likewise with anxiety and other clinical mental health issues.)
"Filling the gap the government left"
The title came from a
description that a pastor
gave about what his
church was doing by offering refuge to folks fleeing
the path of Hurricane Gustav. This ironic statement
echoes exactly what my friend Craig and I recently
dialogued about on his blog. What’s wrong with this picture?
This quote demonstrates how thoroughly the ideas of “postmodernism” have influenced even the church. Without getting deeply into all of the aspects of postmodern philosophy, one thing that is notable is how the shifts in philosophy have led to consequent shifts in the seat of authority-- when, by “authority,” I mean the arbiter of truth, stability, and purpose. Follow with me:
This quote demonstrates how thoroughly the ideas of “postmodernism” have influenced even the church. Without getting deeply into all of the aspects of postmodern philosophy, one thing that is notable is how the shifts in philosophy have led to consequent shifts in the seat of authority-- when, by “authority,” I mean the arbiter of truth, stability, and purpose. Follow with me:
Whether he realizes it or not, this
pastor (quoted above) has clearly become convinced of
the Post-Modern position, at least as far as whose role
and duty it is to care for those in need. Historically,
the Church has been the default institution that would
be assumed to be charged with caring for the needy. In
that sense, it would be just the opposite: the
governmental services would be filling the gap the
Church left.
How is that our mindset? Do we recognize that
the Church’s job-- not
the government’s-- is to
attend to the needs of those in need? Do we understand
the implications of this for the way that we vote or
take up political activity? When we believe that the
fundamental and primary solutions to our social and
community problems is to vote the “right” person into
office, have we sold out our biblical view of the
church for a Postmodern illusion of solutions?
Bad argument styles #2: using labels that don't work
Aug. 28, 2008; 11:55 AM Filed in: Theology
I once worked for a
church where a member of the pastoral staff and I
didn’t fully agree on theological matters. He might
have defined himself (in comparison to me) as more
broadly evangelical, while I might have defined myself
(in relation to him) as more traditionally Reformed.
But when it came to him defining me, the choice was simple.
He called me a “TR”.
If you’ve never encountered the label “TR” before, it means “Totally Reformed” or “Truly Reformed”. This wasn’t the first time I had encountered the label, but it was the first time I had been called one. (And the last, as far as I know.)
When someone is called a TR, it doesn’t really define a clear meaning of who they are, what they think, or where they stand on a position. Rather, it is a judgment waged entirely on one person’s thoughts relative to another person.
So many will use the label TR as a pejorative term: “He’s such a TR” (meaning, “he’s more ‘Reformed’ than me). Others will use it with a sense of theological hubris: “I’m a TR” (meaning, “I’m more ‘Reformed’ than you”). In neither case is the term helpful.
For years, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have had clear and straightforward associations. Over that time,
they have served as categories that we might safely place ourselves (and others) within, which lends great understanding of what we (and others) think, believe, agree or disagree with, etc.
I believe that time has passed us by. I think these labels, like “TR”, are no longer helpful, but are simply used in either pejorative or haughty ways.
As I recently read a book entitled, A Handful of Pebbles: theological liberalism and the church, this idea (that the labels no longer serve a useful purpose) kept coming to mind. It wasn’t unclear what the author meant by it, but it was clear that he supposed that what he described as “theological liberalism” was all that there was to it.
Is it possible that there are liberal ideas and ideals that (so-called) conservatives might also embrace? Or that there are conservative ideas and ideals that (so-called) liberals might embrace? Whether we are discussing theology, politics, social issues, or economics, I think the lines are blurring.
For example, we have any number of people in political office today who are called “conservatives”-- yet these people are not “conservative” in every way: some may be fiscal conservatives, but social moderates and theological liberals. Similarly, there are many who are categorized as “liberals” who are socially and theologically conservative, but are politically liberal.
And, of course, there is the matter of degree. Whether a person assumes the mantle of conservative or liberal, or more or less “Reformed”, they are doing so in comparison to others. And the problem with association by degrees was best articulated by Tim Keller:
Keller went on to illustrate by talking about living in community. So you think you know what vulnerable community is? he asks. Look at the Amish-- they blow us away when it comes to living in an intimate community.
But, Keller says, a people-group like the Auca indians (the group that Jim and Elizabeth Elliot sought to reach as missionaries) will look at the Amish and write them off. You think you know intimate community? How can you-- you have walls! It turns out that the Aucas live in dwellings with no walls, and everything that anyone does is announced. When Elizabeth Elliot left her dwelling to go to the bathroom, someone would announce, “the white woman is going down to the river to urinate”.
We have many, many categories and labels that are quite useful-- but we have a good number (more than we should) that aren’t. So, how can we evaluate our labels? Here are a few questions to ask:
He called me a “TR”.
If you’ve never encountered the label “TR” before, it means “Totally Reformed” or “Truly Reformed”. This wasn’t the first time I had encountered the label, but it was the first time I had been called one. (And the last, as far as I know.)
When someone is called a TR, it doesn’t really define a clear meaning of who they are, what they think, or where they stand on a position. Rather, it is a judgment waged entirely on one person’s thoughts relative to another person.
So many will use the label TR as a pejorative term: “He’s such a TR” (meaning, “he’s more ‘Reformed’ than me). Others will use it with a sense of theological hubris: “I’m a TR” (meaning, “I’m more ‘Reformed’ than you”). In neither case is the term helpful.
For years, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have had clear and straightforward associations. Over that time,
they have served as categories that we might safely place ourselves (and others) within, which lends great understanding of what we (and others) think, believe, agree or disagree with, etc.
I believe that time has passed us by. I think these labels, like “TR”, are no longer helpful, but are simply used in either pejorative or haughty ways.
As I recently read a book entitled, A Handful of Pebbles: theological liberalism and the church, this idea (that the labels no longer serve a useful purpose) kept coming to mind. It wasn’t unclear what the author meant by it, but it was clear that he supposed that what he described as “theological liberalism” was all that there was to it.
Is it possible that there are liberal ideas and ideals that (so-called) conservatives might also embrace? Or that there are conservative ideas and ideals that (so-called) liberals might embrace? Whether we are discussing theology, politics, social issues, or economics, I think the lines are blurring.
For example, we have any number of people in political office today who are called “conservatives”-- yet these people are not “conservative” in every way: some may be fiscal conservatives, but social moderates and theological liberals. Similarly, there are many who are categorized as “liberals” who are socially and theologically conservative, but are politically liberal.
And, of course, there is the matter of degree. Whether a person assumes the mantle of conservative or liberal, or more or less “Reformed”, they are doing so in comparison to others. And the problem with association by degrees was best articulated by Tim Keller:
No matter what you believe, there will always be someone to your ‘right’, as it were, who thinks you sold out the Gospel.
Keller went on to illustrate by talking about living in community. So you think you know what vulnerable community is? he asks. Look at the Amish-- they blow us away when it comes to living in an intimate community.
But, Keller says, a people-group like the Auca indians (the group that Jim and Elizabeth Elliot sought to reach as missionaries) will look at the Amish and write them off. You think you know intimate community? How can you-- you have walls! It turns out that the Aucas live in dwellings with no walls, and everything that anyone does is announced. When Elizabeth Elliot left her dwelling to go to the bathroom, someone would announce, “the white woman is going down to the river to urinate”.
We have many, many categories and labels that are quite useful-- but we have a good number (more than we should) that aren’t. So, how can we evaluate our labels? Here are a few questions to ask:
- Am I labeling an idea, or a person? If I am labeling a person, am I being hasty in casting them into a group that they do not deserve to be in?
- Why do I feel the need to apply a label or category to this person or idea? Will applying a label or category truly help me (and others) understand their point of view?
- Is my use of labels or categories gracious and kind, giving credit where credit is due? Or is it something that tears another down or builds me up (or both)?
- Is the label or category I am using an objective qualification of a particular view or idea? Or is it simply a means of comparing myself or someone else to others?
- Does my use of labels or categories drive myself and others to Christ and to orthodoxy? Is speaking of someone or some idea in this way a credit to the Gospel?
- Is my use of labels or categories something I would gladly say to the person I am speaking of? Could I say this to them without embarrassment or qualification? Would the feel honored and understood by my use of the label or category I am applying to them?
Bad argument styles #1: The Bait-and-Switch
Aug. 25, 2008; 09:24 AM Filed in: Theology
Closely related to
my ongoing discussion on
logic is
the concept of argument style, which is really a
part of rhetoric. As I can, I’ll explore that
concept as well. Here’s the first installment.
One of the problems that face us when we’re dealing with arguments and dialogue is that, quite often, one side of the argument has done a good bit more consideration on the topic than the other side. This frequently leads to what I find to be a common problem in theological discussion: the Bait-and-Switch.
The Bait-and-Switch looks like this: Two thinkers walk into a discussion. Thinker one (we’ll call him Tom) is quite familiar with the topic of the discussion, while thinker two (who we shall call Ann) is only vaguely aware of the major points.
In fact, Tom is not only familiar with the topic, but is well-convinced of his position, and has ready access to multiple articles and books that support his view. Ann, on the other hand, has perhaps encountered Tom’s view before; maybe she has even read an article or two. It may be that she has a few reasons to question whether Tom’s perspective is right, but she is, at very least, unwilling to be quick to change her views of what she considers orthodox.
So when Tom encounters Ann, he tosses out a casual question to her that is phrased in such a way as to suggest that the question-- and (here’s the important thing) the intent of the question-- is objective. Perhaps the question is worded ambiguously, or maybe it contains an asking phrase that requests the opinion of the other in an apparently sincere way.
Ann takes the bait. She answers with a sincere statement of her opinion. She probably shoots from the hip to a fair degree, and she may very well disclaim exactly that. Her answer is brief, but it probably states a good bit (even all) of what she might have to say about the matter.
So Tom sets the hook. If he’s really good at this, he might ask a few follow-up questions that are similarly ambiguous, again appealing for her honest answer. Then he reels her in: she is suddenly blasted with an overwhelming amount of information. It might be in the form of an article cut-and-pasted into an e-mail, or a series of quotes (lots of them-- 15 or more) posted in the comments of a blog post, or the spoken dialogue switches to monologue for a time. The actual form doesn’t really matter-- it’s the result that does.
If Tom gets his fish, then the result is that Ann is sucked into a discussion that she can’t possibly win, and Tom will eventually demonstrate that he is right because his opponent cannot sufficiently out-argue him. (If Ann is smart, she jumps off the hook at the point when the first wave of overwhelming information comes.)
Here’s what is wrong with the above style of argument:
One of the problems that face us when we’re dealing with arguments and dialogue is that, quite often, one side of the argument has done a good bit more consideration on the topic than the other side. This frequently leads to what I find to be a common problem in theological discussion: the Bait-and-Switch.
The Bait-and-Switch looks like this: Two thinkers walk into a discussion. Thinker one (we’ll call him Tom) is quite familiar with the topic of the discussion, while thinker two (who we shall call Ann) is only vaguely aware of the major points.
In fact, Tom is not only familiar with the topic, but is well-convinced of his position, and has ready access to multiple articles and books that support his view. Ann, on the other hand, has perhaps encountered Tom’s view before; maybe she has even read an article or two. It may be that she has a few reasons to question whether Tom’s perspective is right, but she is, at very least, unwilling to be quick to change her views of what she considers orthodox.
So when Tom encounters Ann, he tosses out a casual question to her that is phrased in such a way as to suggest that the question-- and (here’s the important thing) the intent of the question-- is objective. Perhaps the question is worded ambiguously, or maybe it contains an asking phrase that requests the opinion of the other in an apparently sincere way.
Ann takes the bait. She answers with a sincere statement of her opinion. She probably shoots from the hip to a fair degree, and she may very well disclaim exactly that. Her answer is brief, but it probably states a good bit (even all) of what she might have to say about the matter.
So Tom sets the hook. If he’s really good at this, he might ask a few follow-up questions that are similarly ambiguous, again appealing for her honest answer. Then he reels her in: she is suddenly blasted with an overwhelming amount of information. It might be in the form of an article cut-and-pasted into an e-mail, or a series of quotes (lots of them-- 15 or more) posted in the comments of a blog post, or the spoken dialogue switches to monologue for a time. The actual form doesn’t really matter-- it’s the result that does.
If Tom gets his fish, then the result is that Ann is sucked into a discussion that she can’t possibly win, and Tom will eventually demonstrate that he is right because his opponent cannot sufficiently out-argue him. (If Ann is smart, she jumps off the hook at the point when the first wave of overwhelming information comes.)
Here’s what is wrong with the above style of argument:
- It begins with deception. Tom presents himself as sincerely interested in Ann’s opinion, when he is not. He asks a question or makes a statement that is worded to imply objectivity when none is present. Tom has set out to convince someone of his point of view, but acts like he is still arriving at it.
- From deception it moves to a psychological move on the order of Cialdini: because Ann has invested time and energy into this discussion, she feels obligated to continue. Tom capitalizes on this psychology, binding her into what amounts to a sales pitch.
- Tom then beats her up and presents her as the defeated foe, which is a straw man fallacy (more on this in a future post). Ann never set out to be his foe, and she never presented herself as a representative for the “other side” of the topic. Yet Tom trumpets the “other side” as defeated because Ann has been defeated.
- Overall, Tom has forsaken the loving fellowship that he might have with his sister in Christ for the sake of making his point. Deception, head games, and beating her up in argument is not the way to build a friendship, and surely Ann feels like she has been used and abused. Hardly a brotherly model.
- What are my motives in asking the questions I am asking? Have I presented myself as undecided about something that I am actually decided on? If so, why?
- Am I aware of whether or not my discussion partner(s) are as well-versed on the topic as I am? If they are not, have I graciously extended patience to them as they get up to speed? Have I been careful not to overwhelm them with too many different points of information, or simply too much information?
- Have I been easy to disagree with? That is, has my spirit been forbearing and gracious toward them, so that they still feel cherished and valued as a fellow believer?
- Have I represented our discussion as being more than it really is? Have I inappropriately positioned myself or those with whom I am discussing as the final representative of a position or view?
- Am I willing to be wrong, if I could be shown from Scripture or from other evidence that my perspective is incorrect? If I have succeeded in demonstrating that someone else is wrong, have I been gracious and loving in the way that I exposed error, not lording it over them in a haughty manner?
- Overall, have I dealt with my discussion partner(s) in a manner that reflects love for a brother or sister in Christ? Would they gladly engage in another discussion with me in the future, even if they knew we disagreed? Would others inside and outside the church consider my manner of dealing with them as a credit to the gospel?
Fostering and Adoption: how we gave up the family a long time ago
Aug. 26, 2008; 09:05 AM Filed in: Culture | Church Life
There is an interesting overture before the
legislature of Arkansas that, if it succeeds,
would put a bill before the state that would
outlaw adoption and foster care by unmarried
people who live together.
I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?
So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.
At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?
And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?
I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?
So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.
At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?
And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?
LTD: the Slippery Slope Fallacy
Sep. 09, 2008; 09:57 AM Filed in: Theology
Picking up on the
discussion about fallacies, let’s talk about a very
common one: the Slippery Slope fallacy.
The basic idea behind the Slippery Slope fallacy is that one event is simply a step along the way, and it will lead to another and another and so on until we inevitably arrive at something dire and drastic which no one wants.
Slippery Slopes assume that there is a fixed path in one direction for every choice, and that they first step along that path always and inevitably leads to the end of the path.
A good example from the Deaconess/women in diaconal ministry debate (which has become a good case study for understanding logic-- and logical error-- in theological discussion) is the following argument, which I’ve heard or read a number of times over the last several months:
Now, this argument exhibits more than one fallacy (it also contains a “False Cause” fallacy, which we’ll cover another time), but it is a clear Slippery Slope. I’ll demonstrate why in just a moment.
How do you argue against a Slippery Slope fallacy? There are essentially two ways:
Meanwhile, here is a severance of the link: “Your argument assumes that the office of Deacon and the office (or offices) of Ruling and Teaching Elder are essentially the same, and that a Deacon is merely an Elder-in-training or something of that sort. But Scripture makes it clear that one is inherently different from the other-- and that it is not the case that a Deacon is simply a ‘Junior Elder.’ If the offices are different, then one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other.”
The basic idea behind the Slippery Slope fallacy is that one event is simply a step along the way, and it will lead to another and another and so on until we inevitably arrive at something dire and drastic which no one wants.
Slippery Slopes assume that there is a fixed path in one direction for every choice, and that they first step along that path always and inevitably leads to the end of the path.
A good example from the Deaconess/women in diaconal ministry debate (which has become a good case study for understanding logic-- and logical error-- in theological discussion) is the following argument, which I’ve heard or read a number of times over the last several months:
If we allow women to be ordained as Deacons, it will only be a matter of time before we are ordaining them as Ruling Elders and eventually Pastors!
Now, this argument exhibits more than one fallacy (it also contains a “False Cause” fallacy, which we’ll cover another time), but it is a clear Slippery Slope. I’ll demonstrate why in just a moment.
How do you argue against a Slippery Slope fallacy? There are essentially two ways:
- By counter-example: a counter-example is an argument that follows the same form or concept of an argument, but arrives at a different conclusion. A good counter-example will expose a Slippery Slope’s error.
- By severing the link: a Slippery Slope depends on the assumed link between the “steps” down the slope; break that link, and you’ve demonstrated the error of the fallacy.
Meanwhile, here is a severance of the link: “Your argument assumes that the office of Deacon and the office (or offices) of Ruling and Teaching Elder are essentially the same, and that a Deacon is merely an Elder-in-training or something of that sort. But Scripture makes it clear that one is inherently different from the other-- and that it is not the case that a Deacon is simply a ‘Junior Elder.’ If the offices are different, then one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other.”
"In God We Trust"
Sep. 16, 2008; 08:49 AM Filed in: Culture | Church Life
A
friend of mine recently posted a series of notes
on his social network discussing his concern for
the fact that our national motto, “In God We
Trust,” is being moved from the face of coins (as
is common today) to the sides, or edges, of coins
in some proposed future designs.
My friend’s concern is that, once the motto is moved to the edges of coins, it won’t be long before it is removed entirely. This is a Slippery Slope argument, but that’s not what I’m concerned about here. Instead, I’m bothered by my friend’s insistence that this bodes badly for the spiritual state of our nation.
He asserts that we see all references to God being systematically removed from the “arenas of our culture.” This, he says, is a problem because, as with the motto on coins, this removes from the consciousness of the culture the truth of the Biblical God. I think he assumes too much in this.
We in the church are accustomed to seeing the word “God” and immediately associating it with Yahweh, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the trinitarian God. But I think the idea of “god” has become so vague and passé outside of the church that there is little or no association with the Christian God in the word itself.
For that matter, in a culture like ours-- where almost everyone has had some exposure to more than one religious belief system-- the notion of “God” may, as often as not, conjure up an association with Allah (the god of Islam), Gaia or some other pantheistic idea, Hinduism or some eastern religious concept, or even some personally-invented idolatry or paganism. It is clear from the studies that have been done that, while a very large majority of the population of the U.S. say they “believe in God,” the idea of god that those respondents hold is frequently anything other than an orthodox understanding of God.
In stark contrast, I get the sense from my friend’s posts that he considers the presence of our national motto as a great boon for the spread of the Gospel. While this might be an interesting conversation starter that could lead to an evangelistic opportunity, I’ve never heard of anyone who actively inquired about spiritual truth because of the U.S. motto on currency. I could be dead wrong on this one, but I rank the motto on a coin as several notches below bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coffee mugs as tools for outreach.
So here’s my point: should my friend be up in arms? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is time and energy that is misplaced, that could have been spent doing actual ministry of evangelism and outreach. (So, too, is this post-- consider me sufficiently convicted.)
LTD: Fallacies and what they do
Sep. 02, 2008; 09:54 AM Filed in: Theology
Continuing
my “Logic for Theological Discussion” series (which I
will henceforth label “LTD”), I’d like to talk today
about fallacies: what they are and how they work.
A fallacy is a part of an argument. Specifically, it is a part that is able to be shown to have a logical problem or flaw. Once that flaw is demonstrated, the whole argument fails. (When this is so, the argument is said to be “fallacious.”)
You would be astonished at how frequently fallacies occur in arguments, from the most casual and conversational to the most articulate, meticulously word-smithed presentation. They are as common as the rain.
When a fallacy occurs, it is usually a subtle, and can be hard to detect at first; this is often because more than one fallacy occurs at the same time, and one masks the other. Fallacies come in the form of matters of relevance, vague or ambiguous use of words or ideas, matters of correlation or cause, or exploiting some sort of emotional element in the listener.
A good (and very common) example of a fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy. There are actually several different forms of an Ad Hominem (which is Latin, meaning “to the person”), but they all amount to something along the same lines: when you cannot strongly attack the argument itself, attack the person doing the arguing.
For example: in the discussions surrounding the issue of women as deacons/deaconesses, something the “pro” side (in other words, they were for some form of diaconal service being open to women) would often say is, “The reason the PCA’s Book of Church Order is the way it is can be traced back to the reactionary tendencies of the PCA’s founders.”
(Mea Culpa: I’ve said some form of this statement before.)
Let me first point out how this is an Ad Hominem fallacy: rather than addressing the argument-- namely, that the Book of Church Order as written prohibits any ordination of women to church office-- the response attacks the arguer. In this case, it means either, “The writers of the BCO were wrong because they were reactionaries,” or, “If you agree with the BCO, then you are wrong because, since the writers of the BCO were reactionaries, so are you.”
Neither of these is relevant to the question of whether the BCO is correct in its interpretation and application of Scripture when it comes to women in diaconal service. Therefore, claiming that the writers were reactionaries has no real bearing on the soundness of the argument.
How do you deal with an Ad Hominem fallacy when one is thrown at you? There are several strategies:
A fallacy is a part of an argument. Specifically, it is a part that is able to be shown to have a logical problem or flaw. Once that flaw is demonstrated, the whole argument fails. (When this is so, the argument is said to be “fallacious.”)
You would be astonished at how frequently fallacies occur in arguments, from the most casual and conversational to the most articulate, meticulously word-smithed presentation. They are as common as the rain.
When a fallacy occurs, it is usually a subtle, and can be hard to detect at first; this is often because more than one fallacy occurs at the same time, and one masks the other. Fallacies come in the form of matters of relevance, vague or ambiguous use of words or ideas, matters of correlation or cause, or exploiting some sort of emotional element in the listener.
A good (and very common) example of a fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy. There are actually several different forms of an Ad Hominem (which is Latin, meaning “to the person”), but they all amount to something along the same lines: when you cannot strongly attack the argument itself, attack the person doing the arguing.
For example: in the discussions surrounding the issue of women as deacons/deaconesses, something the “pro” side (in other words, they were for some form of diaconal service being open to women) would often say is, “The reason the PCA’s Book of Church Order is the way it is can be traced back to the reactionary tendencies of the PCA’s founders.”
(Mea Culpa: I’ve said some form of this statement before.)
Let me first point out how this is an Ad Hominem fallacy: rather than addressing the argument-- namely, that the Book of Church Order as written prohibits any ordination of women to church office-- the response attacks the arguer. In this case, it means either, “The writers of the BCO were wrong because they were reactionaries,” or, “If you agree with the BCO, then you are wrong because, since the writers of the BCO were reactionaries, so are you.”
Neither of these is relevant to the question of whether the BCO is correct in its interpretation and application of Scripture when it comes to women in diaconal service. Therefore, claiming that the writers were reactionaries has no real bearing on the soundness of the argument.
How do you deal with an Ad Hominem fallacy when one is thrown at you? There are several strategies:
- Take the higher ground: ignore the fallacy and stick to the facts and real arguments. Give other listeners the benefit of the doubt in being able to recognize the fallacious quality of the argument. (Best when the Ad Hominem is obvious and blatant.)
- Address it briefly: suggest that there is no reason to get distracted by name-calling, and request that you stick to the subject at hand instead of getting distracted by irrelevant opinions. (Best when the audience is neutral about whether the Ad Hominem is true, and/or when the Ad Hominem is based on a highly opinionated perspective rather than something more factually-based.)
- Force them to work it out: ask them probing questions about their claim, requiring them to explain the direct relevance of what they have said and gradually exposing their argument as a fallacy. (Best when the audience is favorable toward the fallacious position.)
The Bible, authority, and interpretation part 2
Aug. 21, 2008; 05:17 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
Following up on
my
previous post, I’ll continue my reflections
from the fascinating conversation I got to be a part
of earlier in the week.
At another point in the conversation, one of these formerly legalistic teenagers commented on the damage that was done through this oppressive environment. Specifically, she said that she felt like no one was given any sense of their right to read the Bible for themselves. Instead, they were told what the Bible taught and what it meant for them.
This is oppressive-- and brings to mind a significant part of the Protestant reformation, which was to translate the Bible into the language of the people (instead of only into Latin), so that people of than the priests and bishops could read it. There is an essential aspect of the faith that comes from reading Scripture; it is the Word of God for the people of God. And it is important that people know their Bibles so that they can test the teachings of others against the Word of God (remember the Bereans, who were praised for this in Acts 17:11).
At the same time, the approach of the leaders in the legalistic community are a good example of how we tend to take sound principles too far, when there is actually a “middle ground” balance needed.
Christians today too often take the “democratization of the Bible” too far; because the Reformers saw that it was important that people other than only the authorities of the church be able to read Scripture, today we have many who have decided that their interpretation of the Bible is as good as anyone’s-- and maybe better.
In fact, not everyone can interpret the Bible equally. Some have been trained extensively for interpreting the Bible-- learning the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, studying the history, archeaology, and peoples of biblical times, training in methods and approaches of how to study and interpret Scripture, and other ways of being trained. Others have read and studied their Bibles many times over, and they simply know the Scriptures well. Still others are, frankly, not familiar enough with the Bible to make the confident assertions of interpretation that they do.
This isn’t to say that not everyone ought to read their Bibles and, yes, make efforts at interpretation. But it is to say that all of us ought to remain teachable about even those biblical texts that we feel the most familiar with. And when we recognize that an interpretation we have made is at odds with an interpretation that others have made, we ought to be willing to hear the reasoning behind their interpretation with an open mind.
Imagine, if you will, the person who dogmatically insists that his translation of a text, though totally at odds with everyone else, is the accurate one:
Dogmatist: This is what I believe the text is saying...
Elder: I don’t see how you got that from Scripture; instead, I think the text says this...
Dogmatist: You’re wrong. It says what I said.
Elder: Well, let’s consult these commentaries, written by contemporary scholars... and, yes, they disagree with your interpretation, also.
Dogmatist: It doesn’t matter. I’m sticking with what I said.
Elder: Okay, but now I’ve consulted with the historical confessions, and they all assert that your interpretation is incorrect.
Dogmatist: That’s what they think. I know what my Bible says.
Elder: But look here, where the early church fathers wrote about exactly that... and they all say the text means something different.
Dogmatist: They can say what they want, but I still say it means what I said.
This sounds a little far-fetched-- but I’ve actually met people who were so convinced that their interpretation (and it always seems to be a “new” take on something) is right that they are willing to disagree with pastors, scholars, and others over 2000+ years of church history and interpretation of the Scripture. A wise pastor once said to me, “if your interpretation is in complete disagreement with 2000 years of church history, you’re very likely wrong.”
This is one of the reasons why I find the presbyterian approach to “doing church” so helpful. As presbyterians, the default position is that my voice alone is not the final word, nor is anyone else’s. Instead, we constantly defer to one another with humility. As presbyterians, we trust that God is at work in the others in our congregation, our presbytery, our synod, or our assembly, at least as much as He has been at work in us to reveal the truth. There will always be times when it is possible that the larger bodies are wrong-- but then we turn to the greater history of the church and test our perspectives against that. The deference to the higher bodies is always present, and always keeping us accountable for our interpretation.
We must read our Bibles, and we must work at interpretation. But we must also be ready to be shown that we are wrong. If we aren’t, then we have made ourselves the author of Scripture-- for only the author can be utterly certain of the meaning of a text.
At another point in the conversation, one of these formerly legalistic teenagers commented on the damage that was done through this oppressive environment. Specifically, she said that she felt like no one was given any sense of their right to read the Bible for themselves. Instead, they were told what the Bible taught and what it meant for them.
This is oppressive-- and brings to mind a significant part of the Protestant reformation, which was to translate the Bible into the language of the people (instead of only into Latin), so that people of than the priests and bishops could read it. There is an essential aspect of the faith that comes from reading Scripture; it is the Word of God for the people of God. And it is important that people know their Bibles so that they can test the teachings of others against the Word of God (remember the Bereans, who were praised for this in Acts 17:11).
At the same time, the approach of the leaders in the legalistic community are a good example of how we tend to take sound principles too far, when there is actually a “middle ground” balance needed.
Christians today too often take the “democratization of the Bible” too far; because the Reformers saw that it was important that people other than only the authorities of the church be able to read Scripture, today we have many who have decided that their interpretation of the Bible is as good as anyone’s-- and maybe better.
In fact, not everyone can interpret the Bible equally. Some have been trained extensively for interpreting the Bible-- learning the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, studying the history, archeaology, and peoples of biblical times, training in methods and approaches of how to study and interpret Scripture, and other ways of being trained. Others have read and studied their Bibles many times over, and they simply know the Scriptures well. Still others are, frankly, not familiar enough with the Bible to make the confident assertions of interpretation that they do.
This isn’t to say that not everyone ought to read their Bibles and, yes, make efforts at interpretation. But it is to say that all of us ought to remain teachable about even those biblical texts that we feel the most familiar with. And when we recognize that an interpretation we have made is at odds with an interpretation that others have made, we ought to be willing to hear the reasoning behind their interpretation with an open mind.
Imagine, if you will, the person who dogmatically insists that his translation of a text, though totally at odds with everyone else, is the accurate one:
Dogmatist: This is what I believe the text is saying...
Elder: I don’t see how you got that from Scripture; instead, I think the text says this...
Dogmatist: You’re wrong. It says what I said.
Elder: Well, let’s consult these commentaries, written by contemporary scholars... and, yes, they disagree with your interpretation, also.
Dogmatist: It doesn’t matter. I’m sticking with what I said.
Elder: Okay, but now I’ve consulted with the historical confessions, and they all assert that your interpretation is incorrect.
Dogmatist: That’s what they think. I know what my Bible says.
Elder: But look here, where the early church fathers wrote about exactly that... and they all say the text means something different.
Dogmatist: They can say what they want, but I still say it means what I said.
This sounds a little far-fetched-- but I’ve actually met people who were so convinced that their interpretation (and it always seems to be a “new” take on something) is right that they are willing to disagree with pastors, scholars, and others over 2000+ years of church history and interpretation of the Scripture. A wise pastor once said to me, “if your interpretation is in complete disagreement with 2000 years of church history, you’re very likely wrong.”
This is one of the reasons why I find the presbyterian approach to “doing church” so helpful. As presbyterians, the default position is that my voice alone is not the final word, nor is anyone else’s. Instead, we constantly defer to one another with humility. As presbyterians, we trust that God is at work in the others in our congregation, our presbytery, our synod, or our assembly, at least as much as He has been at work in us to reveal the truth. There will always be times when it is possible that the larger bodies are wrong-- but then we turn to the greater history of the church and test our perspectives against that. The deference to the higher bodies is always present, and always keeping us accountable for our interpretation.
We must read our Bibles, and we must work at interpretation. But we must also be ready to be shown that we are wrong. If we aren’t, then we have made ourselves the author of Scripture-- for only the author can be utterly certain of the meaning of a text.
The Bible, authority, and interpretation part I
Aug. 20, 2008; 10:22 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Ministry
The other day I was with
a group of people who were talking about an especially
legalistic environment that some of them had been a
part of as teenagers-- a place where they were
literally told what to believe, and that if they
disagreed they would go to Hell. The leaders in this
environment were, clearly, abusing their authority and
making claims that no one person or group has a right
to make.
One person commented on the fact that I should get a lot of sermon illustrations from these stories! (He was right...) That got me to thinking about what the real applications really were. I’d like to reflect on two broad applications here, over two posts.
At one point I asked the question of this group: how did your parents (who were all Christians) continue to believe that it was good for you to be a part of this? After all, I said, you would surely come home and tell them all about it.
Their first response demonstrated how powerful the authoritarian environment was:
[Note, by the way, the similar nature of this environment to a classic abusive relationship-- where the victim is told that THEY (the victim) would get in trouble if they told.]
But as they went on, something else became clear. One of them said:
And there I saw my first sermon illustration: when it comes down to it, we all gravitate toward legalism. We are all legalists.
When we’re offered an environment where the rules are known, it becomes very easy to settle into that. We know where we stand in the pecking order; we are then able to proclaim with confidence precisely why we have merited the favor of God and men.
I think this is what makes grace so threatening, so terrifying to all of us. If the work that earns us favor isn’t our work (through legalism) but Christ’s work imputed to us (by grace), we are actually dependent on something (grace) and someone (Christ) other than ourselves.
This also illustrates why even communities that are defined by Christ’s grace (namely, churches) quickly return to legalism. Dependence is very uncomfortable. Dependence is often humbling, sometimes awkward, and frequently at odds with pride. Someone who is dependent has just reason to lose some confidence in themselves.
Here’s the irony in it all: we are always dependent. Even when we think we have every reason for confidence (as with the group of teenagers who knew exactly their place in the social order of that legalistic community), we are still dependent on something: for the legalist, it is the rules and laws that we subscribe to, and the authority who creates and enforces them.
Legalism-- that idea that “I can earn merit/favor/righteousness through obedience, and take confidence and pride in myself”-- is a lie.
One person commented on the fact that I should get a lot of sermon illustrations from these stories! (He was right...) That got me to thinking about what the real applications really were. I’d like to reflect on two broad applications here, over two posts.
At one point I asked the question of this group: how did your parents (who were all Christians) continue to believe that it was good for you to be a part of this? After all, I said, you would surely come home and tell them all about it.
Their first response demonstrated how powerful the authoritarian environment was:
No, we were told that if we reported on them we would go to Hell.
[Note, by the way, the similar nature of this environment to a classic abusive relationship-- where the victim is told that THEY (the victim) would get in trouble if they told.]
But as they went on, something else became clear. One of them said:
I was glad to be there. I needed a place where I could belong, and this place felt safe-- partly because of the rules.
And there I saw my first sermon illustration: when it comes down to it, we all gravitate toward legalism. We are all legalists.
When we’re offered an environment where the rules are known, it becomes very easy to settle into that. We know where we stand in the pecking order; we are then able to proclaim with confidence precisely why we have merited the favor of God and men.
I think this is what makes grace so threatening, so terrifying to all of us. If the work that earns us favor isn’t our work (through legalism) but Christ’s work imputed to us (by grace), we are actually dependent on something (grace) and someone (Christ) other than ourselves.
This also illustrates why even communities that are defined by Christ’s grace (namely, churches) quickly return to legalism. Dependence is very uncomfortable. Dependence is often humbling, sometimes awkward, and frequently at odds with pride. Someone who is dependent has just reason to lose some confidence in themselves.
Here’s the irony in it all: we are always dependent. Even when we think we have every reason for confidence (as with the group of teenagers who knew exactly their place in the social order of that legalistic community), we are still dependent on something: for the legalist, it is the rules and laws that we subscribe to, and the authority who creates and enforces them.
Legalism-- that idea that “I can earn merit/favor/righteousness through obedience, and take confidence and pride in myself”-- is a lie.
Logic for Theological Discussion (LTD): parts of an argument
Aug. 23, 2008; 09:33 PM Filed in: Theology
One of the fundamental ideas in logic is that in an
argument, you have two sorts of ideas (statements)
being presented: a conclusion, and one or more
premises.
The conclusion ought to be fairly self-evident in definition: that point which the whole of the argument is attempting to demonstrate to be the case.
The premises (and there is almost always more than one) are those phrases or sentences (also known as statements) which are asserted as reasons to believe the conclusion.
Now, let’s talk about truth and what is called “truth value” for a moment. whenever a sentence can be said to be true or false, that sentence has a “truth value”-- and the truth value is whether or not it is true or false. Some sentences cannot be said to be true or false. A question, for example, or an exclamation cannot be disputed as untrue. But a premise MUST be a sentence that can be said to be true or false.
However, it is technically incorrect to say that an argument is “true” or “false”. This is because there is more to whether an argument is a good one or not than simply the truth value of its statements. Rather, an argument can be said to be two things: valid (or invalid), and sound (or unsound).
Validity (whether an argument is valid or not) is based on form alone, not on content. I know what you’re thinking: “is it possible for an argument to have premises that are both true, and a conclusion that is true, and the argument still not be valid?” Good question-- and the answer is yes. In fact, any of the following are possible:
Validity is a complex thing, and I won’t get into it in detail now. I may dedicate a post or two to it in the future. Let’s assume, for now, that the arguments presented are valid (which is a treacherous assumption in many cases).
The tricky part about soundness in arguments is that there is often one or more premises that are left out-- either because they are implied within the argument, they are unknown factors (either to the arguer or the listener), or because to state them outright would expose the argument as unsound. It is the last case that gets us into the most trouble when it comes to theological discussions.
For example, I overheard a discussion at General Assembly about the meaning of the phrase, “their wives must be women worthy of respect” in 1 Timothy 3:11. Of the two people discussing the matter, one (we’ll call him Fred) was convinced that a naked reading of the English as rendered in the NIV was plain in its meaning-- clearly, thought he, this verse means that the verse is speaking of the wives of Deacons, not women in general. The other fellow (who we’ll call Joe) thought that, since the English is a translation from another language, we must be careful to assume that a naked reading is always accurate; he also felt that the naked reading was problematic because of what is in the original Greek (specifically, that the word translated as “wives” can also mean simply, “women”). The dialogue went something like this:
Fred: Clearly, 1 Timothy doesn’t suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
Joe: I’m not sure that we can say that with such certainty. Doesn’t that assume a lot of what the translation ought to be?
Fred: Like what?
Joe: Like, what about the fact that the word translated “wives” can also mean just “women”?
Fred: Don’t you think that the Bible is clear?
Joe: Well, I was reading a commentary by a scholar I trust, and he said it wasn’t so cut-and-dried.
Fred: Some have their opinions about what this verse means, but I for one don’t think we should undermine God.
So, here’s the argument as it was stated:
Premise 1: Some people have theories about what 1 Tim. 3:11 means. (Truth value= true)
Premise 2: We shouldn’t undermine God. (Truth value= true)
Conclusion: 1 Timothy does not suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
So, assuming the argument is valid, is this argument sound, or unsound? Look at the argument in the original dialogue again; is there a missing premise?
I would argue that there is-- though my guess is that even Fred doesn’t realize that it is there. I think the argument really goes like this:
Premise 1: Some people have theories about what 1 Tim. 3:11 means. (Truth value= true)
Missing Premise: My opinion about what it means is the same as God’s opinion about what it means.
Premise 2: We shouldn’t undermine God. (Truth value= true)
Conclusion: 1 Timothy does not suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
See the problem? Now, this argument (as presented in the “full” version) has lots of problems, including the use of several “fallacies” which we’ll get into next time. But I hope that, even in this brief example, it is becoming clear how arguments work and how the truth can be easily missed or even distorted.
The conclusion ought to be fairly self-evident in definition: that point which the whole of the argument is attempting to demonstrate to be the case.
The premises (and there is almost always more than one) are those phrases or sentences (also known as statements) which are asserted as reasons to believe the conclusion.
Now, let’s talk about truth and what is called “truth value” for a moment. whenever a sentence can be said to be true or false, that sentence has a “truth value”-- and the truth value is whether or not it is true or false. Some sentences cannot be said to be true or false. A question, for example, or an exclamation cannot be disputed as untrue. But a premise MUST be a sentence that can be said to be true or false.
However, it is technically incorrect to say that an argument is “true” or “false”. This is because there is more to whether an argument is a good one or not than simply the truth value of its statements. Rather, an argument can be said to be two things: valid (or invalid), and sound (or unsound).
Validity (whether an argument is valid or not) is based on form alone, not on content. I know what you’re thinking: “is it possible for an argument to have premises that are both true, and a conclusion that is true, and the argument still not be valid?” Good question-- and the answer is yes. In fact, any of the following are possible:
- A valid argument whose premises are true and conclusion is false.
- An invalid argument whose premises and conclusion are true.
- A valid argument whose premises and conclusion are false.
- A valid argument whose premises are false and conclusion is true.
Validity is a complex thing, and I won’t get into it in detail now. I may dedicate a post or two to it in the future. Let’s assume, for now, that the arguments presented are valid (which is a treacherous assumption in many cases).
The tricky part about soundness in arguments is that there is often one or more premises that are left out-- either because they are implied within the argument, they are unknown factors (either to the arguer or the listener), or because to state them outright would expose the argument as unsound. It is the last case that gets us into the most trouble when it comes to theological discussions.
For example, I overheard a discussion at General Assembly about the meaning of the phrase, “their wives must be women worthy of respect” in 1 Timothy 3:11. Of the two people discussing the matter, one (we’ll call him Fred) was convinced that a naked reading of the English as rendered in the NIV was plain in its meaning-- clearly, thought he, this verse means that the verse is speaking of the wives of Deacons, not women in general. The other fellow (who we’ll call Joe) thought that, since the English is a translation from another language, we must be careful to assume that a naked reading is always accurate; he also felt that the naked reading was problematic because of what is in the original Greek (specifically, that the word translated as “wives” can also mean simply, “women”). The dialogue went something like this:
Fred: Clearly, 1 Timothy doesn’t suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
Joe: I’m not sure that we can say that with such certainty. Doesn’t that assume a lot of what the translation ought to be?
Fred: Like what?
Joe: Like, what about the fact that the word translated “wives” can also mean just “women”?
Fred: Don’t you think that the Bible is clear?
Joe: Well, I was reading a commentary by a scholar I trust, and he said it wasn’t so cut-and-dried.
Fred: Some have their opinions about what this verse means, but I for one don’t think we should undermine God.
So, here’s the argument as it was stated:
Premise 1: Some people have theories about what 1 Tim. 3:11 means. (Truth value= true)
Premise 2: We shouldn’t undermine God. (Truth value= true)
Conclusion: 1 Timothy does not suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
So, assuming the argument is valid, is this argument sound, or unsound? Look at the argument in the original dialogue again; is there a missing premise?
I would argue that there is-- though my guess is that even Fred doesn’t realize that it is there. I think the argument really goes like this:
Premise 1: Some people have theories about what 1 Tim. 3:11 means. (Truth value= true)
Missing Premise: My opinion about what it means is the same as God’s opinion about what it means.
Premise 2: We shouldn’t undermine God. (Truth value= true)
Conclusion: 1 Timothy does not suggest that a woman may be a Deacon or Deaconess.
See the problem? Now, this argument (as presented in the “full” version) has lots of problems, including the use of several “fallacies” which we’ll get into next time. But I hope that, even in this brief example, it is becoming clear how arguments work and how the truth can be easily missed or even distorted.
Tragedy and loss
Aug. 15, 2008; 08:10 AM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
I’ve
recently read two posts from bloggers who, somehow,
have managed to candidly capture in their posts the
shock, the depth of pain, the sense of loss that they
have experienced.
Amazingly, both of these writers appear to have written their words even during their experiences. Their words are as beautiful as they are tragic, in part because they are so vulnerable and exposed in them. They are also beautiful because they seem to be inviting others-- not to share their pain, but to understand it.
So many Christians I have known are afraid of pain, many because they have been so sheltered from it. But our world is full of pain, and it is quite likely that more than half of the people you encounter today are facing suffering of some sort. What would you do if you knew of it? How would you come alongside them in their pain? As one friend (who pointed me to one of these posts) wrote, “I am currently working on a doctorate in biblical studies... a Ph.D. does not address this.”
I think the heart of these two ladies is right: to come alongside them, we must understand their pain. We don’t have to share it-- I think many who are the midst of suffering feel strongly that the only way others can understand IS to share it, but I disagree-- but we must understand it. I’m grateful for the vulnerability of these two who, in the moment of their suffering and pain, invite you and me to have a glimpse of what pain looks like, that we might understand.
I invite you to read the stories of:
Rae (AKA SmockLady) who faced her first miscarriage
Denny (AKA Songstress) who lost her husband at age 33
Amazingly, both of these writers appear to have written their words even during their experiences. Their words are as beautiful as they are tragic, in part because they are so vulnerable and exposed in them. They are also beautiful because they seem to be inviting others-- not to share their pain, but to understand it.
So many Christians I have known are afraid of pain, many because they have been so sheltered from it. But our world is full of pain, and it is quite likely that more than half of the people you encounter today are facing suffering of some sort. What would you do if you knew of it? How would you come alongside them in their pain? As one friend (who pointed me to one of these posts) wrote, “I am currently working on a doctorate in biblical studies... a Ph.D. does not address this.”
I think the heart of these two ladies is right: to come alongside them, we must understand their pain. We don’t have to share it-- I think many who are the midst of suffering feel strongly that the only way others can understand IS to share it, but I disagree-- but we must understand it. I’m grateful for the vulnerability of these two who, in the moment of their suffering and pain, invite you and me to have a glimpse of what pain looks like, that we might understand.
I invite you to read the stories of:
Rae (AKA SmockLady) who faced her first miscarriage
Denny (AKA Songstress) who lost her husband at age 33
Logic for theological discussion
Aug. 12, 2008; 11:49 AM Filed in: Theology
Many readers will know that while I was in seminary, I
taught at a small school just outside of St. Louis. Two
of the classes I taught were Logic and Rhetoric. (I
won’t go into a lot of detail about Rhetoric, but
“Rhetoric” means a lot more than the way we hear it
thrown around on the news; the study of Rhetoric is
actually the study of persuasive communication, which
obviously includes a great amount of the communication
we have today.) I taught those classes because I had a
fair amount of training in both areas, and over the
years I’ve picked up a lot about how language, reason,
and sound thinking work (and don’t work) in
discussions, both formal and informal.
Since beginning seminary, I’ve also noticed a good bit about the nature of theological discussion and debate, as well. In short, I’d have to say that at least a simple majority of the discussions, debates, and conversations I’ve witnessed fairly butchered many of the fundamental ideas of basic reason and logic.
So one of the things I want to do is to start an occasional series of blog posts that look at logic and how it ought to guide theological discussions. I think that a large part of the problem is that many people don’t know what makes an argument for or against a particular position or viewpoint a good or bad argument. That’s a problem that we can fix-- and we should.
(For some people, I did something in the previous paragraph that was a new idea: the notion that an “argument” is actually a neutral idea, and that some may be good and others may be bad. Many of us have been taught implicitly that “arguing” and “fighting” -- or “arguing” and “bickering” -- are essentially the same thing, when they are not. One can offer a good, well-reasoned argument for or against something that is loud, vitriolic, and abusive; another may offer an unsound argument that is pleasant, civil, and gentle. Or vice-versa.)
For starters, here’s a fundamental concept of logic: The way we say things is just as communicative as what we say.
By “the way we say things” I mean their form. Lauguage offers us a number of forms that are important to consider; to name a few:
I know you didn’t mean it.
Now, think of how placing accent behind one or another word in that sentence might change its meaning:
More on this soon.
Since beginning seminary, I’ve also noticed a good bit about the nature of theological discussion and debate, as well. In short, I’d have to say that at least a simple majority of the discussions, debates, and conversations I’ve witnessed fairly butchered many of the fundamental ideas of basic reason and logic.
So one of the things I want to do is to start an occasional series of blog posts that look at logic and how it ought to guide theological discussions. I think that a large part of the problem is that many people don’t know what makes an argument for or against a particular position or viewpoint a good or bad argument. That’s a problem that we can fix-- and we should.
(For some people, I did something in the previous paragraph that was a new idea: the notion that an “argument” is actually a neutral idea, and that some may be good and others may be bad. Many of us have been taught implicitly that “arguing” and “fighting” -- or “arguing” and “bickering” -- are essentially the same thing, when they are not. One can offer a good, well-reasoned argument for or against something that is loud, vitriolic, and abusive; another may offer an unsound argument that is pleasant, civil, and gentle. Or vice-versa.)
For starters, here’s a fundamental concept of logic: The way we say things is just as communicative as what we say.
By “the way we say things” I mean their form. Lauguage offers us a number of forms that are important to consider; to name a few:
- Grammatical form-- often a misplaced comma or a poorly understood semi-colin can change meaning drastically.
- Syntactical form-- word choice (syntax) is also important, since words usually have a great variety of meanings.
- Logical form-- moving beyond grammar and word choice, by this I mean the way that sentences, paragraphs, and communication on a much larger scale fit together-- in themselves, and when connected to each other.
- Forms of ethos and pathos-- how we are sensitive (or insensitive) to embodying character (godly character, sinful character) and emotion in what we communicate, not only by words but by how we say them.
I know you didn’t mean it.
Now, think of how placing accent behind one or another word in that sentence might change its meaning:
- I know you didn’t mean it. (Implying that others may not know.)
- I KNOW you didn’t mean it. (Suggesting that it may have seemed like you did.)
- I know you didn’t MEAN it. (But it hurt anyway.)
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...”
Family man
I’ve
mentioned Andrew Peterson
before;
he’s a guy with a lot of talent
whose book I reviewed a while
back, and he’s also a talented musician, singer, and
songwriter.
One of Andrew’s songs that I love is “Family Man”-- it’s one of those songs that I wonder at how he ever performs live, because I don’t understand how he doesn’t choke up with tears.
Well, others love this song too. One church staffer created a video for the song, and it’s a pretty incredible video. Take a look:
One of Andrew’s songs that I love is “Family Man”-- it’s one of those songs that I wonder at how he ever performs live, because I don’t understand how he doesn’t choke up with tears.
Well, others love this song too. One church staffer created a video for the song, and it’s a pretty incredible video. Take a look:
"Family Man" from
Trevor Little on Vimeo.
Update from Ridgehaven
All is well as we spend this week at Ridgehaven, the
PCA’s camp and conference center in the mountains of
North Carolina. I’m speaking for the Senior High group
that is here-- about 40 campers-- and we’re also
enjoying something close to a vacation at the same
time.
So far, I’ve spoken twice; tonight, I’ll speak on the idea that we are saved by grace alone. During the course of the week, I’ll be presenting the essentials of reformation theology-- the “Solas”-- over the course of nine talks. I pray that these are useful for the Spirit to work truth into the hearts of these students.
Needless to say, I won’t be blogging much this week. If you don’t hear from me again, this is why!
Please pray for our trip to be both restful and a good ministry to those around us. See you soon...
So far, I’ve spoken twice; tonight, I’ll speak on the idea that we are saved by grace alone. During the course of the week, I’ll be presenting the essentials of reformation theology-- the “Solas”-- over the course of nine talks. I pray that these are useful for the Spirit to work truth into the hearts of these students.
Needless to say, I won’t be blogging much this week. If you don’t hear from me again, this is why!
Please pray for our trip to be both restful and a good ministry to those around us. See you soon...
Our bluegrass church
Jul. 28, 2008; 07:49 AM Filed in: Church Life
Some of you
may not know that we have a professional bluegrass band
in our congregation, called Cypress Creek. At least, we
have a significant part of it-- two full members of the
band (and one who regularly joins them) are members of
our church.
They’re a lot of fun, and they’re also really good. They play gigs all over the mid-south, and every now and then we get a bluegrass number as an offertory or for special music during worship.
They’ll also be playing at the Vicky Williams Benefit that the church is holding and hosting in early August. If you’re able (and you’re in the area), come out on August 9th from 4-8pm and hear Cypress Creek.
Update: Sorry about the bad link from earlier; I was using an old link. To make up for it, I’ve posted THREE videos now!
Here they are in the studio:
They’re a lot of fun, and they’re also really good. They play gigs all over the mid-south, and every now and then we get a bluegrass number as an offertory or for special music during worship.
They’ll also be playing at the Vicky Williams Benefit that the church is holding and hosting in early August. If you’re able (and you’re in the area), come out on August 9th from 4-8pm and hear Cypress Creek.
Update: Sorry about the bad link from earlier; I was using an old link. To make up for it, I’ve posted THREE videos now!
Here they are in the studio:
Self-assessment and life plans
Following
up on my comments about health and
risk, the
next question about personal health assessment--
regardless of how you scored on the tests-- is,
“what are you going to do about it?”
This is where a recent post from Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, is very helpful. Michael gives a concise yet complete guide for creating a “Life Plan” which is a self-assessment of how things are in your life, how you want them to be, and how you will get from one to the other.
For example, Michael talks about assessing his own health-- which he is generally happy with (Michael has completed two half-marathons in the past 18 months, so he’s in pretty decent health)-- and where his concerns are. He says:
Michael has a lot of good report of what he learned from doing his life plan, and he even offers a basic template you can download for creating one of your own.
I think this is a solid idea; whether it is related to health, family life, career, church and ministry involvement, or other areas of life, most of us don’t put enough thought and reflection into what lies ahead-- or how easy it will be to get there. Thanks, Michael, for giving us some great food for thought.
This is where a recent post from Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, is very helpful. Michael gives a concise yet complete guide for creating a “Life Plan” which is a self-assessment of how things are in your life, how you want them to be, and how you will get from one to the other.
For example, Michael talks about assessing his own health-- which he is generally happy with (Michael has completed two half-marathons in the past 18 months, so he’s in pretty decent health)-- and where his concerns are. He says:
here’s what I wrote a couple of weeks ago in my Health account: • I feel great. My stamina is great. It's been a long time since I have been sick. • I feel good about my weight and my overall fitness. • I am running (or cross-training) four days a week for at least 60 minutes. • I am not presently doing any strength training. I am concerned this will eventually catch up with me. • I am eating pretty well, but I could be more consistent in choosing more healthy foods.I would share more, but, frankly, it’s too personal.
Michael has a lot of good report of what he learned from doing his life plan, and he even offers a basic template you can download for creating one of your own.
I think this is a solid idea; whether it is related to health, family life, career, church and ministry involvement, or other areas of life, most of us don’t put enough thought and reflection into what lies ahead-- or how easy it will be to get there. Thanks, Michael, for giving us some great food for thought.
Are you wit' us, or agin' us?
Jul. 05, 2008; 08:41 AM Filed in: Culture | Church Life
In light of
yesterday’s post on
single-issue voting, I’ll
offer this post that re-covers the ideas that
started it, plus the counter-points to those ideas.
I’m not throwing my support behind either candidate– and I don’t care to share who I’m voting for. I think there’s a good case to be made for a conservative on both sides, and I understand the “I’m socio-politically conservative and I’m voting for Obama” side completely.
Here’s the gist of that argument:
I’m not throwing my support behind either candidate– and I don’t care to share who I’m voting for. I think there’s a good case to be made for a conservative on both sides, and I understand the “I’m socio-politically conservative and I’m voting for Obama” side completely.
Here’s the gist of that argument:
- Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical.
- Even if it were not, we’ve been told that “the next president will end legalized abortion through judicial appointments” since the 80s– has it happened yet?
- If that’s not reason enough to be skeptical, there is arguable evidence that abortion actually was reduced more under Clinton than Bush– so why is the default assumption that a Republican president will be better for the pro-life position? (Oh yeah: because the whole argument goes, the distant possibility of total elimination of legalized abortions is more important than the more likely possibility of reduction of legalized abortions.)
- A vote for McCain is a guarantee for continued waging of war that is unjust and has little possibility of ending soon or with effective outcome. A vote for Obama is at least a solid chance of ending that much sooner.
- The grim predictions of all who oppose Obama is that he is an extreme liberal who will be the enemy of people of faith. The last time we heard this was, of course, when President Bill Clinton was elected. But really, Clinton didn’t end up being that bad, and it is hard to argue that the U.S. suffered or got worse under his presidency. Why should we believe it this time around?
- Isn’t it natural to want to believe that all of the talk of change, a new tone, and truly productive political process is true? Even the most cynical among us must surely WANT it to be true.
- Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical. (And just as many conservatives oppose Obama because of his position on abortion, many others oppose McCain because of his position on the Iraq War.)
- Even if it were not, the Iraq War is a commitment we have made as a nation-- good or ill-- and we ought to take that commitment seriously enough to see it through to completion. Yes, we’ve been involved in it for over five years; we were in Vietnam for 16 years, and our failure there was largely due to growing apathy and opposition toward the later stages, even when some evidence of success had shown up. The recent reports of the positive effects of the “surge” ought to be enough to at least slow down the urgency to pull out as soon as possible. So the next president will at least need to be open-minded to the matters at hand, and not dogmatically committed to immediate withdrawal. We may not “win” this war, but we can certainly finish well.
- McCain, though fairly moderate on many issues, has a solid record of “pro-life” support and congressional/senatorial voting. So if we ARE inclined toward the single-issue agenda that consumes so many Christians, he’s your guy!
- A vote for McCain may actually be a pretty good balance of conservative and moderate positions, appealing more to many of the younger generation of folks who don’t identify purely with a right-wing, conservative agenda.
- While McCain has, at best, been very tight-lipped about his personal beliefs and faith (to my knowledge he’s never gone on record stating that he considers himself a Christian or any other belief), he HAS shown himself to be friendly to Christians and other people of faith.
- McCain’s lack of Obama-like charisma doesn’t alter the fact that he speaks boldly of change as well; plus, his years of political and military experience bolster his claims of being able to be the leader we need to get true bi-partisan change effected.
- Neither candidate is a distinctively Christian candidate; Obama, who has openly discussed his faith, recently resigned his membership from a congregation that espouses Black Liberation Theology in a denomination that is probably the most theologically liberal denomination that still considers itself to be “Christian;” now he is, I presume, an unchurched theological liberal. McCain, as I mentioned, has NO open declaration of faith or belief on record, and when asked by Christians about his faith instead refers to the inspiration he has found in the faith of others. This may not be a deal-breaker for everyone-- I would rather see the “best” man in place than an adequate Christian-- but it’s probably a factor for most Christians.
- Both candidates talk a LOT about change-- which may be good-- but have yet to really spell out what said change would really mean, at least in a way that has gotten through to the general audiences. In other words, nothing like the “lock box” of 2000 has really emerged. Time will tell; in the historic scheme of elections, it is very early (even though it seems like it has been going on forever already, and we still have six months left).
- While so much talk about change is bantered about, we’ve still got a growing economic crisis and an over-dependence on petroleum. We know what they’ll do about the Iraq War and the military action in Afghanistan, but what will they do about the economy? How will they solve our oil dependence problem? We’ve heard the soundbite niceties that represent, at best, short-term relief; I’m not sure if either candidate has a solid plan (or even an idea) about how they will lead the nation to true solutions over the long-term.
- Almost everyone I know seems fairly dis-satisfied with our candidate selection. Apart from those who have really been wowed by Obama’s style and charisma, most people I’ve talked to feel like both candidates represent something of a blasé option.
Health and risk
Jul. 08, 2008; 03:50 PM Filed in: Personal
I’ve got something of an awful family history
health-wise, with Diabetes coming down from one side of
my family tree and heart disease/attacks coming from
both; add to that the prominence of things like breast
cancer (my mother and her mother both had it) and Lupus
(my grandmother and one other relative), and suddenly
Marcie is justifiably anxious about my health and
longevity.
Which is why I was very interested to find this set of risk-assessment quizzes from the School of Medicine of Washington University in St. Louis, in partnership with Barnes Jewish Hospital and the Siteman Cancer Research Center. It offers a brief but comprehensive quiz that will assess your degree of risk for Diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Osteoperosis, and twelve types of Cancer.
I’ve worked through a handful of them, and I’m pleased with my results:
Keep in mind, all this quiz can do is assess what degree you are “at risk” for these health issues. A clean or encouraging word from this helpful site is great, but it doesn’t excuse you from attending to your body’s health needs through exercise, dietary discipline, and keeping stress and anxiety levels in check.
That’s why I especially appreciate that, when they return your quiz results, they also include suggestions for how to improve your scores, as well as buttons that answer questions such as, “what makes up my risk?” and “what does my risk mean?” Beyond the basic quiz results, these folks offer a surprising amount of information in an interactive, semi-personalized format.
Which is why I was very interested to find this set of risk-assessment quizzes from the School of Medicine of Washington University in St. Louis, in partnership with Barnes Jewish Hospital and the Siteman Cancer Research Center. It offers a brief but comprehensive quiz that will assess your degree of risk for Diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Osteoperosis, and twelve types of Cancer.
I’ve worked through a handful of them, and I’m pleased with my results:
- Diabetes = below average risk
- Heart disease = much below average
- Stroke = below average
- Prostate Cancer = below average
- Lung Cancer = much below average
Keep in mind, all this quiz can do is assess what degree you are “at risk” for these health issues. A clean or encouraging word from this helpful site is great, but it doesn’t excuse you from attending to your body’s health needs through exercise, dietary discipline, and keeping stress and anxiety levels in check.
That’s why I especially appreciate that, when they return your quiz results, they also include suggestions for how to improve your scores, as well as buttons that answer questions such as, “what makes up my risk?” and “what does my risk mean?” Beyond the basic quiz results, these folks offer a surprising amount of information in an interactive, semi-personalized format.
Bits & Tidbits, 6/6/08
A few links
and fun stuff for the weekend:
- Good thoughts on listening to a sermon can be found here (dealing with action) and here (dealing with reaction). Go forth and do likewise.
- A problem I just don’t have... yet?!?
- There’s been a bit of interesting stuff about transracial adoption lately. For one, there’s this piece from the NY Times on de-emphasizing race. Here’s another, from Touchstone magazine, discussing how the Gospel affects the issue. The Washington Post chimes in about it, and Thabiti Anabwile offers his thoughts on the Times piece and others. Thoughtful stuff. (HT: Between Two Worlds for some of these.)
- John Piper is starting a seminary at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Will there be any other professors but him?
- Thoughtful ideas about both sides of the now-FINALLY!-decided Presidential race: is Barack ready? Is McCain ready?
- What are Christians NOT allowed to say? Here’s one piece on “cussin’” and foul language. Here’s another piece on the same topic, with a slightly different take. Here’s an entirely different idea-- with some surprising responses-- on what ideas Christians aren’t “allowed” to say. (I’ll come back to this soon, I think.)
- From Will Smith... who knew? Here’s some great marriage advice from the guy who brought us “Parents Just Don’t Understand” and “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It” as well as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Independence Day, Hitch, and The Pursuit of Happyness. I’ve always known he was a great talent; now I see that his talent extends into understanding people, as well.
- An interesting way to express yourself... create your own fonts. What’s so fascinating about this is that, 20 years ago, this artform was so obscure and difficult to accomplish that those who actually did it could be counted by the hundreds, if not the tens.
- Is your favorite ice cream in this list? Here are the top six most-fattening ice creams in the U.S. I’m so glad someone finally did that study.
- My friend Dane has some good questions for the emerging church. Very thoughtful-- I’d like to know that too, Dane.
- Okay-- 10 is enough for this week.
Brief thoughts
Here are a
few ideas that don't warrant a full post in
themselves.
- C.S. Lewis' second Narnia book (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) has hit the theaters. Some have pointed out that there are some significant changes from the original story line (probably some spoilers in there for some of you). Some people think this is actually an improvement on the story line. Some feel the true meaning of the original has been adulterated. Others are somewhere in the middle. I haven't seen it-- what do YOU think?
- Hilary's almost certain loss is striking some odd chords-- including the idea behind THIS piece from the New York Times, which argues that the advancement of women will be hurt from her loss. Apparently, Hilary has simultaneously positioned herself as NOT benefiting from the gender question while at the same time answering it. (Being a male, I was obviously ignorant of such high-level ideas.) Ironically, if she has marketed herself on the women's lib vote then she doesn't deserve to win. As my friend Sam Murrell suggested, to vote for Hilary Clinton ONLY because she is a woman (or Barack Obama ONLY because he is black) is to also undercut your own argument opposing others who vote AGAINST them for the same reason. Hilary can't say, "vote for me because it's time to have a woman in the White House" and then hold it against those who vote for her opposition because they don't want a woman President. Logical consistency at its simplest.
- If you've been tracking with me on the stir and kerfuffle surrounding the General Assembly overture (#9) about Deacons, Deaconesses, and Women, you may be interested to know that Wayside Presbyterian Church in the Chattanooga area has posted a page that aggregates (or at least attempts to) all of the discussion from around the web. You don't have to look far to see the sort of hard-line, slippery-slope thinking I've mentioned. (WARNING: if you love the church and are discouraged by ungodly treatment of pastors and others, read with caution. Many of these discussions are not for the faint of heart.) I DO appreciate their work, especially, in their words, that they "are not making any effort... to sort the articles into 'pro,' 'con,' or neutral. These articles come from several different viewpoints. We are just providing information."
- Along the lines of the previous item, my personal hope is that the 2009 General Assembly will appoint a study committee to consider what guidelines, if any, ought to be offered as measures of godly character and discussion for those who choose to use blogs, websites, discussion forums, and other Internet tools to debate theological and denominational matters.
- Following up on my words about the Evangelical Manifesto, Ed Stetzer released the word late last week that Ergun Caner, President and Dean of the Seminary at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, asked that his name be stricken from the charter list on the basis of his claim that he never signed it. For those who don't immediately make the connection (I didn't), Liberty is the school that the late Jerry Falwell founded and led for many years; ironically, Caner's own website describes him as "a leading voice for evangelicalism on the national stage." For another take on the Evangelical Manifesto, check out this post from Scot McKnight, Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (UPDATE: see this response to McKnight from PCA Pastor Andy Jones), and this alternative version offered by Dave Burchett, ESPN producer and Christian writer.
- If you've been following the stuggles and difficulties in the wake of the natural disaster in Myanmar (Burma), you may be interested to know that missions boards and relief organizations are now succeeding in getting funds and other aid into the area. The PCA's Mission to the World (MTW) is asking for financial assistance through its "Minutemen" program; World Vision International is also appealing for help. Both sites have ways that you can donate online.
- Here's a video I overlooked for my media tidbits on Friday: Possessed, a documentary which gives an amazing look at the worlds of hoarders. Very well done, with no commentary other than what the hoarders themselves offer. You can watch the whole thing online.
Women and outreach
May. 13, 2008; 08:41 AM Filed in: Church Life
Does
this idea about "women and word of
mouth" suggest
anything to the church about evangelism and
outreach? Could this be part of the reason why there
are more women attending church today than men? Does
it imply that we ought to put more emphasis on women
in our outreach efforts?
Thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto
May. 12, 2008; 02:34 PM Filed in: Culture | Church Life
Last week,
a document entitled The Evangelical Manifesto
was
released by a broad group of Christian leaders (by
that, I mean leaders of Christianity in various
forms) as an effort to raise helpful questions and
offer helpful guidance about how we, as Christians,
live out our faith as both citizens of the Kingdom
and residents in our American culture.
The list of 80 "charter signatories" and authors includes a lot of names that will be familiar to many Christians: Kay Arthur, Darrell Bock, Stuart Briscoe, Leighton Ford, Os Guinness, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, J.P. Moreland, John Ortberg, Rebecca Manley Pippert, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis. It also includes many names that won't be familiar, while the titles under them will: President of Dallas Theological Seminary; Chancellor, Northwest University; President, National Association of Evangelicals; President, Bethel University; President, Dollar General; Founder, Leadership Network; President, Liberty Seminary; Former President, Eastern University; President, World Vision International; President-Emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Seminary; President, Wheaton College; President, World Relief; President, Houghton College; President, Institute for Global Engagement; Editor in Chief, Christianity Today International; Founder, Charisma Magazine; President, National Religious Broadcasters; President, Beeson Divinity School. You get the point.
What's laudable about the document is that it offers clarification to a question that there are far too many answers for today: who are the Evangelicals? We hear about them in the news (especially as tied to some political or social movement). The Manifesto clearly asserts that we (Evangelical Christians) ought to be defined more by our theology than our political, social, or cultural agendas. And it goes on to say that, whatever we may differ about, there are many truths we can agree upon-- which it spells out in eloquent terms. It is unashamed of the Bible, of historically orthodox Christianity, and of the plain Gospel of salvation through Christ alone. (Some have suggested that it is not exclusive enough on the "Christ alone" part-- I don't see how the statement, "we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life 'from above'" (pp. 5-6) leaves that open to question.) The authors state that, in answer to the question above, we must reaffirm our identity, reform our own behavior, and rethink our place in public life. And in their description of how we might do all of these things, they challenge self-described Evangelicals to handle themselves and others with charity, grace, and humility, leading with a message of affirming what is true before asserting what we are against.
It's interesting to me that the above goals are almost exactly what I have been thinking about lately, and dialoguing with others about. It seems like there is a groundswell of support for exactly these ideas, and this Manifesto is perhaps the first big, self-conscious step in a good direction that the whole of American Christianity might undertake. It's not the only step, nor is it the last step, but it is a very good first step.
The document has come under fire right from the start, naturally-- because these days, it seems like anything that suggests that Christians can actually find common ground with one another, reaching past denominational or theological boundaries and acknowledging the faith and brotherhood of those who don't believe exactly like us, is clearly faulty and problematic in the eyes of a small but vocal minority. I've read a good bit of discussion surrounding this Manifesto, and I'm surprised at how vehemently it has been attacked in some cases. (Some of the attackers admit that they haven't even read the document!) My suspicion is that many of the attackers, by and large, are responding defensively to the suggestion in the Manifesto that their single-issue voting, slippery-slope sectarianism, or separatist fundamentalism is somehow out of accord with Scripture. This, by the way, is based on the fact that much of the criticism is aimed at these issues, and consists of arguments like, "how can they argue that there is a fight more important than abortion?" (which the Manifesto DOESN'T argue). As one commenter said, these critics are reading more into the document than they are reading out of it.
There are some legitimate critiques-- even some that I agree with-- but I don't think these should prevent Christians from embracing this document for what it is: a starting point, a common point. It isn't a complete articulation of what it means to be a Christian-- which is why, for example, there is something left to be desired in the view of participation in a local church-- nor is it a call to do LESS than what we are already doing in our life of faith, generally speaking. It is simply a call to be MORE what we claim to be, and to connect more fully with others who share the same faith.
Perhaps the most interesting attack came from Douglas Wilson. Known for his tendency to provoke strong responses, Wilson accuses the document of handing over the public square to the atheists and secularists (which, I suppose, is what the Manifesto's perspective would look like to a Reconstructionist like Wilson). This attack was interesting to me because Wilson was/is one of the loudest voices accusing the PCA of being too exclusive and not accepting enough of theological variance when it comes to the Federal Vision controversy. (Watch out, FV proponents; it looks like Wilson could be quite inconsistent in this way, much like my friend Jon and I discussed in the comments of his blog.) One brief paragraph from the Manifesto could have been penned by one of those very FV proponents who came under fire: "Behind this affirmation is the awareness that identity is powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals. Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our true motives and our real agenda" (p. 4).
It's worth noting that the self-appointed watchdogs of the PCA haven't commented on this document, although the "blogosphere" is abuzz about it. (In fact, I haven't heard anything about it from anyone in the PCA, that I know of.) I'm curious about why this is so, though I have my suspicions. How about it, friends: what is your take on the Evangelical Manifesto?
The list of 80 "charter signatories" and authors includes a lot of names that will be familiar to many Christians: Kay Arthur, Darrell Bock, Stuart Briscoe, Leighton Ford, Os Guinness, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, J.P. Moreland, John Ortberg, Rebecca Manley Pippert, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis. It also includes many names that won't be familiar, while the titles under them will: President of Dallas Theological Seminary; Chancellor, Northwest University; President, National Association of Evangelicals; President, Bethel University; President, Dollar General; Founder, Leadership Network; President, Liberty Seminary; Former President, Eastern University; President, World Vision International; President-Emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Seminary; President, Wheaton College; President, World Relief; President, Houghton College; President, Institute for Global Engagement; Editor in Chief, Christianity Today International; Founder, Charisma Magazine; President, National Religious Broadcasters; President, Beeson Divinity School. You get the point.
What's laudable about the document is that it offers clarification to a question that there are far too many answers for today: who are the Evangelicals? We hear about them in the news (especially as tied to some political or social movement). The Manifesto clearly asserts that we (Evangelical Christians) ought to be defined more by our theology than our political, social, or cultural agendas. And it goes on to say that, whatever we may differ about, there are many truths we can agree upon-- which it spells out in eloquent terms. It is unashamed of the Bible, of historically orthodox Christianity, and of the plain Gospel of salvation through Christ alone. (Some have suggested that it is not exclusive enough on the "Christ alone" part-- I don't see how the statement, "we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life 'from above'" (pp. 5-6) leaves that open to question.) The authors state that, in answer to the question above, we must reaffirm our identity, reform our own behavior, and rethink our place in public life. And in their description of how we might do all of these things, they challenge self-described Evangelicals to handle themselves and others with charity, grace, and humility, leading with a message of affirming what is true before asserting what we are against.
It's interesting to me that the above goals are almost exactly what I have been thinking about lately, and dialoguing with others about. It seems like there is a groundswell of support for exactly these ideas, and this Manifesto is perhaps the first big, self-conscious step in a good direction that the whole of American Christianity might undertake. It's not the only step, nor is it the last step, but it is a very good first step.
The document has come under fire right from the start, naturally-- because these days, it seems like anything that suggests that Christians can actually find common ground with one another, reaching past denominational or theological boundaries and acknowledging the faith and brotherhood of those who don't believe exactly like us, is clearly faulty and problematic in the eyes of a small but vocal minority. I've read a good bit of discussion surrounding this Manifesto, and I'm surprised at how vehemently it has been attacked in some cases. (Some of the attackers admit that they haven't even read the document!) My suspicion is that many of the attackers, by and large, are responding defensively to the suggestion in the Manifesto that their single-issue voting, slippery-slope sectarianism, or separatist fundamentalism is somehow out of accord with Scripture. This, by the way, is based on the fact that much of the criticism is aimed at these issues, and consists of arguments like, "how can they argue that there is a fight more important than abortion?" (which the Manifesto DOESN'T argue). As one commenter said, these critics are reading more into the document than they are reading out of it.
There are some legitimate critiques-- even some that I agree with-- but I don't think these should prevent Christians from embracing this document for what it is: a starting point, a common point. It isn't a complete articulation of what it means to be a Christian-- which is why, for example, there is something left to be desired in the view of participation in a local church-- nor is it a call to do LESS than what we are already doing in our life of faith, generally speaking. It is simply a call to be MORE what we claim to be, and to connect more fully with others who share the same faith.
Perhaps the most interesting attack came from Douglas Wilson. Known for his tendency to provoke strong responses, Wilson accuses the document of handing over the public square to the atheists and secularists (which, I suppose, is what the Manifesto's perspective would look like to a Reconstructionist like Wilson). This attack was interesting to me because Wilson was/is one of the loudest voices accusing the PCA of being too exclusive and not accepting enough of theological variance when it comes to the Federal Vision controversy. (Watch out, FV proponents; it looks like Wilson could be quite inconsistent in this way, much like my friend Jon and I discussed in the comments of his blog.) One brief paragraph from the Manifesto could have been penned by one of those very FV proponents who came under fire: "Behind this affirmation is the awareness that identity is powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals. Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our true motives and our real agenda" (p. 4).
It's worth noting that the self-appointed watchdogs of the PCA haven't commented on this document, although the "blogosphere" is abuzz about it. (In fact, I haven't heard anything about it from anyone in the PCA, that I know of.) I'm curious about why this is so, though I have my suspicions. How about it, friends: what is your take on the Evangelical Manifesto?
More on suffering
May. 05, 2008; 11:32 AM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
Apropos to
the wrap-up of the series on the cross yesterday-- the
cross in our suffering, the cross in our glory-- I find
this quote from the late James Montgomery Boice, who
faithfully pastored 10th Presbyterian
Church in Philadelphia for over 30 years before
succumbing to liver cancer:
(HT: Paul Bankson)
If God does something in your life, would you change it? If you’d change it, you’d make it worse. It wouldn’t be as good. So that’s the way we want to accept it and move forward, and who knows what God will do?
(HT: Paul Bankson)
"It's a gospel issue"
Apr. 28, 2008; 02:28 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
I was
reading this article in
Christianity Today
about Jim
Wallis, who is
a leader among a Christians with a progressive
political perspective, and I was struck by the fact
that Ted Olsen (who interviewed Wallis) asserted
that, for some, the issue of blessing ceremonies for
same-sex couples is, in Olsen's words, "a gospel
issue."
It's not.
Make no mistake: it IS an important issue. And it certainly is an issue of biblical authority. But it is NOT a gospel issue.
There's a key difference between an issue that is a matter of biblical authority and a "gospel" issue. A Gospel issue is one that actually threatens the truth of the Gospel-- such as a challenge to the incarnation of Christ, an assertion that the resurrection didn't happen, a claim that Jesus didn't live a sinless life, etc. Something that questions the underlying concepts of salvation is a Gospel issue. Thus, when folks in the PCA express their concern about the Federal Vision's position on Justification, for example, they are demonstrating concern about a Gospel issue.
There are a number of issues of biblical authority that aren't Gospel issues. Questions of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism, or of the function of the sacraments, are issues of biblical authority. These are very important issues. But they aren't matters of Gospel integrity, in the same sense that Jesus being God in the flesh is a matter of Gospel integrity.
Take note of this: it is possible for someone to be in error on an issue of biblical authority and still be a Christian, and it's possible for them to remain in their error and not be considered a heretic. This is because there are differing degrees of error in terms of understanding matters of biblical truth and authority:
I think it is not just useful, but essential for Christians to gain a better understanding of this. We all disagree on something-- and if you view disagreement as strictly a black-and-white, right or wrong, truth or heresy matter, then you are asserting that someone who is or may be a true brother or sister in Christ has given up the gospel.
Worse, you are asserting that your perspective is completely right and biblical-- which is never the case.
It's not.
Make no mistake: it IS an important issue. And it certainly is an issue of biblical authority. But it is NOT a gospel issue.
There's a key difference between an issue that is a matter of biblical authority and a "gospel" issue. A Gospel issue is one that actually threatens the truth of the Gospel-- such as a challenge to the incarnation of Christ, an assertion that the resurrection didn't happen, a claim that Jesus didn't live a sinless life, etc. Something that questions the underlying concepts of salvation is a Gospel issue. Thus, when folks in the PCA express their concern about the Federal Vision's position on Justification, for example, they are demonstrating concern about a Gospel issue.
There are a number of issues of biblical authority that aren't Gospel issues. Questions of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism, or of the function of the sacraments, are issues of biblical authority. These are very important issues. But they aren't matters of Gospel integrity, in the same sense that Jesus being God in the flesh is a matter of Gospel integrity.
Take note of this: it is possible for someone to be in error on an issue of biblical authority and still be a Christian, and it's possible for them to remain in their error and not be considered a heretic. This is because there are differing degrees of error in terms of understanding matters of biblical truth and authority:
Working through this concept, then, Here's how these break down:
- Truth: these are the real "gospel issues" that are universally agreed-upon as aspects of salvation, as well as a few other core beliefs (which include biblical inerrancy and authority, by the way). You might think of these as that which is required for membership in the church.
- Mistaken opinions: Minor matters of conscience typically fall here-- someone who is of the opinion that liberty in Christ allows them to drink as much alcohol as they want on occasion, for example, holds a mistaken opinion about biblical truth. In terms of agreement or disagreement, you might think of these matters to be often matters of "semantic" differences-- where often our language and the way we say things suggests differences that suggest differences that aren't really there.
- Errors: These are problematic, but not necessarily matters to divide over. Issues like "paedocommunion"-- where a child is offered the sacrament of communion on the basis of baptism, not on the basis of a profession of faith-- have been judged to be in this category. As such a matter was recently described by our presbytery, these might be judged as more than semantic, but not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine.
- Systemic errors: When we get to this stage, there are concerns that may lead to division, without requiring that we dismiss those who differ as "unbelievers." For example, in the PCA we hold that the Assemblies of God theologians have instituted systemic error in the way they view the gift of tongues. I would also argue that matters such as the one discussed with Wallis, regarding the blessing of same-sex unions by the church, falls into this category. Presbytery would label these as beliefs which "strike at the vitals of our system of doctrine."
- Heresy: These are matters that violate the essence of the Gospel-- in other words, they are true "gospel issues" in the same way that the category of "Truth" above is, only in an opposing sense. When the remonstrants challenged the idea of the total depravity of man-- arguing that man in not inherently sinful, that he can, in fact, act in true and pure righteousness-- they were guilty of heresy. (Incidentally, they were judged as such by the courts of the church, and the response to their various points of doctrine was what we call the "five points of Calvinism.")
I think it is not just useful, but essential for Christians to gain a better understanding of this. We all disagree on something-- and if you view disagreement as strictly a black-and-white, right or wrong, truth or heresy matter, then you are asserting that someone who is or may be a true brother or sister in Christ has given up the gospel.
Worse, you are asserting that your perspective is completely right and biblical-- which is never the case.
Why "Expelled"?
I didn't
see An Inconvenient
Truth. It's
not that I don't care about the environment; I'm
even impressed with Al Gore's passion and
presentation skills (had he honed these a few years
earlier, he may have won the electoral vote!). I
just don't care too much about sitting through a
movie-length propaganda film from a point of view
that I don't completely agree with.
Likewise, I've never seen any of Michael Moore's documentaries-- although I confess I've always wanted to see Roger and Me, his film about how General Motors abandoned their factory in Flint, Michigan. Moore's political worldview, so I understand, is so in-your-face that those who disagree can feel the blood pressure rising.
The bottom line is: why go see such films? While some are cleverly disguised as documentaries (which, by definition, has a somewhat raw and unedited approach to presenting reality-- thereby calling into question whether the films mentioned here are true documentaries), they are actually long propaganda pieces.
Here's my question: who goes to see these that don't already hold to the positions presented? Can Moore claim to have swayed thousands to his political perspective through Fahrenheit 9/11? Has Al Gore really turned toward global warming the attention of those who were skeptical before?
I ask because I'm curious about the kerfuffle and spin surrounding the recently-released Expelled. Apparently Ben Stein (you remember him: the monotone teacher constantly calling for Ferris Bueller) has positioned himself as the Al Gore of Intelligent Design, making an exposé-like film that reveals how scientists everywhere, who are sympathetic to an Intelligent Design (ID) position, are being fired or run out of their positions in academia and scientific research because of their belief in the possibility of ID.
From the trailers, Stein's movie looks snarky and humorous (at least to those of us who lean toward his view on the matter). Apparently Stein interviewed a few prominent Evolutionists for the film as well as ID proponents, and his use of their perspectives has cast question on the reliability of he presentation, for me at least. At least one of these prominent scientists (who viewed the film in a pre-screening) claims that the editing and cut-and-paste job done to his interview completely misrepresents his point of view. What is worse, apparently one of the dominant thrusts that Stein attempts to make in the film is that Darwinism was a prime motivating factor in Hitler's Nazi regime, and therefore Darwinism ought to be inherently suspect. (Good thing folks haven't drawn the same mistaken conclusion about Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition... oh, wait-- they have.)
So I wonder: what is the goal here? Do we (Christians, sympathizers to ID, those concerned with the lack of "objectivity" that comes with worldview-- take your pick) honestly believe and hope that secular, atheist scientists who doubt ID or zealously affirm a Macro-Evolutionary position will come to this movie and have their worlds turned upside-down? Do we expect that thoughtful secularists who are NOT scientists will be persuaded by such a film?
And if so, do we expect that it will happen through sarcasm, misrepresentation, and a handful of arguments wrought with poor logic (hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.)? And that actions like kicking out those who disagree from early screenings will advance the cause? I don't really follow what the point is, unless it is some sort of retribution for Christians and other conservative thinkers being mischaracterized in the past. Otherwise everyone sees it for what it is: a propaganda piece (as my friend Jon said, "Obviously it is propaganda, but it is *my* kind of propaganda :)").
One more thing: I want to take this opportunity to call on World magazine, and especially Marvin Olasky, to step up and do the right thing with regard to this movie. Over the last three weeks, I have been appalled by World's coverage of this film. The same magazine that called Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, "disgusting, pathetic propaganda without the slightest shred of integrity" (July 17, 2004 issue) and accused Gore's An Inconvenient Truth of employing "stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric" (June 17, 2006 issue) lauds Expelled as, "reasonable, radical, risible, and right" (April 5, 2008 issue). Ironically, Olasky himself (who reviewed Expelled) said that biblically-directed reviews should "emphasize specific detail, not abstract theorizing" and "should present a biblical perspective, not individual bias" (Olasky, Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996, p. 173). Marvin, your team of reviewers has been waffling back and forth between "Inconsistent Christians" and "Traditionalists" instead of pursuing true biblical objectivity (see ch.1, esp. p.20, of Telling the Truth).
Likewise, I've never seen any of Michael Moore's documentaries-- although I confess I've always wanted to see Roger and Me, his film about how General Motors abandoned their factory in Flint, Michigan. Moore's political worldview, so I understand, is so in-your-face that those who disagree can feel the blood pressure rising.
The bottom line is: why go see such films? While some are cleverly disguised as documentaries (which, by definition, has a somewhat raw and unedited approach to presenting reality-- thereby calling into question whether the films mentioned here are true documentaries), they are actually long propaganda pieces.
Here's my question: who goes to see these that don't already hold to the positions presented? Can Moore claim to have swayed thousands to his political perspective through Fahrenheit 9/11? Has Al Gore really turned toward global warming the attention of those who were skeptical before?
I ask because I'm curious about the kerfuffle and spin surrounding the recently-released Expelled. Apparently Ben Stein (you remember him: the monotone teacher constantly calling for Ferris Bueller) has positioned himself as the Al Gore of Intelligent Design, making an exposé-like film that reveals how scientists everywhere, who are sympathetic to an Intelligent Design (ID) position, are being fired or run out of their positions in academia and scientific research because of their belief in the possibility of ID.
From the trailers, Stein's movie looks snarky and humorous (at least to those of us who lean toward his view on the matter). Apparently Stein interviewed a few prominent Evolutionists for the film as well as ID proponents, and his use of their perspectives has cast question on the reliability of he presentation, for me at least. At least one of these prominent scientists (who viewed the film in a pre-screening) claims that the editing and cut-and-paste job done to his interview completely misrepresents his point of view. What is worse, apparently one of the dominant thrusts that Stein attempts to make in the film is that Darwinism was a prime motivating factor in Hitler's Nazi regime, and therefore Darwinism ought to be inherently suspect. (Good thing folks haven't drawn the same mistaken conclusion about Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition... oh, wait-- they have.)
So I wonder: what is the goal here? Do we (Christians, sympathizers to ID, those concerned with the lack of "objectivity" that comes with worldview-- take your pick) honestly believe and hope that secular, atheist scientists who doubt ID or zealously affirm a Macro-Evolutionary position will come to this movie and have their worlds turned upside-down? Do we expect that thoughtful secularists who are NOT scientists will be persuaded by such a film?
And if so, do we expect that it will happen through sarcasm, misrepresentation, and a handful of arguments wrought with poor logic (hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.)? And that actions like kicking out those who disagree from early screenings will advance the cause? I don't really follow what the point is, unless it is some sort of retribution for Christians and other conservative thinkers being mischaracterized in the past. Otherwise everyone sees it for what it is: a propaganda piece (as my friend Jon said, "Obviously it is propaganda, but it is *my* kind of propaganda :)").
One more thing: I want to take this opportunity to call on World magazine, and especially Marvin Olasky, to step up and do the right thing with regard to this movie. Over the last three weeks, I have been appalled by World's coverage of this film. The same magazine that called Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, "disgusting, pathetic propaganda without the slightest shred of integrity" (July 17, 2004 issue) and accused Gore's An Inconvenient Truth of employing "stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric" (June 17, 2006 issue) lauds Expelled as, "reasonable, radical, risible, and right" (April 5, 2008 issue). Ironically, Olasky himself (who reviewed Expelled) said that biblically-directed reviews should "emphasize specific detail, not abstract theorizing" and "should present a biblical perspective, not individual bias" (Olasky, Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996, p. 173). Marvin, your team of reviewers has been waffling back and forth between "Inconsistent Christians" and "Traditionalists" instead of pursuing true biblical objectivity (see ch.1, esp. p.20, of Telling the Truth).
Re-thinking "poor-ness"
Two ideas
I've recently encountered that might get some
discussion going about what it means to be "poor."
First, Jeff White of New Song Community Church in New York city recently spoke at a conference called A Conversation on Denominational Renewal in St. Louis (click here to find audio for all of the talks from that conference). All of Jeff's talk was great (as were the rest of them), but one thing he said stood out as an interesting idea: Jeff said he would like to expunge the church of the term "mercy ministry" because to extend mercy in a biblical sense means to give someone a second chance even though they don't deserve it, and this does not apply to poor people in most ways.
Second, the humor blog Stuff White People Like did an interesting post called, "#62: Knowing what's best for poor people." A big idea from the post: "It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things." And, as is apparent to these bloggers, making "the right choices" and caring "about the right things" are, in white people's minds, always identical to what white people (in this case, upper-middle class white people) choose and care about.
Both of these ideas, in their own way, represent challenges to the way I think about the poor and those in need. What do you think about these quotes and ideas?
First, Jeff White of New Song Community Church in New York city recently spoke at a conference called A Conversation on Denominational Renewal in St. Louis (click here to find audio for all of the talks from that conference). All of Jeff's talk was great (as were the rest of them), but one thing he said stood out as an interesting idea: Jeff said he would like to expunge the church of the term "mercy ministry" because to extend mercy in a biblical sense means to give someone a second chance even though they don't deserve it, and this does not apply to poor people in most ways.
Second, the humor blog Stuff White People Like did an interesting post called, "#62: Knowing what's best for poor people." A big idea from the post: "It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things." And, as is apparent to these bloggers, making "the right choices" and caring "about the right things" are, in white people's minds, always identical to what white people (in this case, upper-middle class white people) choose and care about.
Both of these ideas, in their own way, represent challenges to the way I think about the poor and those in need. What do you think about these quotes and ideas?
Women in church leadership
Apr. 04, 2008; 02:15 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
One of the
more difficult questions facing many churches (and I
say "many" because some churches have answered the
question for themselves, not because it isn't a
question for them) is, what is the role of women in
leadership in the church?
The PCA has, since its inception, proclaimed a "complementarian" position on women in leadership. The "complementarian" view stands squarely between the egalitarian (with unequivocal removal of distinction between men and women in terms of leadership and/or authority) and the patriarchal (with unequivocal denial of any sort of leadership or authority to any woman). How to implement this has frequently been in dispute: at worst, the complementarian position appears little different from the patriarchal position, with perhaps the exception of allowing women to minister to other women (and usually children); at best, applying the complementarian view is summed up in the idea that a woman may perform any act of service or leadership (apart from preaching in public worship) that a non-ordained man may also perform.
One complicating factor in applying the complementarian position has been that the PCA's Book of Church Order (BCO) does not currently allow for women to be "ordained" to any leadership office-- Elder or Deacon. An overture for the upcoming General Assembly, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, may bring some modification to this, or at least clarification for how it is to be implemented. I appreciate the spirit of this overture, and how it asks for clarification even if the "status quo" is maintained. Should the BCO be amended to allow women to serve as Deacons, it might actually make the issue more complex-- but in this case simplicity hasn't historically proven to be beneficial, when it comes to the application of seemingly simple ideas. Simplicity in this issue usually results in either denying women opportunity or ignoring biblical guidance.
Another complicating factor, ironically, is the difference between leadership and authority. Ironically, because for years (centuries? millennia?) this has been the argument that I have heard tossed back at women who argue that they are denied opportunity for service and the exercise of their gifts. Yet more recently confusion on this point has been the justification for relegating women to only teaching children or perhaps other women. Why is granting women a role of leadership a tacit breech of biblical distinctions for authority?
As a counterexample: if leadership somehow equals authority to the point where biblical boundaries are crossed, why have a two-office view (Elders and Deacons) in the first place? Isn't the granting of authority to male Deacons at least raising the possibility that the boundaries will be crossed? Of course it is-- and sometimes those boundaries ARE crossed. Yet we don't eliminate the office of Deacon to protect the authority of the Elder. We don't eliminate the organization of a presbytery to protect the authority of the local congregation, either. Thus, we shouldn't prevent women from having a role of leadership simply to limit their authority.
I'm glad for the Philadelphia Presbytery overture, and I look forward to seeing the PCA mature through this discussion. What do you think?
The PCA has, since its inception, proclaimed a "complementarian" position on women in leadership. The "complementarian" view stands squarely between the egalitarian (with unequivocal removal of distinction between men and women in terms of leadership and/or authority) and the patriarchal (with unequivocal denial of any sort of leadership or authority to any woman). How to implement this has frequently been in dispute: at worst, the complementarian position appears little different from the patriarchal position, with perhaps the exception of allowing women to minister to other women (and usually children); at best, applying the complementarian view is summed up in the idea that a woman may perform any act of service or leadership (apart from preaching in public worship) that a non-ordained man may also perform.
One complicating factor in applying the complementarian position has been that the PCA's Book of Church Order (BCO) does not currently allow for women to be "ordained" to any leadership office-- Elder or Deacon. An overture for the upcoming General Assembly, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, may bring some modification to this, or at least clarification for how it is to be implemented. I appreciate the spirit of this overture, and how it asks for clarification even if the "status quo" is maintained. Should the BCO be amended to allow women to serve as Deacons, it might actually make the issue more complex-- but in this case simplicity hasn't historically proven to be beneficial, when it comes to the application of seemingly simple ideas. Simplicity in this issue usually results in either denying women opportunity or ignoring biblical guidance.
Another complicating factor, ironically, is the difference between leadership and authority. Ironically, because for years (centuries? millennia?) this has been the argument that I have heard tossed back at women who argue that they are denied opportunity for service and the exercise of their gifts. Yet more recently confusion on this point has been the justification for relegating women to only teaching children or perhaps other women. Why is granting women a role of leadership a tacit breech of biblical distinctions for authority?
As a counterexample: if leadership somehow equals authority to the point where biblical boundaries are crossed, why have a two-office view (Elders and Deacons) in the first place? Isn't the granting of authority to male Deacons at least raising the possibility that the boundaries will be crossed? Of course it is-- and sometimes those boundaries ARE crossed. Yet we don't eliminate the office of Deacon to protect the authority of the Elder. We don't eliminate the organization of a presbytery to protect the authority of the local congregation, either. Thus, we shouldn't prevent women from having a role of leadership simply to limit their authority.
I'm glad for the Philadelphia Presbytery overture, and I look forward to seeing the PCA mature through this discussion. What do you think?
A book table!
When I am attacked by gloomy thoughts, nothing helps me so much as running to my books. They quickly absorb me and banish the clouds from my mind.As you may have picked up, I love to read. More than that, I love books, and what they represent: accessibility to knowledge and understanding of subjects that are unknown or less known than we want them to be.
~~Michel de Montaigne
Someone once said, "There is no such thing as a learning congregation without the pervasive habit of reading." Getting good books into the hands of the people in our congregation strikes me as one of the most helpful things I can do as a Pastor. It represents an extension of the teaching ministry of our church, opens doors for further discussion on a variety of important topics, and affords congregants an opportunity to fortify themselves and their faith with sound instruction.
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.Toward this end, our Session has determined to set up a book table in the education wing of the church facilities where good books will be provided at affordable prices. Some books have already been purchased and made available; others will follow in the coming weeks.
~~Sir Francis Bacon
Why sell books at church? A book table offers two unique benefits to our congregation. First, it enables me, as Pastor, to exercise discernment on behalf of the congregation by choosing which books may, at this particular point in time and in the face of the circumstances immediately facing us, are relevant and needed for growth and encouragement. Not everyone is familiar with authors, publishing houses, and topics enough to be as discerning as they need to be for the investment of time and money into a book. As a Pastor trained for ministry, I am in a better position to make initial judgment across a wide array of topics, presenting to the congregation a selection of options. (In other words, it allows me to exercise what one friend called my "spiritual gift of bibliography!")
Second, it increases the accessibility to good books for our congregation. The closest Christian bookstore for many of us is a good distance away. Further, we are more mindful of spiritual things while involved in church activities than we are at other times. Our book table increases access in both proximity and mindfulness for our congregation. It also makes more accessible books related matters that may come up in sermons, classes, or in individual counseling. Having these books ready-at-hand makes it possible to extend the impact of our church's teaching and counseling ministries.
In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.Philippians 4:8-9 encourages us for what our minds should dwell upon. Reading good books is a certain practice that helps us to think about "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable." The apostle Paul himself was a model of commitment to reading (even toward the end of his life asking Timothy to bring him his scrolls in 2 Timothy 4:13), even though he apparently struggled with his eyesight. Thus, when Paul says in Philippians 4:9, "whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me," he clearly meant also a life committed to reading.
~~Mortimer Adler
We, too, might take up this example. It is my prayer, and that of our congregation's leadership, that reading might be a tool that God uses to teach and grow His people of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. As Les Parrott said, "A congregation that doesn't read is missing one of God's greatest means for providing personal and spiritual growth" (Serving as a Church Greeter, p. 49). May God bless our congregation as readers.
Reading is a basic tool in the living of a good life.
~~Mortimer Adler
What Lent isn't (and what it is)
Feb. 28, 2008; 08:24 PM Filed in: Church Life
A website
called "Church Marketing
Sucks" posted
a brief piece today about how Dutch Catholics have "re-branded"
Lent as the Christian version of
Ramadan, an
Islamic holiday season.
Ramadan is, essentially, a season that commemorates the so-called revelation of the Koran (the Islamic holy book), or more precisely, the beginning of that revelation. The name is taken from the Arabic name for the month in which it occurs. During Ramadan, Muslims observe a daytime fast, eating only before the sun rises in the morning or after it sets in the evening. Muslims are also encouraged to read through the entire Koran, and make sacrificial gifts to the poor, among other practices.
Lent is a 40-day season of the liturgical calendar of Christianity, and is often observed by fasting, self-denial, and almsgiving (giving to the poor). Thus, externally Lent and Ramadan appear similar. However, the similarities end there.
Lent is a time of fasting and self-denial, not in celebration of a revelation, but as a season of contemplation and preparation for the coming Lord at Easter. (Both Lent and Advent are seasons of preparation in this way.) Mirroring the 40 days Jesus spent in fasting and self-denial prior to launching his public ministry (see Luke 4:1-13), Christians likewise fast and reflect on the significance of Christ's work.
In many ways, Lent is not an uplifting or exuberant season, and many Christians seem to resent it because of that. However, life itself is not a constant time of exuberance, and Christ's life and ministry are full of times where his experiences are far from uplifting, in terms of the "mood" of the moment. One of the things that Lent offers is a time to focus on the spiritual dimension of these seasons of life: when things are less than wonderful in every way.
Not to downplay the significance of Ramadan to the Muslim at all-- but it is not very much like Lent in its meaning, purpose, and function in the Christian's life. There is value in using "familiar language" instead of churchy insider-speak like we often use; but calling Lent the "Christian Ramadan" is not really considerate of either.
Ramadan is, essentially, a season that commemorates the so-called revelation of the Koran (the Islamic holy book), or more precisely, the beginning of that revelation. The name is taken from the Arabic name for the month in which it occurs. During Ramadan, Muslims observe a daytime fast, eating only before the sun rises in the morning or after it sets in the evening. Muslims are also encouraged to read through the entire Koran, and make sacrificial gifts to the poor, among other practices.
Lent is a 40-day season of the liturgical calendar of Christianity, and is often observed by fasting, self-denial, and almsgiving (giving to the poor). Thus, externally Lent and Ramadan appear similar. However, the similarities end there.
Lent is a time of fasting and self-denial, not in celebration of a revelation, but as a season of contemplation and preparation for the coming Lord at Easter. (Both Lent and Advent are seasons of preparation in this way.) Mirroring the 40 days Jesus spent in fasting and self-denial prior to launching his public ministry (see Luke 4:1-13), Christians likewise fast and reflect on the significance of Christ's work.
In many ways, Lent is not an uplifting or exuberant season, and many Christians seem to resent it because of that. However, life itself is not a constant time of exuberance, and Christ's life and ministry are full of times where his experiences are far from uplifting, in terms of the "mood" of the moment. One of the things that Lent offers is a time to focus on the spiritual dimension of these seasons of life: when things are less than wonderful in every way.
Not to downplay the significance of Ramadan to the Muslim at all-- but it is not very much like Lent in its meaning, purpose, and function in the Christian's life. There is value in using "familiar language" instead of churchy insider-speak like we often use; but calling Lent the "Christian Ramadan" is not really considerate of either.
A new view on waste disposal
Feb. 27, 2008; 09:56 AM Filed in: Culture
Here's an interesting set of artwork
that depicts quantities of waste created in the
U.S., with
statistics. While some of this is fairly
heavy-handed rhetoric, a good bit of it is
illustrative in ways that just seeing numbers alone
cannot accomplish.
It certainly brings us back to the question: what sort of stewardship are we exercising with regard to our world?
It certainly brings us back to the question: what sort of stewardship are we exercising with regard to our world?
Is atonement even possible?
This clip from NBC's E.R. perfectly illustrates the emptiness of believing in nothing much at all. In the end, the "hope" that comes from the warm, sweet, sentimental stuff of "whatever works for you" and "we're all just trying our best" is empty, shallow, and pretty hopeless. "Sometimes it's easier to feel guilty than forgiven" sounds great when the realities of eternity are distant and objective; when eternity is near, however, I would respond just as this man did: "what does that even mean?"
The work of the cross, though-- while difficult to face in its true, unvarnished reality-- is a work that offers substance when real hope is needed. When you're facing the hard facts of death, judgment, and condemnation, you need "someone who will look [you] in the eye and tell [you] how to find forgiveness."
The only hope-- the only answer to the question, "is atonement even possible? What does God want from me?"-- is the hope of the cross.
(ht: Ed Stetzer)
Finding fulfillment
UPDATE: I
reposted this with the video embedded-- some of the
feedback I got was that clicked through to another page
was causing trouble. (Thanks to Eden Worship Center in
Topeka, Indiana for the video montage you see.)
Tom Brady might be one of the greatest success stories of our day. (Okay, so he would be more of one if he had completed that perfect season a couple of weeks ago for his FOURTH Super Bowl victory...)
Yet, Tom Brady feels empty. In an interview just before the recent Super Bowl, Brady described his emptiness; watch the video.
My response when watching this video was: you're absolutely right! There IS something more to life than reaching record-breaking heights in the first few years of your career; there is something more than being considered one of the best-looking athletes around; there is something more than dating an international supermodel; there is something more than having all the money and fame you could ever ask for.
Oh, and by the way Tom: you don't need any of those things to obtain that thing, that "something more."
I hope you can see this as easily as I can: the "something more" that Tom is seeking is only found in Christ.
(ht: Fred Harrell & Big Hair Preacher)
Tom Brady might be one of the greatest success stories of our day. (Okay, so he would be more of one if he had completed that perfect season a couple of weeks ago for his FOURTH Super Bowl victory...)
Yet, Tom Brady feels empty. In an interview just before the recent Super Bowl, Brady described his emptiness; watch the video.
My response when watching this video was: you're absolutely right! There IS something more to life than reaching record-breaking heights in the first few years of your career; there is something more than being considered one of the best-looking athletes around; there is something more than dating an international supermodel; there is something more than having all the money and fame you could ever ask for.
Oh, and by the way Tom: you don't need any of those things to obtain that thing, that "something more."
I hope you can see this as easily as I can: the "something more" that Tom is seeking is only found in Christ.
(ht: Fred Harrell & Big Hair Preacher)
Lent Haiku
Feb. 06, 2008; 04:34 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Personal
My new hero
I was
briefly distracted this morning by our church's
list of
Pastors-- the
succession of Pastors through the 173-year history of Hickory Withe
Presbyterian Church. If you
haven't taken the time to look through this list,
you should; it's a fascinating list of men.
I am the 28th Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. Of the remaining 28, 22 of them served the church for less than five years, and three more served for right around five years. Only three Pastors in 172 years have served this church for more than five years.
One of these men is my new hero: Pastor S. S. (Scott) Gill served Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church for 44 years, 2 and a half months, from 1861-1905. Noticing those dates, I'm struck by the fact that, in his first year of ministry, Rev. Gill would have begun shepherding his flock through the difficulties of four years of the War between the States. Following that, he pastored them for another 40 years-- a simply astounding tenure in our day, and from the looks of the aforementioned list, an impressive tenure in his day as well.
I heard mega-church Pastor Rick Warren comment recently that, in his preparation for ministry, he contacted the 100 largest churches in the U.S. and asked them, "what makes a church healthy?" (Whether you agree or disagree with Pastor Warren's choice of source for this information, I hope you'll agree it's an interesting perspective to pursue.) One thing emerged from them: in all of these churches, the Pastor had been there for a long time. Thus, Pastor Warren began to pray specifically about his pastoral call: "Lord, I'll go anywhere you want, as long as you take me there for life." He and his wife Kaye said that, when they went to plant Saddleback Church, they were 25 years old and made a 40-year commitment to that area.
Marcie and I have long hoped for the same thing: that we might move only once after seminary. While we're barely four months into this pastorate-- let alone 40 years or more!-- and I still face ordination trials (tomorrow, by the way), I'm renewed in my desire for that by the example of Scott Gill.
I am the 28th Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. Of the remaining 28, 22 of them served the church for less than five years, and three more served for right around five years. Only three Pastors in 172 years have served this church for more than five years.
One of these men is my new hero: Pastor S. S. (Scott) Gill served Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church for 44 years, 2 and a half months, from 1861-1905. Noticing those dates, I'm struck by the fact that, in his first year of ministry, Rev. Gill would have begun shepherding his flock through the difficulties of four years of the War between the States. Following that, he pastored them for another 40 years-- a simply astounding tenure in our day, and from the looks of the aforementioned list, an impressive tenure in his day as well.
I heard mega-church Pastor Rick Warren comment recently that, in his preparation for ministry, he contacted the 100 largest churches in the U.S. and asked them, "what makes a church healthy?" (Whether you agree or disagree with Pastor Warren's choice of source for this information, I hope you'll agree it's an interesting perspective to pursue.) One thing emerged from them: in all of these churches, the Pastor had been there for a long time. Thus, Pastor Warren began to pray specifically about his pastoral call: "Lord, I'll go anywhere you want, as long as you take me there for life." He and his wife Kaye said that, when they went to plant Saddleback Church, they were 25 years old and made a 40-year commitment to that area.
Marcie and I have long hoped for the same thing: that we might move only once after seminary. While we're barely four months into this pastorate-- let alone 40 years or more!-- and I still face ordination trials (tomorrow, by the way), I'm renewed in my desire for that by the example of Scott Gill.
News round-up
Well, a lot
happened recently, and even today. Here's a quick
glimpse at what is going on...
Memphis ranks #1 again this week. The Tigers continue their amazing season; will they ever lose? (Hickory Withe insiders say, "no.")
Obama gains major ground in the Democratic primary. Whatever your political convictions, you have to admit that Barack Obama's campaign is building a head of steam that (for now, at least) looks like it might carry him all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Louisiana Presbytery faces a formal indictment, and consequently Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church withdraws from the PCA. Personally, I see this more as a call to mourning than a resolution to the controversy that the Federal Vision has become.
Baptist group woos moderate views. Does this strike anyone else as ironic?
President Bush predicts "no recession." I don't understand how $300 per household will really prevent one (especially since, if you adjust the value of the dollar in comparison to international currencies, we are already in a recession!), but here's hoping he's right.
Tiger wins another, ties Arnold Palmer's record. He's amazing-- but why anyone is surprised by this, I don't know.
Legos bricks turn 50. Just about everything-- including a Lego church-- has been built out of these gems. Happy Birthday, Lego!
Memphis ranks #1 again this week. The Tigers continue their amazing season; will they ever lose? (Hickory Withe insiders say, "no.")
Obama gains major ground in the Democratic primary. Whatever your political convictions, you have to admit that Barack Obama's campaign is building a head of steam that (for now, at least) looks like it might carry him all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.
Louisiana Presbytery faces a formal indictment, and consequently Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church withdraws from the PCA. Personally, I see this more as a call to mourning than a resolution to the controversy that the Federal Vision has become.
Baptist group woos moderate views. Does this strike anyone else as ironic?
President Bush predicts "no recession." I don't understand how $300 per household will really prevent one (especially since, if you adjust the value of the dollar in comparison to international currencies, we are already in a recession!), but here's hoping he's right.
Tiger wins another, ties Arnold Palmer's record. He's amazing-- but why anyone is surprised by this, I don't know.
Legos bricks turn 50. Just about everything-- including a Lego church-- has been built out of these gems. Happy Birthday, Lego!
Ministry, church, statistics, and the U.S. as a mission field
Jan. 26, 2008; 07:57 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
I overheard
a young first-year seminary student talking with a
couple of others in the bookstore a few years ago. He
was talking about his sense of call to ministry, and
they asked him if he wanted to be a Pastor when he
finished. Yes, he did, but he quickly (and haughtily)
clarified: "I'll go overseas to do missions, of course.
The U.S. is way too full of churches and Pastors."
This video is a good presentation of a bunch of amazing statistics about the church in the U.S., and in a matter of minutes utterly refutes this young man's jaded viewpoint. (HWPC folks, may I ask that you be sure to take a few minutes to watch this?) What's clear from the data presented is that the local church has never held a more important place in the community, even if most of that community doesn't realize it.
While it is clear that the statistics are presented with an intent to promote church planting, they offer great insight into the mission and importance of established churches, as well. In my view, those figures regarding the established church's less effective outreach are simultaneously an indictment and a call to action.
What struck you as the more interesting aspects of that presentation?
This video is a good presentation of a bunch of amazing statistics about the church in the U.S., and in a matter of minutes utterly refutes this young man's jaded viewpoint. (HWPC folks, may I ask that you be sure to take a few minutes to watch this?) What's clear from the data presented is that the local church has never held a more important place in the community, even if most of that community doesn't realize it.
While it is clear that the statistics are presented with an intent to promote church planting, they offer great insight into the mission and importance of established churches, as well. In my view, those figures regarding the established church's less effective outreach are simultaneously an indictment and a call to action.
What struck you as the more interesting aspects of that presentation?
Podcasts I listen to
Jan. 22, 2008; 04:40 PM Filed in: Personal
Not long
ago, Lou and I set up his iPod to download our church's
sermon podcast automatically (which, by the way, is
best done by following the instructions on the
Media page).
Around that same time, another good friend got an iPod and
discovered podcasts,
including NPR's excellent Speaking
of Faith show.
Both seemed interested in knowing other good
podcasts to check out, so I wanted to offer this
quick guide to some that I enjoy.
First, a quick definition: for those who don't know, a "podcast" is a specialized sort of audio file on the internet that is designed to be downloaded very easily. Sort of like an audio blog, they are set up so that your computer can be notified when there is new content (and can even download that content automatically). If you have a portable music player like an iPod, you might find that podcasts (short for "iPod broadcasts") are a great way to get new content and learn things.
I listen to a pretty wide variety of podcasts. I listen to them while I'm driving to and from the church, on my way to visit someone, on trips, and even while I work out. Here's what's on my iPod. [NOTE: most links will take you directly to the iTunes page where you can subscribe or download samples for free.]
Sermons, Bible Study, and Such
City Church of San Francisco. My friend Fred Harrell is the Senior Pastor at this fine church, and they always have good (and challenging) messages.
Trinity Presbyterian Church of Charlottesville, VA. Another friend, Greg Thompson is also an emerging voice in the PCA and one of our best thinkers.
RUF Old Miss (Les Newsom). There are lots of great preachers in RUF; I think Les is one of the best.
Let My People Think (RZIM). Ravi Zacharias, a teacher and apologist, regularly offers new ways to think about familiar concepts.
The White Horse Inn. Michael Horton and friends provide thoughtful discussion about thinking biblically about issues facing the church today.
Mars Hill Audition. Designed to be an introduction to the more regular Mars Hill Audio Journal, Audition is a great sample of the good stuff Mars Hill Audio is doing.
Work-Related Stuff
Mac OS Ken. This brief weekday show gives me a great update on the latest news related to Apple Mac computers and other Apple happenings.
The Mayberry Driven Church. I appreciate the blog that accompanies this podcast frequently; they don't offer podcasts frequently, but when they do, it's very helpful and interesting.
Manager Tools. Anyone who works with people (isn't that about everyone?) should give this one a listen. Practical help and solid advice.
David Allen Podcast. David's "GTD" is a rich set of productivity principles. Occasionally David or one of his execs does an audio recording, and it shows up here. Always useful.
Other Regular Podcasts
The Splendid Table. The cook in me loves this weekly American Public Media production, which is always full of great cooking and baking information and trivia.
Car Talk. Both funny and informative, Tom and Ray have long been a favorite listen of mine; now I listen anytime I want.
The Clark Howard Show. I've never found more practical wisdom about consumer living than with Clark. He's humble, thoughtful, and helpful.
Podcasts I'm Trying Out
Speaking of Faith. Another APM production, this one looks at religion in our culture and discusses it honestly.
News from Lake Wobegon. Garrison Keillor is one of nation's great storytellers, using words in ways that most writers (including me) aspire to emulate.
Lawrence Lessig. Larry Lessig is one of the best presenters today; his podcast is a constant model of presentation goodness.
Cook's Illustrated. I'm smitten with this magazine, and now I can enjoy a video podcast from them as well.
First, a quick definition: for those who don't know, a "podcast" is a specialized sort of audio file on the internet that is designed to be downloaded very easily. Sort of like an audio blog, they are set up so that your computer can be notified when there is new content (and can even download that content automatically). If you have a portable music player like an iPod, you might find that podcasts (short for "iPod broadcasts") are a great way to get new content and learn things.
I listen to a pretty wide variety of podcasts. I listen to them while I'm driving to and from the church, on my way to visit someone, on trips, and even while I work out. Here's what's on my iPod. [NOTE: most links will take you directly to the iTunes page where you can subscribe or download samples for free.]
Sermons, Bible Study, and Such
City Church of San Francisco. My friend Fred Harrell is the Senior Pastor at this fine church, and they always have good (and challenging) messages.
Trinity Presbyterian Church of Charlottesville, VA. Another friend, Greg Thompson is also an emerging voice in the PCA and one of our best thinkers.
RUF Old Miss (Les Newsom). There are lots of great preachers in RUF; I think Les is one of the best.
Let My People Think (RZIM). Ravi Zacharias, a teacher and apologist, regularly offers new ways to think about familiar concepts.
The White Horse Inn. Michael Horton and friends provide thoughtful discussion about thinking biblically about issues facing the church today.
Mars Hill Audition. Designed to be an introduction to the more regular Mars Hill Audio Journal, Audition is a great sample of the good stuff Mars Hill Audio is doing.
Work-Related Stuff
Mac OS Ken. This brief weekday show gives me a great update on the latest news related to Apple Mac computers and other Apple happenings.
The Mayberry Driven Church. I appreciate the blog that accompanies this podcast frequently; they don't offer podcasts frequently, but when they do, it's very helpful and interesting.
Manager Tools. Anyone who works with people (isn't that about everyone?) should give this one a listen. Practical help and solid advice.
David Allen Podcast. David's "GTD" is a rich set of productivity principles. Occasionally David or one of his execs does an audio recording, and it shows up here. Always useful.
Other Regular Podcasts
The Splendid Table. The cook in me loves this weekly American Public Media production, which is always full of great cooking and baking information and trivia.
Car Talk. Both funny and informative, Tom and Ray have long been a favorite listen of mine; now I listen anytime I want.
The Clark Howard Show. I've never found more practical wisdom about consumer living than with Clark. He's humble, thoughtful, and helpful.
Podcasts I'm Trying Out
Speaking of Faith. Another APM production, this one looks at religion in our culture and discusses it honestly.
News from Lake Wobegon. Garrison Keillor is one of nation's great storytellers, using words in ways that most writers (including me) aspire to emulate.
Lawrence Lessig. Larry Lessig is one of the best presenters today; his podcast is a constant model of presentation goodness.
Cook's Illustrated. I'm smitten with this magazine, and now I can enjoy a video podcast from them as well.
A new series
Jan. 18, 2008; 12:40 PM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
I recently
read a book on the nuts and bolts of pastoral ministry
by two seasoned Pastors called On
Being a Pastor. There
were many great lessons from this book (thanks to my
friend David Dennis for the book recommendation), and
one key take-away was regarding preaching a series.
They commended the practice in general-- and affirmed its value to a congregation. But they also recommended that Pastors take regular breaks from a series, offering a change of pace and direction for a time.
We're approaching a natural break in Luke-- in the middle of chapter 4, the end of Jesus' preparation for ministry concludes; starting with 4:14, Jesus begins his public ministry. Luke's account of the public ministry of Jesus continues until chapter 19, where the account of the triumphal entry begins the account of the passion of Christ. Clay Harrington will join us next week, and will preach on Luke 4:1-13-- the last text on Jesus' preparation for ministry. This will be our twelfth week of sermons in Luke, done in sequential order.
At that point, I plan to take a break from the sequential preaching of Luke's gospel, and will begin a new, 14-week series on the cross. This series will carry us through the liturgical seasons of Lent and Easter, and is fitting for both. Following that series, we'll return to Luke to begin working through the public ministry of Jesus (though we'll probably take another break down the line before we finish that section of Luke!).
This series will be topical, though most or all of the sermons will still be expository sermons. Here's the plan for the series, week by week:
They commended the practice in general-- and affirmed its value to a congregation. But they also recommended that Pastors take regular breaks from a series, offering a change of pace and direction for a time.
One danger of expository preaching-- especially when we begin-- is the tendency to be too long in one book or subject. Expository does not need to be synonymous with exhaustive and exhausting!We've been working through the book of Luke since I began at Hickory Withe. While we started with a brief (4-week) series on the Parable of the Lost Son, we've spent every Sunday morning in Luke since October 14! By mid-November, we started with Luke 1:1 and will finish chapter 3 on Sunday. We've studied the foundations of the book, the announcements of the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, and the events of those births.
We're approaching a natural break in Luke-- in the middle of chapter 4, the end of Jesus' preparation for ministry concludes; starting with 4:14, Jesus begins his public ministry. Luke's account of the public ministry of Jesus continues until chapter 19, where the account of the triumphal entry begins the account of the passion of Christ. Clay Harrington will join us next week, and will preach on Luke 4:1-13-- the last text on Jesus' preparation for ministry. This will be our twelfth week of sermons in Luke, done in sequential order.
At that point, I plan to take a break from the sequential preaching of Luke's gospel, and will begin a new, 14-week series on the cross. This series will carry us through the liturgical seasons of Lent and Easter, and is fitting for both. Following that series, we'll return to Luke to begin working through the public ministry of Jesus (though we'll probably take another break down the line before we finish that section of Luke!).
This series will be topical, though most or all of the sermons will still be expository sermons. Here's the plan for the series, week by week:
- The cross as central to Chrstianity
- What did Christ die for?
- The accomplishment of the cross
- How forgiveness works
- The price of our sin
- God's substitutionary atonement
- Salvation for sinners through the cross
- God revealing himself through the cross
- Evil is overcome through the cross
- The community of God as a celebration of the
cross
- Understanding ourselves through the cross
- Self-denial and giving of ourselves in response
to the cross
- The cross enables us to love our enemies
- The cross and our suffering, the cross and our
glory
Princess Molly
Jan. 16, 2008; 04:11 PM Filed in: Church Life
| Personal
Over
Christmas, my step-sister Louise played princess with
Molly. This was the first time, really, that Molly had
played princess to that extent, and all of us were a
little bit surprised by how much she took to it!
But should we have been? I've been thinking about that, especially since my sister Ann Louise asked me (and others) what we thought about it. I'll try to summarize my thoughts.
The Scriptures clearly portray believers as sons and daughters of the King-- adopted, true, but sons and daughters nevertheless. In fact, when you read the accounts of how the last days will be for believers-- especially in the first part of Revelation 20-- it is clear that, as the holy children of God, set apart for His glory, we will somehow reign with Him in that glory.
What also appears to be true-- as it is latent in the words of all Scripture-- is that we were intended to reign with God from the very beginning. In part, this is what it means to be created in His image. We get this, and long for this, the most when we pause to consider how un-natural our sin is. That is what Plantinga meant when he wrote his marvelous book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be-- that "shalom," true peace and harmony with God, includes a sense of the holiness and majesty that we only see shadows of.
This idea is so rich, and has such broad application to the church. Individually, it means that, when we sin and wallow in the lowliness of instant gratification, forsaking our majesty, we ought to think, "I'm better than that!" Our means to obedience is God's grace, but our motivation for obedience is not only His grace but His dignity bestowed on us in creation, and restored in us through the cross. Corporately, it requires us to re-consider the "us vs. them" mentality that so permeates contemporary Evangelical Christianity. Yes, we are "beggars telling other beggars where to find bread" but only in the sense that the prince and the pauper traded places, and the prince got his first taste of what it means to be a beggar.
This applies to the question directly, because if this is true-- in other words, if what the Scriptures say about "the way it is supposed to be"-- then we were made for royalty. We were made to be princes and princesses. And in childlike understanding, perhaps we express this inclination best when we resonate with stories, tales, movies that suggest that all of us can have a "fairy-tale" life. In fact, it isn't a fairy tale at all.
I think little girls express this through their pretend, while little boys express this through their struggle with what looks to us like independence (but is really more of a spiritual "muscle-flexing" like a prince ought to occasionally try out). Adults express it in similar ways, but it seems much further off-- probably because so much of our view of ourselves and our world has been shaped by fallenness that we can't see past it easily.
The Pevensies weren't out of place as the kings and queens of Narnia; they were right where they were intended to be.
But should we have been? I've been thinking about that, especially since my sister Ann Louise asked me (and others) what we thought about it. I'll try to summarize my thoughts.
The Scriptures clearly portray believers as sons and daughters of the King-- adopted, true, but sons and daughters nevertheless. In fact, when you read the accounts of how the last days will be for believers-- especially in the first part of Revelation 20-- it is clear that, as the holy children of God, set apart for His glory, we will somehow reign with Him in that glory.
What also appears to be true-- as it is latent in the words of all Scripture-- is that we were intended to reign with God from the very beginning. In part, this is what it means to be created in His image. We get this, and long for this, the most when we pause to consider how un-natural our sin is. That is what Plantinga meant when he wrote his marvelous book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be-- that "shalom," true peace and harmony with God, includes a sense of the holiness and majesty that we only see shadows of.
This idea is so rich, and has such broad application to the church. Individually, it means that, when we sin and wallow in the lowliness of instant gratification, forsaking our majesty, we ought to think, "I'm better than that!" Our means to obedience is God's grace, but our motivation for obedience is not only His grace but His dignity bestowed on us in creation, and restored in us through the cross. Corporately, it requires us to re-consider the "us vs. them" mentality that so permeates contemporary Evangelical Christianity. Yes, we are "beggars telling other beggars where to find bread" but only in the sense that the prince and the pauper traded places, and the prince got his first taste of what it means to be a beggar.
This applies to the question directly, because if this is true-- in other words, if what the Scriptures say about "the way it is supposed to be"-- then we were made for royalty. We were made to be princes and princesses. And in childlike understanding, perhaps we express this inclination best when we resonate with stories, tales, movies that suggest that all of us can have a "fairy-tale" life. In fact, it isn't a fairy tale at all.
I think little girls express this through their pretend, while little boys express this through their struggle with what looks to us like independence (but is really more of a spiritual "muscle-flexing" like a prince ought to occasionally try out). Adults express it in similar ways, but it seems much further off-- probably because so much of our view of ourselves and our world has been shaped by fallenness that we can't see past it easily.
The Pevensies weren't out of place as the kings and queens of Narnia; they were right where they were intended to be.
Who's in charge here?
Jan. 07, 2008; 02:02 PM Filed in: Ministry
For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
~II Corintians 4:5
Yesterday at lunch, Jack asked me, "Daddy-- are you in charge of part of the church?"
What a profound question! I'm thrilled that Jack is asking questions like this, and thinking about these things. I wonder how many people have actually thought about this question...
Here's how the rest of the dialogue went (roughly!):
Me: "Jack, daddy's job is to be the Pastor at the church, which is not about being in charge, it's about serving them."
Jack: "What does 'serving them' mean?"
Me: "It means that I help them when they need help, I encourage them if they are sad, and I teach them about Jesus and how He is what they need."
Jack: "Sometimes it seems like you're in charge..."
Me: "Well, sometimes people act like they want me to be in charge; but when they act like that, what they really want is for me to teach them how Jesus is in charge."
Jack: "That's good."
More hands than I could ever shake...
Jan. 03, 2008; 04:32 PM Filed in: Culture
"I reach into my pocket just so I can make some change, and I find more hands than I could ever shake..."
~John Gorka, "Campaign Trail"
The Iowa Caucus is today-- which is a big deal, and it's not. It's a big deal because it signals the beginning of the Presidential Primary elections-- where the various parties select which nominee will represent the party in the general election. It's not a big deal (or at least, not the big deal that the media makes it out to be) because the Iowa Caucus is just one state, and historically the winner of the Iowa Caucus has won the party nomination less than 50% of the time.
Of course, it does mark the beginning of the official election year-- which is a big deal in itself, on a larger scale than just one state. There are some twists in this year's election: those who seemed early on to be sure-things are now showing that they are anything but, while otherwise low-level contenders have emerged in prominence; former party loyalties are being tested in both parties; and this also seems to be the year of the "anyone but" election.
By that I mean even candidates are suggesting that others should not get the nomination at any cost. Dennis Kucinich announced something on the order of, "if you don't vote for me, then vote for Barack Obama" (suggesting that Hilary Clinton or John Edwards are not worthy of the nomination). Evangelicals seem to be against certain candidates more than they are for any one in particular. The endorsements seem to be more "vote against" than "vote for" statements.
To me, this signals a troubling time. Christians in particular ought to be more about asserting what we do believe, what we are for, and what we will support; we ought NOT stand so firmly about what we are against.
Historically, Christians have identified themselves by a credo, a creed. The word credo means, "I believe" and it always has a consequent-- a statement that follows asserting what the belief is. "I believe in God, the Father Almighty..." When we move away from this form and begin to argue what we don't believe, we often divide unnecessarily. In my brief studies of church history, I have seen how this is the case.
There are times when we must divide. Certainly, there have been ecclesiastical divisions that were necessary and important, even vital to the health of the church. Likewise, there are political perspectives that prevent the wholesale unity of all voters (though there have been times when this has at least not appeared to be so: Ronald Reagan was elected by landslide victories in both elections, with 49 states voting for him in 1984).
When a Christian identifies themselves to me more by what they don't believe than what they do, I wonder whether they really understand the Gospel; it is, after all, fundamentally about reconciliation and bridging division. My experience has taught me that, almost universally, Christians who are more about being against something will not have a pattern of healthy relationships with other Christians.
I wonder if a similar standard could apply to political candidates? As we enter into the 2008 election season, who is asserting firmly what they DO stand for? Who is spending more time telling you what (or who) they disagree with? I suggest to you that the candidates that spend their time, energy, and campaign dollars talking about what they won't do (or about how other candidates will be trouble) are not leaders who offer hope of a healthy presidency.
Merry Christmastide
Dec. 26, 2007; 09:34 AM Filed in: Church Life
Merry Christmastide!
What is Christmastide, perhaps you are wondering? In most protestant churches, we tend to ignore the "seasons" of the church that have historically been set apart as the flow of the calendar for Christians, but in some Christian churches (protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic alike) a liturgical calendar guides how the different seasons of the Christian year are distinguished. Christmastide is the brief season from Christmas Day to January 5.
Also called Yuletide or simply the Twelve Days of Christmas, Christmastide marks the season during which the church has historically reflected on the significance of the incarnation. If Advent is a season of anticipation, then Christmastide is a season of fulfillment and a beginning awareness of what that fulfillment means.
Christmastide includes consideration of the various early events of Christ's life, including visitation from the shepherds, the visitation and gifts of the Magi, and the circumcision of Jesus. It ends on what has traditionally been called Twelfth Night, which is the eve of the day of Epiphany (which is sometimes called Three Kings' Day). Just as Advent is a season that culminates with Christmas Eve, Christmastide also culminates with the eve of the next season.
I think it is very helpful to observe the seasons, rather than simply celebrating the days and having a gap of time in between. For me, all that happens in anticipation of Advent is more than I want to contemplate all at once, so I'm thankful for a season of four weeks or so to consider it. Likewise, the significance of the incarnation is more than I want to try to think through on just one day (Christmas Day), so I appreciate having a season for reflection on that.
What is Christmastide, perhaps you are wondering? In most protestant churches, we tend to ignore the "seasons" of the church that have historically been set apart as the flow of the calendar for Christians, but in some Christian churches (protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic alike) a liturgical calendar guides how the different seasons of the Christian year are distinguished. Christmastide is the brief season from Christmas Day to January 5.
Also called Yuletide or simply the Twelve Days of Christmas, Christmastide marks the season during which the church has historically reflected on the significance of the incarnation. If Advent is a season of anticipation, then Christmastide is a season of fulfillment and a beginning awareness of what that fulfillment means.
Christmastide includes consideration of the various early events of Christ's life, including visitation from the shepherds, the visitation and gifts of the Magi, and the circumcision of Jesus. It ends on what has traditionally been called Twelfth Night, which is the eve of the day of Epiphany (which is sometimes called Three Kings' Day). Just as Advent is a season that culminates with Christmas Eve, Christmastide also culminates with the eve of the next season.
I think it is very helpful to observe the seasons, rather than simply celebrating the days and having a gap of time in between. For me, all that happens in anticipation of Advent is more than I want to contemplate all at once, so I'm thankful for a season of four weeks or so to consider it. Likewise, the significance of the incarnation is more than I want to try to think through on just one day (Christmas Day), so I appreciate having a season for reflection on that.
Electability and the 2008 Presidential race
Dec. 20, 2007; 07:12 AM Filed in: Culture
We're a long way from the 2008 presidential election--
indeed, we're still a good ways off from many
primaries. Right now, it's anyone's guess who will
emerge as the final set of candidates a little under a
year from now. Based on the way things appear now, I
wouldn't be surprised if something like Montgomery Brewster's "None of the Above" campaign
could gain some serious momentum over the next 11
months.
That said, here's an early read on the status of the current leaders. [Disclaimer: This is IN NO WAY an endorsement of any candidate, personally or as an organization. I certainly do NOT speak on behalf of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church in this assessment, and even personally this is not a claim of how I will vote or even my inclinations. This is merely an assessment of how I see the race taking shape.]
The candidate that will win the 2008 election must find a way to appeal to the all-important middle-ground moderates-- a growing segment of our population. At the same time, they must strike certain chords with either politically conservative or progressive voters on certain issues; ideally, the candidate would be able to appeal to both extremes on some issues. I think it's safe to say that no Americans (or at least, very few) want to see the country divided as strongly as the 2000 Bush vs. Gore race.
Right now, the front-runners of the Democratic Party-- Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards-- are not leaning enough toward the center to woo as many moderates as they will eventually need to court. This is probably because they are (smartly) thinking primarily about the next vote only: they realize that they must win the nomination of their party in order to move ahead. (I recall hearing President Bill Clinton making this argument at some point-- maybe on David Letterman?)
But many voters from all points on the political spectrum are paying attention to both sides. Perhaps more than ever, the claims made during Primary campaigns will matter throughout the general election. Thus, any of these Democratic front-runners are in danger of marginalizing themselves with general election voters, or appearing to waffle on important issues down the line.
On the Republican side, many of the candidates are doing the same thing, in a slightly different way: some are following the same path and skewing too far to the right for a lot of moderates (I think Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson fit this category), while others (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain?) have moved to the middle so much that they have made a lot of the "far-right" conservatives uncomfortable.
Mike Huckabee, however, seems to have found a bit of balance here: he resonates with the conservatives on a handful of key issues, but appeals to moderates (and even some of the more "liberal" voters) on others.
Huckabee still has a long way to go. If he continues to succeed in his campaign, however, it may prove interesting to see if my read on this is accurate. Back in 2000, I thought a really interesting race would have been John McCain vs. Bill Bradley-- both were moderate enough to pose a significant "threat" to the other in the middle-ground. Will we see the same thing this year? Maybe Mike Huckabee vs. Bill Richardson...
Keep in mind, I'm not talking who should win, but who could. Often, "should" and "could" are different, at least in politics. Why? Because "should" is inherently subjective; my idea of "should" is inevitably different from yours. So the only way that "should" will win (or become "could") is if enough people generally agree with me (of course, that may mean that "should" doesn't win from your vantage point).
So why does this matter? To begin with, Americans-- and especially Christians-- tend to think far too individualistically about the world, including politics. I've heard too many times from Christians, "if so-and-so is elected President, I'm moving to Canada." Why is that? Aside from the fact that these Christians may not like Canada's leadership any more than the U.S.'s, perhaps they need to ask why they believe the election is all about them.
In fact, elections aren't about anyone in particular-- they are about all of us together. Sometimes what is best for a community is not what is necessarily best for any particular individual member of that community. So it is with a nation, as well. I'm all for contributing to the costs of paving roads I'll never use, and police and fire services I hope I won't have to use, because those roads, policemen, and fire fighters keep other people safe. And I need to realize that the best man-- or woman-- for President of the United States may not be the one among all candidates who will "benefit" me the most.
So "could" matters, even if the pundits tell us that we shouldn't vote based on electability. Rather than a "take my marbles and go home" attitude, Christians should lead the charge in supporting electable candidates who are good for the nation, state, and local community-- even if their worldviews differ somewhat from ours.
That said, here's an early read on the status of the current leaders. [Disclaimer: This is IN NO WAY an endorsement of any candidate, personally or as an organization. I certainly do NOT speak on behalf of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church in this assessment, and even personally this is not a claim of how I will vote or even my inclinations. This is merely an assessment of how I see the race taking shape.]
The candidate that will win the 2008 election must find a way to appeal to the all-important middle-ground moderates-- a growing segment of our population. At the same time, they must strike certain chords with either politically conservative or progressive voters on certain issues; ideally, the candidate would be able to appeal to both extremes on some issues. I think it's safe to say that no Americans (or at least, very few) want to see the country divided as strongly as the 2000 Bush vs. Gore race.
Right now, the front-runners of the Democratic Party-- Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards-- are not leaning enough toward the center to woo as many moderates as they will eventually need to court. This is probably because they are (smartly) thinking primarily about the next vote only: they realize that they must win the nomination of their party in order to move ahead. (I recall hearing President Bill Clinton making this argument at some point-- maybe on David Letterman?)
But many voters from all points on the political spectrum are paying attention to both sides. Perhaps more than ever, the claims made during Primary campaigns will matter throughout the general election. Thus, any of these Democratic front-runners are in danger of marginalizing themselves with general election voters, or appearing to waffle on important issues down the line.
On the Republican side, many of the candidates are doing the same thing, in a slightly different way: some are following the same path and skewing too far to the right for a lot of moderates (I think Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson fit this category), while others (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain?) have moved to the middle so much that they have made a lot of the "far-right" conservatives uncomfortable.
Mike Huckabee, however, seems to have found a bit of balance here: he resonates with the conservatives on a handful of key issues, but appeals to moderates (and even some of the more "liberal" voters) on others.
Huckabee still has a long way to go. If he continues to succeed in his campaign, however, it may prove interesting to see if my read on this is accurate. Back in 2000, I thought a really interesting race would have been John McCain vs. Bill Bradley-- both were moderate enough to pose a significant "threat" to the other in the middle-ground. Will we see the same thing this year? Maybe Mike Huckabee vs. Bill Richardson...
Keep in mind, I'm not talking who should win, but who could. Often, "should" and "could" are different, at least in politics. Why? Because "should" is inherently subjective; my idea of "should" is inevitably different from yours. So the only way that "should" will win (or become "could") is if enough people generally agree with me (of course, that may mean that "should" doesn't win from your vantage point).
So why does this matter? To begin with, Americans-- and especially Christians-- tend to think far too individualistically about the world, including politics. I've heard too many times from Christians, "if so-and-so is elected President, I'm moving to Canada." Why is that? Aside from the fact that these Christians may not like Canada's leadership any more than the U.S.'s, perhaps they need to ask why they believe the election is all about them.
In fact, elections aren't about anyone in particular-- they are about all of us together. Sometimes what is best for a community is not what is necessarily best for any particular individual member of that community. So it is with a nation, as well. I'm all for contributing to the costs of paving roads I'll never use, and police and fire services I hope I won't have to use, because those roads, policemen, and fire fighters keep other people safe. And I need to realize that the best man-- or woman-- for President of the United States may not be the one among all candidates who will "benefit" me the most.
So "could" matters, even if the pundits tell us that we shouldn't vote based on electability. Rather than a "take my marbles and go home" attitude, Christians should lead the charge in supporting electable candidates who are good for the nation, state, and local community-- even if their worldviews differ somewhat from ours.
How Christians view marriage, part 1
Dec. 19, 2007; 09:25 AM Filed in: Family | Church Life
...Protestants traditionally have interpreted marriage as a necessary way to quell the temptations of the flesh or as a natural union that will be dissolved in the afterlife...
Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, in "A Mormon President? The LDS Difference" from The Christian Century, August 21, 2007.
While I'll admit that this statement is not intended to be comprehensive-- and, in context, emphasizes an important difference between Protestant Christian views on marriage from Mormon views-- I would argue that Ms. Maffly-Kipp misses much of the core meaning of marriage for Christians, and thus misrepresents marriage entirely.
The view espoused by Ms. Maffly-Kipp is taken primarily from a single verse, 1 Corinthians 7:9, wherein Paul is discussing how unmarried and widowed believers should approach singleness. Paul says, simply, that for the service of the Lord it is better to remain single (v.8)-- this removes the divided focus of attention that marriage and family inevitably brings. Paul says, though, that if self-control is an issue (and here he means, subtly, sexual control) then they should marry, for it is "better to marry than to burn with passion."
Thus, one can argue that the above claim about the Protestant view of marriage is biblical. Why do I claim it to be inaccurate?
If for no other reason, than this is a chief concern: we should be very cautious (as in, I'll stop just short of saying "never do it") about deriving doctrines and positions from single verses. One of the key principles to understanding the Bible that we should all regularly employ is to let Scripture interpret Scripture-- in other words, the Bible, collectively and in context of itself, will instruct us on how to understand the meaning of texts.
In this case, one could argue that 1 Timothy 5:11 supports this claim of doctrine or position-- thus letting Scripture interpret Scripture. But in the whole context of the New Testament (and, indeed, the whole Bible) a much bigger and fuller sense of how and why Christians should marry emerges. In fact, a more comprehensive-- and I would say healthier-- view of sex emerges, as well.
Perhaps that's what bothers me the most about this quote: it seems to take a fairly cynical view of both sex and marriage, neither of which are portrayed in the Bible as the sort of annoyances that Ms. Maffly-Kipp seems to imply.
In a future post, I'll work through what I see as the "fuller sense" of how the Bible portrays marriage. Meanwhile, what are your thoughts?
Internet communities article
I've always been fascinated with technology, and over
time I've developed a lot of thoughts and ideas about
how faith and technology collide. A few of these
thoughts made their way into an article that I recently
wrote for ByFaith magazine, which ended up
being called, "Looking for Love in a Few Wrong
Places". That article, which focuses
particularly on how technology and the Internet
allow communities to be built in new ways, is now
available on the ByFaith website, in case
you're interested.
By the way, if you don't already subscribe to ByFaith, I would highly recommend it (and not just because I write for them)-- it is a good magazine that offers a helpful look at many diverse topics.
By the way, if you don't already subscribe to ByFaith, I would highly recommend it (and not just because I write for them)-- it is a good magazine that offers a helpful look at many diverse topics.
Code, ambiguity, and understanding each other
Yesterday, Marcie and I were planning to do some
Christmas shopping after we drove the kids to school.
Out of the blue, she said to me, "do you think that
store would have that thing?"
"What?!?"
We smiled and laughed, and eventually she gave me enough hints to decipher what she meant.
But it got me to thinking: a lot of times, one of us (in the church) will say something we think is entirely clear, and it will come across to others like Marcie's statement did for me. It's way too easy for misunderstandings to occur, and we need to be willing to give the benefit of the doubt in times like that-- and quickly work toward understanding.
"What?!?"
We smiled and laughed, and eventually she gave me enough hints to decipher what she meant.
But it got me to thinking: a lot of times, one of us (in the church) will say something we think is entirely clear, and it will come across to others like Marcie's statement did for me. It's way too easy for misunderstandings to occur, and we need to be willing to give the benefit of the doubt in times like that-- and quickly work toward understanding.
Stem cells and life issues
Dec. 07, 2007; 02:13 PM Filed in: Culture
One of the issues that has confused Christians for
nearly a decade is that of stem cell research. While
many of us have heard the claims that "stem cell
research will cure the world's diseases and
afflictions," these claims are sometimes challenged,
often unsubstantiated. And just as the issue was moving
to the fore of public interest, the 9/11 terrorist
attacks (rightly) took our attention off of it.
What is going on with the stem cell question? Proponents have long argued, as I mentioned before, that the key to solving a great many medical problems may lie in investing in stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they have maintained that only embryonic stem cells offer the possibilities that medical science hopes for. Opponents claim that, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a moral/ethical sticky wicket involved: in order to obtain these cells for research, a human embryo must be destroyed. Since many believe that human life begins at conception, this means that, a human life must be taken in order to perform the research. This was the state of the debate 6 years ago, and for a long time there was little change in this impasse. Immediately prior to 9/11, President Bush issued an executive order substantially limiting stem cell research, and that further ceased any progress in the discussion.
Fast-forward to June of this year: a bill (one of a series) was passed by Congress to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research, and President Bush vetoed it. At that time, he put forth the argument that he (and many other opponents) have offered before: there are other, better sources for stem cells than living human embryos, and these offer as much possibility as any embryonic cells do. While many proponents snickered or jeered at Bush's dogmatic take on the research, a few scientists (specifically in Kyoto, Japan and Madison, Wisconsin) plodded ahead with just such an effort.
This fall, they announced their success in two medical journals (Cell and Science): they had succeeded in creating human stem cells ("pluripotent" ones-- meaning they have the potential to take many forms) from existing human skin cells. What is more, because these stem cells are created from a human's own cells, they theoretically offer better potential at organ replacement, for example, because of a lesser likelihood that the organs will be rejected. And this obviously removes the ethical concern, as no embryos are required for this process. They declared their discovery an "ethical and political win-win."
This advance, however, is not welcome news to the ears of everyone interested in this medical technology. It turns out that other implications have emerged from this research, as well: stem cell research may not be the promising cure-all that many hoped it to be. Instead, it may simply contribute to the study and advance of existing cures for diseases, rather than offering exciting and near-miraculous new approaches to curing things like paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or heart failure.
Many still claim that embryonic stem cells still offer this promise. Yet the truth is starting to come out: as Paul Nurse (a medical Nobel winner) said at a stem cell conference, "Creating cell lines for transplant is unlikely to come down the pike any time soon. Opponents recognized that this was an overselling of the technology" (Newsweek, 12/3). Even if the strongest opponents are right about embryonic stem cells, that still leaves the ethical dilemma of the use of embryos for research purposes. Thus, this revelation (about the realistic limits of stem cell research) at best puts us back to the stand-off that has been status quo for the past six years.
Two things need to occur to reasonably advance this issue for Christians and others: first, attentive thought should begin to debunk the myth that "funded stem cell research = cures for all our ills." Until our world begins to understand this more fully, no profitable discussion on the matter can really take place.
Second, however, is the imperative that everyone, even (and especially) Christians, must begin to accept: the bio-ethical issues of the value and sanctity of human life, so core to many Christians' understanding of how we understand things like the abortion issue, needs to be explored more fully. We must not accept a weak, inconsistent application of life-value, but must realize the full extent to which this value applies to our world. It includes (but is not limited to) embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and abortion; but it also includes questions about elder care, certain fertility efforts, and even warfare. From my perspective, we (as a Church) have been careless about thinking through the consistent application of our claims to be "pro-life" in the big-picture sense.
Sources:
"Where they stand" by Richard Ostling, in World magazine, December 15, 2007 issue.
"Reality Check on an Embryonic Debate" by Sharon Begley, in Newsweek magazine, December 3, 2007 issue.
"Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin" by Joe Palca, on All Things Considered, November 20, 2007 episode.
What is going on with the stem cell question? Proponents have long argued, as I mentioned before, that the key to solving a great many medical problems may lie in investing in stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they have maintained that only embryonic stem cells offer the possibilities that medical science hopes for. Opponents claim that, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a moral/ethical sticky wicket involved: in order to obtain these cells for research, a human embryo must be destroyed. Since many believe that human life begins at conception, this means that, a human life must be taken in order to perform the research. This was the state of the debate 6 years ago, and for a long time there was little change in this impasse. Immediately prior to 9/11, President Bush issued an executive order substantially limiting stem cell research, and that further ceased any progress in the discussion.
Fast-forward to June of this year: a bill (one of a series) was passed by Congress to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research, and President Bush vetoed it. At that time, he put forth the argument that he (and many other opponents) have offered before: there are other, better sources for stem cells than living human embryos, and these offer as much possibility as any embryonic cells do. While many proponents snickered or jeered at Bush's dogmatic take on the research, a few scientists (specifically in Kyoto, Japan and Madison, Wisconsin) plodded ahead with just such an effort.
This fall, they announced their success in two medical journals (Cell and Science): they had succeeded in creating human stem cells ("pluripotent" ones-- meaning they have the potential to take many forms) from existing human skin cells. What is more, because these stem cells are created from a human's own cells, they theoretically offer better potential at organ replacement, for example, because of a lesser likelihood that the organs will be rejected. And this obviously removes the ethical concern, as no embryos are required for this process. They declared their discovery an "ethical and political win-win."
This advance, however, is not welcome news to the ears of everyone interested in this medical technology. It turns out that other implications have emerged from this research, as well: stem cell research may not be the promising cure-all that many hoped it to be. Instead, it may simply contribute to the study and advance of existing cures for diseases, rather than offering exciting and near-miraculous new approaches to curing things like paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or heart failure.
Many still claim that embryonic stem cells still offer this promise. Yet the truth is starting to come out: as Paul Nurse (a medical Nobel winner) said at a stem cell conference, "Creating cell lines for transplant is unlikely to come down the pike any time soon. Opponents recognized that this was an overselling of the technology" (Newsweek, 12/3). Even if the strongest opponents are right about embryonic stem cells, that still leaves the ethical dilemma of the use of embryos for research purposes. Thus, this revelation (about the realistic limits of stem cell research) at best puts us back to the stand-off that has been status quo for the past six years.
Two things need to occur to reasonably advance this issue for Christians and others: first, attentive thought should begin to debunk the myth that "funded stem cell research = cures for all our ills." Until our world begins to understand this more fully, no profitable discussion on the matter can really take place.
Second, however, is the imperative that everyone, even (and especially) Christians, must begin to accept: the bio-ethical issues of the value and sanctity of human life, so core to many Christians' understanding of how we understand things like the abortion issue, needs to be explored more fully. We must not accept a weak, inconsistent application of life-value, but must realize the full extent to which this value applies to our world. It includes (but is not limited to) embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and abortion; but it also includes questions about elder care, certain fertility efforts, and even warfare. From my perspective, we (as a Church) have been careless about thinking through the consistent application of our claims to be "pro-life" in the big-picture sense.
Sources:
"Where they stand" by Richard Ostling, in World magazine, December 15, 2007 issue.
"Reality Check on an Embryonic Debate" by Sharon Begley, in Newsweek magazine, December 3, 2007 issue.
"Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin" by Joe Palca, on All Things Considered, November 20, 2007 episode.
Food for the hungry
My friend Megan posted a challenging post on her blog a
few days ago. It turns out that Megan read an interesting article in the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch about the struggles that
many food banks and food pantries face around this
time of year: they simply run out of food, and are
forced to limit their services or close doors
altogether.
The article points to the unexpected downside of our technological advances: the accuracy of inventory systems in grocery stores means that stores seldom over-purchase, and food packagers don't over-produce, in the quantities that they used to. The net result is that food banks and food pantries don't have the supply of food from the grocery stores and food packagers that they used to. As a result, they run out of inventory themselves.
Megan asks a hard question: what is their personal family responsibility for this problem? I love this question, as it reveals Megan's faith as real and practicable. I also love it because it forces me to consider this for myself, and my family.
In her post, Megan invites interaction about this subject, and I wanted to bring that discussion here, as well. I've also invited my friend Russell Smith to join the conversation. I'd like to work together toward some real answers to this problem-- something that we (as a community) can put into practice on a regular basis.
What do you think? We have a food pantry right here, through Fayette Cares-- my guess is that they are facing the same struggle. How can we answer? What should our personal responsibility in this problem be?
The article points to the unexpected downside of our technological advances: the accuracy of inventory systems in grocery stores means that stores seldom over-purchase, and food packagers don't over-produce, in the quantities that they used to. The net result is that food banks and food pantries don't have the supply of food from the grocery stores and food packagers that they used to. As a result, they run out of inventory themselves.
Megan asks a hard question: what is their personal family responsibility for this problem? I love this question, as it reveals Megan's faith as real and practicable. I also love it because it forces me to consider this for myself, and my family.
In her post, Megan invites interaction about this subject, and I wanted to bring that discussion here, as well. I've also invited my friend Russell Smith to join the conversation. I'd like to work together toward some real answers to this problem-- something that we (as a community) can put into practice on a regular basis.
What do you think? We have a food pantry right here, through Fayette Cares-- my guess is that they are facing the same struggle. How can we answer? What should our personal responsibility in this problem be?
Thoughts on the Golden Compass
Dec. 05, 2007; 11:17 AM Filed in: Culture
Philip Pullman's fantasy novel, The Golden
Compass, has been made into a movie and is slated
for release this weekend. This movie has created all
sorts of hubbub in the Church, mainly because Pullman
has been quite candid about his opposition to
Christianity and to organized religion in general, and
his novels (The Golden Compass is the first
novel in the fantasy trilogy His Dark
Materials) are sort of the anti-Christian answer
to C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. The
backlash from this movie so far seems to point to the
potential for it to be the next Da Vinci Code
in terms of the Church's response to it.
It's a reasonable question to ask: how should Christians handle this movie (and others like it)? I'm sensitive to the need for better understanding on this, and I'd love to provide a comprehensive guide to understanding The Golden Compass from a Christian perspective.
The problem is, I haven't read the books, nor have I seen the movie. I'm not certain I will, either-- fantasy is not usually my genre of choice. So instead, I'd like to point you toward those who are familiar with these, and encourage you to benefit from them.
I'm grateful to these men and the resources they provide. I hope you, too, will approach this movie (and other cultural artifacts like it) thoughtfully and willing to engage culture, and not run in fear from culture.
It's a reasonable question to ask: how should Christians handle this movie (and others like it)? I'm sensitive to the need for better understanding on this, and I'd love to provide a comprehensive guide to understanding The Golden Compass from a Christian perspective.
The problem is, I haven't read the books, nor have I seen the movie. I'm not certain I will, either-- fantasy is not usually my genre of choice. So instead, I'd like to point you toward those who are familiar with these, and encourage you to benefit from them.
- My old friend Russell Smith, a pastor in Cincinnati, Ohio, has also blogged about the movie in a post entitled, "Why is the Golden Compass a big deal?" Russell offers brief but solid advice for how to think about this film and the lack of good NEW stories being told by Christians.
- Dave Burchett writes thoughtfully about many things, and I appreciate his perspective on why this movie shouldn't be a big deal. His post, "Christians Shouldn't Lose Their Bearings Over a Golden Compass" (which gets extra marks for a clever title) is a great effort to disarm the threat, and also a call to more cultural engagement.
- Those who want to understand the underpinnings of the story, and how Pullman is both an excellent writer and an effective apologist AGAINST the Church, need go no further than Mars Hill Audio. The most recent edition of Mars Hill Audio's Audition podcast is a very informative conversation with literary critic Alan Jacobs about Pullman's writing and stories. It will serve not only as a helpful orientation to Pullman's fantasy world, but also helpful advice about understanding the story without getting sucked into its worldview.
I'm grateful to these men and the resources they provide. I hope you, too, will approach this movie (and other cultural artifacts like it) thoughtfully and willing to engage culture, and not run in fear from culture.
Faith and Anxiety (and other emotional struggles)
Dec. 05, 2007; 11:10 AM Filed in: Church Life
| Personal
Faith and anxiety are not absolutes. That is, if you experience one, you do not eliminate the other. Faith can keep company with many sets of ordinary feelings that can be handled and lived with but never removed. Those who insist on a "pure faith" unstained by human emotionality make the denial of reality a condition of faith. But the encouragement of the Scripture is to "take heart," not take cover. We take heart because we believe that human life in its totality becomes enormously fruitful in the hands of God through the power of God's gracious promises.
Peter L. Steinke, How Your Church Family Works
Why amen?
Dec. 03, 2007; 08:42 AM Filed in: Ministry
Why do we say, "amen?" We read it in the Bible. We say
it when we pray privately, and when we pray together.
We find it many times in our worship service. It used
to be common to end every hymn with a sung "amen." Some
might even be inspired to shout it in response to part
of the sermon! What does this mean?
Literally, the word "amen" means "truly" or "verily." When we say this in response to something someone else has said, it means, "I fully agree" or even, "may it be for me as he has said." It is as if someone has issued a statement and we are, so to speak, signing our name to the bottom to demonstrate our agreement.
Interestingly, Amen is more appropriate as a response by others than as simply a conclusion by the one speaking. If someone is praying, we might agree with them in prayer by saying, "amen" when they have concluded (or even during their prayer, in a subtle and quiet way). If someone proclaims a needed or particularly poignant word in preaching, someone might call out, "amen!" to show their embrace of that word. It is an act of participation. This is why those leading a group in prayer might conclude with an invitation to the group to say, "amen" by saying, "and all of God's people said..."
Literally, the word "amen" means "truly" or "verily." When we say this in response to something someone else has said, it means, "I fully agree" or even, "may it be for me as he has said." It is as if someone has issued a statement and we are, so to speak, signing our name to the bottom to demonstrate our agreement.
Interestingly, Amen is more appropriate as a response by others than as simply a conclusion by the one speaking. If someone is praying, we might agree with them in prayer by saying, "amen" when they have concluded (or even during their prayer, in a subtle and quiet way). If someone proclaims a needed or particularly poignant word in preaching, someone might call out, "amen!" to show their embrace of that word. It is an act of participation. This is why those leading a group in prayer might conclude with an invitation to the group to say, "amen" by saying, "and all of God's people said..."
A daily confession
Nov. 17, 2007; 09:41 AM Filed in: Church Life
John the Baptist offers a strong and healthy confession
of faith in John chapter 1: when asked who he is, he
answers, "I am not the Christ!"
We would all do well to adopt John's confession as our daily affirmation of how much we desperately need a Savior. While it is often tempting to believe that we can earn our way to God's favor, we must realize that it is not so. Instead, we might join John in affirming that, indeed, I-- and we-- are not the Christ.
And give thanks that God has sent us One who is.
We would all do well to adopt John's confession as our daily affirmation of how much we desperately need a Savior. While it is often tempting to believe that we can earn our way to God's favor, we must realize that it is not so. Instead, we might join John in affirming that, indeed, I-- and we-- are not the Christ.
And give thanks that God has sent us One who is.