Satellite Church: More Thoughts On Cultural Captivity

Continuing some thoughts on satellite church campuses, I have run across a few other reactions to the same article and people’s personal experiences with them that I find very instructive.

The first is a comment by Bob Robinson in which he states, “Satellite churches are in danger of making the Sunday worship event so central to ecclesiology that they miss becoming a transformative kingdom community.” This highlights a few crucial issues about why we do church the way we do it.

Are we trying to focus people’s spiritual lives around the experience they receive on the weekend? Even if that is not our intent, it is the inevitable result of a format that is so heavily focused on the concert-like event of a popular and well-funded church? I believe that we help engender consumerism in our adherents when we think our services and pulpit ministers so important that we feel the need to franchise them and keep other communities of differing flavors from evolving. We can ask the question then, looking at how we spend out time and money, what is the difference between where we “worship” and where we buy socks? There is no need for personal involvement or transformation when I purchase socks at the cheapest and best-stocked store or when I choose to “worship” and the latest and greatest fad in evangelical churches.

Should we not rather be focusing people’s spiritual lives on living every breath in the life of Christ? If that is the case, then the focus of our weekend services may change drastically, and might I say, our pastor’s sense of self-importance will be knocked down a few notches. Try as I might to be charitable to this phenomena, I can’t get over the visceral reaction that satellite campuses are inherently prideful. If a large and relatively wealthy church is concerned about another community’s spiritual need, why not plant a church?

The second set of comments comes from the inimitable Dr. Groothuis at The Constructive Curmudgeon. A couple of his comments:

We should unmask the controlling presupposition at work here—functional rationalism. The idea is to create products that can be efficiently reproduced according to a standard model in multiple locations. This works well for mass-market behemoths such as McDonald's, but should we then embrace McChurch, McPastor, or (heaven help us) McGod?

Moreover, these electronically mediated services must be calibrated to the minute if not the second. Hence, the obeisance to the idol of Chronos. What of the serendipitous work of the Holy Spirit wrought through the personal encounter of a pastor with his or her flock?

His first worry is “functional rationalism.” What I think he is concerned with may be colloquially stated as, “you cannot argue with success!” If it works for mega-corporations, it must work for mega-churches, and most importantly, if it makes us bigger it must be theologically and ecclesiologically acceptable. That is a huge leap in logic, but one that is taken way too often in evangelicalism.

The second concern noted above also strikes at the heart of the issue-where does God fit in? What if one congregation needs to be involved in worship longer than the other? What if a pastor senses his “live” audience requires more time on a certain point, but cannot do so because of the time constraints placed on him due to the narcissism of satellite campuses? Does it then become impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the active work of the Holy Spirit in a service when he or she cannot actually interact with the broadcast audience or the “live” congregation? I might think so.

Satellite Church Campuses: The Next Great Model, Or The Latest In Consumer Capitulation?

One of the growing trends in the evangelical world today is the satellite campus. When a church grows too much for its surroundings, or it feels it needs to expand in some significant way but cannot build, it may decide to start a cloned campus of itself.

I want to thank Steve for the link to the story in Christianity Today and his thoughts on the matter. He addresses what is an interesting twist in this trend-what of small rural areas that may not be able to hire a pastor? Would it be beneficial for them if they were part of a satellite campus network? I encourage you to visit his post.

For the uninitiated, a satellite church is a second (or third, fourth…) campus under the auspices of a single church in which the services are a mixture of live and video feed worship and/or sermon. The satellite campus serves another part of a community, but maintains the name, the character and the senior pastor of the main campus. The CT story notes that the Willow Creek satellite campuses are made to look and feel as much like the main campus as possible-like a franchise. The pastor there overseeing the satellite campuses notes:

Even the parking lot directors wear the same orange jackets—so that when people drive up, they immediately feel like they are at Willow. [Jim] Tomberlin says, "We do the same things same way you would do at Starbucks or a McDonald's or a brand name that works."

So what are we to make of this trend? As a church planter, I must admit a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing. Isn’t a satellite church a little self-centered? Isn’t it a bit too much of an extension of a pastor’s or pastoral staff’s ego? What you find with most churches with satellite campuses is that they are large-up into the tens of thousands many times. Is it really all that hard to plant a sovereign church with all those resources and let them grow in a community themselves? Wouldn’t a church plant be better able to know and meet the needs of a specific community better than a video feed from across town?

Many satellite churches, and the ones mentioned in the article, try to meet those challenges by having pastors who oversee the ministry of the satellite campus and are physically there much the same way a typical pastoral staff would be at the main campus.

After reading the article and reflecting a bit, I have to say that I see some potential positives to this trend.

First, as noted by Steve, there may be ways to make this useful to churches and communities that cannot support a full-time pastor, or who have a hard time finding pastors who will stay for more than a couple of years. Steve also notes, though, that this situation has serious drawbacks as well such as the lack of connection between the “pastor” and the church and the relevance of the pulpit ministry. But if those can be overcome, is there a way to extend the ministry of a large church with many resources to a community that cannot enjoy some of those perks?

Secondly, there simply are things a large church can provide that small churches cannot. I have ministered in both, and see advantages in both sizes, and the advantages in a large church have a lot to do with budget.

Jim Tomberlin notes in the CT article that they have found that if parishioners drive more than 30 minutes to church, they are less likely to be involved or to invite friends. So the satellite, for them, helps to mitigate those problems. If they can drive 10 minutes to the “same” church, they are much more likely to invite friends and be involved. Not a bad result.

But there are other critiques that may go deeper than the results of involvement and franchised convenience. This post is getting long, so those will be developed later…

What are your reactions to this phenomena?

"Yes" Theology: Is That All We Can Say?

LeadershipJournal.net - The Inadequacy of "Yes" Theology

This is a good, short article on the necessary task of saying "no" to certain theological positions; saying "yes" necessarily means we say "no" to other postions. If you are a reader of this blog, you are well aware that I am concerned for a sizeable chunk of contemporary evangelicalism-I am worried it is becoming too comfortable with saying "yes" to the exclusion of saying "no." It feels good to assent and dialogue (with very little of a definable goal), and it hurts to say "no." After all, some people will be left carrying the lable of "wrong" if we do so.

The author writes:
Few issues portend so much for the future of the church, because none carries so much potential to fly in the face of the spirit of the age. I speak of the infatuation with pluralism and inclusivism and certain brands of multiculturalism; the belief in the egalitarianism of opinions and feelings—that it is not only wrong, but rude and bigoted to this that some people's ideas and feelings may not be as good or as valid as others. It's the "Who's to Say?" syndrome: Who's to say what is right? The answer is everyone, or no one, or both. Whatever. It's cool.

In response to the accusation that "no" is a narrow response:
But its narrowness is the narrowness of the birth canal, or of a path between two precipices...

Another great religious leader once said something about narrow gates and broad paths.

Reviewer for Mind and Media

mindandmedia reviewer
Originally uploaded by Phil Steiger.

It is always exciting to read good books and share your thoughts-how great is it to do it "officially" and even get a free book or two out of the deal?

Check it out here.

What is a Christian to do?

I have recently been dialoguing with Bob Robinson about postmodern philosophy and the church world, and as a result of our conversation, I thought it helpful to expand on a couple of thoughts. I have always appreciated the thoughtfulness of our exchanges and the fruit it has born in my thinking. This post is a result of our discussion, but it rests on what I see as a general sense of things in the emergent church, or schools of thought that approve of much of pomo philosophy.

In our discussion about the possible role of pomo philosophy, I have made some pretty straight-forward and blanket statements.

For example, pomo philosophy argues that community is deeply formative-gives us our ethics, metaphysics, and human nature-and that kind of deep formation does not jive with Christianity.

I still wholeheartedly believe, especially given the distinction between understanding pomo culture and assenting to pomo philosophy, that there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview.

Bob then countered, wondering if I wasn’t brushing Postmodernism aside too quickly without giving it fair play:

I think it is would actually be more intellectual if Christians did not simply write off pomo as wrong-headed and wash their hands of it all. In doing so, these Christian thinkers would miss the important lesson to be learned: Christianity has always been about "community," we are actually mandated to created such communities to "make disciples...baptizing them...and teaching them."

So, I think Christian thinkers, if they want to intellectually deal with postmodernity, need to have a more nuanced strategy than just simply creating what may be a false dichotomy--"there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview."

As I respond, I want to emphasize that this is not intended to “lambaste” Bob. What he has expressed is part of a much larger whole in the evangelical world today, and that is what I want to address. I want to talk about two issues: Pomo philosophy and community, and what the intelligent thing is for the Christian to do in such situations.

Postmodern Philosophy and Community

The statement that is made often as a defense of the usefulness of Postmodernism is, “the importance of community has been recovered.” That, as is so often asserted, is not a Postmodern view. A more accurate representation of a Postmodern view of community is something like, “our communities and cultures are formative.” Now we need to define terms.

What the typical evangelical means by “community is important” is far from novel, wholly in line with all good Christian theology for 2000 years, and completely biblical. We are the body of Christ, should behave that way toward one another and the outside world, and represent Christ to the culture at large. It means we assimilate the Gospel that was communicated long ago into our present-day lives. We don’t need Postmodernism or any of its philosophical baggage to re-learn that lesson.

The evangelical, orthodox Christian view of community is one thing; the Postmodern view of community is entirely different.

When I say, “community is formative,” there is a world of difference between “important” and “formative.” “Formative” in this context means that our communities and cultures actually form, or create, our views on all the important things: ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, religion, etc. We do not-and for many pomo thinkers it is impossible to-receive useful information about these issues from outside our communities. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for an American to receive any useful (or salvific) information about the first century Jew, Jesus.

Recognizing that there are literally dozens of other issues like this one, I want to reassert and restate one of my original proposals: “community is formative” is inconsistent with “community is important.” One is a Postmodern view, the other is an orthodox Christian view. The two cannot meet without seriously damaging the content and intent of one or the other.

Which brings me to my second point.

What is the intellectual thing to do?

Fundamentally the answer is that the Christian should strive to understand a philosophy, theology, or cultural trend on its own terms, treat it charitably, take it seriously, and asses it on its own terms. When Christian thinkers and writers conflate “important” with “formative,” they are not treating pomo philosophy on its own terms and taking it seriously. For instance, if we really took Rorty seriously, truth would be “what our colleagues let us get away with.” Clearly not a view Christ would take. If we took Derrida seriously, there “is no text.” Then there is no communicable Gospel. It seems to me there is no common ground on those two points.

Being taken with popular, and thus incomplete, treatments of Postmodern philosophy may get some “oohs” and “aahs” from the crowd, but we need to ask a difficult question-is Postmodernism a useful gift or a Trojan Horse?

The Latest In the ID Controversy: Scientists Behaving Badly

I have said in the past that the opponents of Intelligent Design boil down to people who are scared to death of their science and philosophical conclusions, and who spend their time at ad homonim attacks; they smear ID scientists, try to label them with nasty names, and brush them aside. I have taken some smack for that, but I think a recent series of events shows this to be the case.

Richard Sternberg was an editor at a journal that published an article on ID by Stephen Meyer. He is no longer in that role because his fellow “scientists” in the Smithsonian smeared his name and his education and got him removed from his position.

Sound like a story line written up in a fundamentalist, evangelical tabloid? Try the Washington Post. Here are some of the important segments of the article:

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

The underhanded child’s play was so pervasive, an independent investigation was launched to protect Sternberg’s academic integrity.

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

One possible “out” for the Smithsonian accusers is that Sternberg is a Trojan horse-a religiously educated nut-job in a real thinker’s (read “scientist”) clothing. But that one, though tried, didn’t work either:

Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.

Ouch! So, how about accusing him of faking the review process?

He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists, a claim McVay dismissed.

You be the judge as to who is behaving like a rational scientist.

The Alt Church - Who/What Is It, and What Does It Mean?

A thought provoking article showed up in the local paper recently concerning the growing trend of people leaving the traditional church experience for their own, home-grown and individual churching. The article is titled “The Road Less Traveled” and discusses what is sometimes called the “Alt Church.” It may be described in this way:

Some Christians are forsaking familiar churches and cobbling together their own mix-and-match path to God. They worship on mountaintops and laptops, in business suits and tank tops. Most often, they worship in small, tightly knit groups and can be found across Colorado Springs any day of the week.

These Christians would say they’re not so much “unchurched” as “alternativechurched.” They don’t think they need trained clergy or large congregations to find the face of God: All they need is desire and faith. George Barna, evangelical Christianity’s most respected researcher, says these alt-churched Christians will change Christianity forever — and force some churches out of business.

My knee-jerk reaction when this kind of issue is raised is to categorize the personalized Christian as someone who is simply lazy and too disgruntled to be happy anywhere but inside their own head. But the stats and information conveyed through the article put a different perspective on it for me. Here are a few excerpts:

Others are radically spiritual. Barna’s research organization, the California-based Barna Group, suggests that many of these alt-churched Christians pray more, give more money to charity and know their Bible better than their church-attending counterparts.

And again:

“These are what we would classify as the most spiritually minded and spiritually passionate people around,” said Thom Black, Barna’s partner.

So this is not your “Creaster” crowd suddenly becoming statistically significant. They appear to be sincere and spiritually active Christians who have simply decided to detach themselves from the body of Christ to one degree or another. And lest you think this is a dwindling trend, Barna has done some pretty extensive research, is publishing a book on the subject, and has some interesting things to project.

Barna suggests this group, which he calls “revolutionaries,” will experience staggering growth. Although about 70 percent of American Christians saw the church as their “primary means of spiritual experience and expression” in 2000, Barna estimates that number will drop to as low as 30 percent by 2025. Another 30 to 35 percent will find a spiritual home in smaller faith-based communities such as house churches; still another 30 to 35 percent will get spiritual nourishment from Christian books, movies and concerts.

One prescient pastor was quoted:

“When the home-schooling movement was gathering steam, I used to joke that the next step toward Christian isolationism was to home church ourselves,” said Ed Rowell of Tri-Lakes Chapel. “I’m not joking anymore.”

I like that thought in this context-a worry about “Christian isolationism.” Most of us evangelicals hail from an ecclesiastical tradition in which the primary reaction to dislike of our surroundings is to circle the wagons-we cut ourselves off from the culture at large.

The same pastor went on to say:

“Evangelism has so stressed the individual aspect of salvation that we have become neglectful of the communal aspect of what the Bible calls sanctification, or spiritual maturity,” Rowell said. “We’ve changed from a ‘we’ theology to a ‘me’ theology. Being a follower of Christ is personal, but it is not private.”

I am going to write up some thoughts on this, but I would love your input. Are you an Alt Churcher? Do you have the drive to disassociate yourself from the church community? If so, what considerations brought you to this point?

Stand To Reason Weblog-On Emergent

STR WEBLOG

There are a couple of good posts and concerns on the STR weblog about the emergent church movement. I like the fact that they have used their position in Christian apologetics to engage Emergent and open honest dialogue (see their radio archives, for instance).

Does Our Tone In Public Debate Matter?

This is a great short column by the astute Marvin Olasky concerning the phenomena recently dubbed, “South Park Conservatism.” (I think it requires a free registration.) The essay contends that though there may be plenty of conservatives who fit the bill and who use sarcastic, sardonic, and even crass and offensive humor to get their point across, there is a different standard for the Christian-conservative or liberal. In response to a point Ann Coulter made at a college speech about not caring what people thought about her he writes:

And yet, while it doesn't matter what people think about us, it does matter what people think about Christ. Sophisticates showed contempt toward Paul's words in Athens (Acts 17), but some listened. What if, instead of arguing logically, he had ranted?

And a little later:

How would Paul act in today's culture? How, for that matter, would 18th-century members of the religious right like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry? I suspect they would still be firm but courteous, displaying bravery without bombast.

I know it is obvious we live in a short-minded and sound-byte culture in which most pundits and advocates cannot be heard above the din without becoming more radical or outrageous, but Christians have a different standard to uphold.

As Kierkegaard once said, we have an “audience of one.” Maybe we should keep that at the forefront of our conversations when we address cultural and political issues from a Christian point of view. How would that change the way “evangelical representatives” sounded on cable news shows or on paid advertising during an election season? How would that change our tone when we write books, blogs, or letters to the editor?

Our job, if we are to be specific, is to witness to the truth. The work of the Holy Spirit is to open the hearts and minds of people-we do not carry that burden.

The Da Vinci Code-Will the Movie Match Up With History?

It appears some Catholic groups are lodging an “official” complaint to the makers of The Da Vinci Code movie. And even more interesting, it may be the case that they are listening.

If you have been aware of this issue at all, you know that there are many competent rebuttals of Dan Brown’s historical fallacies. His history is an issue, really, only because he asserts at the beginning of the book that all the history he cites is true. It is amazing the power that one little phrase in an introduction can have. People are willing to question centuries of settled and known history about the Church and Christ because a fictional author with a vendetta says otherwise.

Anyway, if you are looking for more resources on the history referenced in The Da Vinci Code, this mp3 of a lecture done by Dr. Craig Blomberg is as useful as it gets.

The Role of the Holy Spirit/The Role of Reason

To tackle this issue is to tackle one of the perennial questions that has faced the Church for ages, and I make no claim of “answering” it in this little post. But I do think I would like to throw a couple of ideas out there resulting from some of the comments and back and forth on the last couple of posts.

First, when working out the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, and more specifically, the life of the mind, I think it is useful to ask, “How does the Holy Spirit work?” I think there are two basic answers: through the gifts and abilities of God’s people and miraculously. If that, or something like it, is true then it is incumbent upon me, a believer striving to be faithful, to use my gifts and abilities as best as I possibly can.

Now I believe every human has been created with the capacity to reason-it is part of being an image bearer of God. If I fail to work that mental muscle to the best of my ability, it is not all that different from being gifted as an evangelist and refusing to evangelize. Therefore, I should strive to think as well as I possibly can.

This point of view cuts against the grain of what is usually thought of as the work of the Holy Spirit. Typically people believe that the H.S.’s work is excluded to the realm of the miraculous. What I am arguing for is a both/and kind of view. The H.S. works miraculously and through the lives and actions of believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ. In this case there need not be any conflict between the two.

The point is often raised that there are sometimes sharp and irreconcilable differences between people when they “use reason.” And thus, it is said, we cannot rely on reason but only on faith. One of the things I think that objection misses is that there are sharp and irreconcilable differences between people who believe on “faith alone.” What then? Equally sincere and religious people hold to certain things on faith in Jesus Christ, but they often conflict with each other. We are left with the same problem, and thus it is not a very good argument against “using reason.”

Disagreement between equally intelligent and faithful people is an interesting issue all by itself, but note that disagreement does not by fiat mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Because people disagree does not make postmodern relativism true; disagreement does not negate the usefulness of the process of reasoning; and disagreement over issues of faith does not mean there is not one true Faith out there.

So what do we do when people disagree? The nutshell answer is, "think some more."

Thinking through issues or “using reason” to the best of our abilities is something we could use more of in this world and not less. It is a tool God has graciously given His creation so they can understand Him and His world better-it is a tool that can and should be used to great practical, pastoral and theological advantage.

Metanarratives, Postmodernism and Christianity

Ever have one of those moments in which you think something like, “Wow-so 2+2=4!” It is one of those moments of epiphany in which you wonder how you never saw that before. I had one of those reading an article in the latest Philosophia Christi by Brendan Sweetman entitled, “Lyotard, Postmodernism, and Religion.”

His fundamental point was quite straightforward and one that I am a little embarrassed at not putting together myself a long time ago. But I guess this is why we read things written by people much smarter than we! The question is whether there is a place for religion, specifically Christianity, within a Postmodern philosophical construct. Sweetman’s answer is, “no.” The reason, the argument of his paper, constituted my own private epiphany:

1.Postmodernism in its most fundamental and essential form is incredulity toward metanarratives.
2.Christianity is a metanarrative.
3.Therefore, there is no place for Christianity within a Postmodern philosophical construct.

I have to say I agree, and that I have always agreed. When evangelicals play with Postmodernism they are literally adopting philosophical tenants that are contradictory with their own Christianity. The two schools of thought cannot be assented to at the same time taking the central claims of each seriously and without equivocation.

There are two ways of getting around the above argument. First, deny the first premise. I think that fails in large part because it is the founding principle of postmodern thought and has influenced all its developments since Lyotard. Anything that now passes as postmodern-pragmatism, language-games, ethically significant cultures, deconstruction-all stem from the basic premise, “incredulity toward metanarrative.”

The second, and probably more popular route would be to deny the second premise. The best way to deny that Christianity is a metanarrative might be (as the article points out) to create a strong bifurcation between faith and reason, assert that Christianity is only a matter of faith, and that metanarratives are exclusively matters of reason. But this denial misconstrues the Biblical notion of faith, turns it into something it was never intended to be (ONLY “blind faith”), and fails to take seriously the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical claims of the Christian faith.

Christianity is clearly a metanarrative-a narrative for the ages.

Emergent and Truth: Why Believe in Truth?

Over the past several months I have enjoyed some of the back-and-forth I have been able to have with Public Theologian on this site. Most of all, PT has remained civil and thoughtful in disagreement, and for the most part, we have been able to discuss controversial issues with each other without resorting to flaming. PT commented on my last post, and in response, I decided that an entire post of my own was appropriate. PT’s views expressed in the latest comment highlights, I think, one of the most significant divides in Christendom. Forget Orthodox vs. Catholic-I am talking about a certain kind of fideism vs. a belief in objective truth and the use of reason; a theology that swallows language games whole and a theology that requires transcultural communication of truth.

I will comment on some of the highlights from PT’s latest thoughts, but this post is as much a reaction to what I am reading on the web and in articles and books as any single person’s comment.

I too believe in the reliability of the scriptures, but I do so as a matter of faith, not as matter of reason.

These kinds of sentiments cause me to wonder what kind of hard and fast distinction people have between “faith” and “reason.” Doubtless there are differences in the two means of knowing, but the mistake occurs when people make them mutually exclusive. For instance, I believe astronauts landed on the moon. How do I know that to be the case? It is only because of my trust (faith) in historical record and my reliance on authorities in the field. Those reasons for my belief are reasonable and not a matter of blind faith (the kind of faith I think PT advocates). My faith in historical record actually makes my belief that people landed on the moon more reasonable than the contrary belief. In fact, we consider those who disagree with the historical record to be unreasonable.

Despite pious sentiments to the contrary, faith is not opposed to reason.

My disagreement with those who want to advocate objectivity is that they have no theory which will stand to scrutiny either in language or physics whereby to make such absolute statements.

This is simply not true. Linguistics is by no means a homogenous field of study, and there are certainly those who believe that language is a “game” or a kind of metaphysical trap we cannot get out of, but they are far from the standard. Early in theological and philosophical thought, language was seen as signs pointing to referents. Augustine made the point that language is pointless unless it points (forgive the pun). And he was right. If PT is right that the realities of language cannot admit any kind of objectivity (if it doesn’t really point anywhere significant), then I literally don’t know what PT is saying. Maybe it is some kind of grunt or special mantra those in his linguistic community utter, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.

And though I am not an expert on the latest theory in physics, it is my understanding that a common mistake made by many is taking something like Relativity Theory or Chaos Theory and misapplying them ethically or ontologically. It would be like arguing, “We live in a free country, so I am free to club baby seals with aborted fetuses and you can’t stop me!” And I may be wrong, but I am not sure Rodger Penrose or Frank J. Tipler would agree with PT.

Why isn't it enough to simply say that we share a language game with most people in our environment and that probably 99% of our utterances, verbal or written, are intelligible based upon that shared framework, but that at certain points our experiences differ and agreement cannot be reached on the other 1%? What is wrong with that?

Well, several things. The primary problem with that is that there has been no acceptable definition of what a “culture” or a “social environment” really is. If we are going to limit truth and truth-communicating utterances to cultures or environments, then is it absolutely necessary to adequately define those terms. Unfortunately, no one has been able to do that. Very serious attempts have been made, but they all fall prey to the same kind of simple but devastating critique: we all belong to many of those cultures. So which is actually formative, or important? Which one forms our sense of ethics or language, and what if it is more than one? Very literally, no two people share 99% of their “cultures” with each other.

Secondly, do any of us share 99% of our language game with an ancient Hebrew or a Jew at the peak of the Roman Empire? I dare say not. So how is it we are able to communicate with Scripture-specifically, what ability does the Bible have to communicate the Gospel to us today?

Thirdly, reducing truth-communication to probabilities guarantees the inconsequential nature of your communications. Which leads me to the heart of our disagreement.

There is a lot of fear mongering about what will happen to the world if we can't spell truth with a capital T but no decent evidence as to why it is necessary that we should….Why is it so important for you to be able to assert a universally valid, universally applicable language and logic?

First, it is important because it is true. And while that may sound tautological, it is merely me assenting to the facts of reality. Saying that logic is “universally valid” is not an argument I make; it is a fact of life not all that different from gravity. To say that there isn’t any evidence why we should believe that is just utterly silly.

Second, it isn’t fear mongering; it is trying to teach Christians how to think well. Relativisms based upon the supposed triumph of language games are not much more than self-defeating goofiness. There are sociological lessons to be learned about the facts of how people communicate, but the classic blunder of applying the description of language games to a prescription about reality is committed far too often. If Christians want to think well, they will know the profound and worldview-changing consequences of descriptions versus prescriptions.

Thirdly, and this point has been glossed over so many times it have become almost to slippery to state: if we cannot believe in “T”ruth or some kind of universally applicable realities (accurately communicated through language), than we simply cannot assert that Christianity is true and all other religions are false. This point cannot be made too often, and yet a growing chunk of our evangelical culture today asserts contradictory theses without really grasping the actual consequences. We cannot assert, “Christ is Lord,” not believe in universally valid truth, and believe the simple meaning of Scripture all at the same time.

Outreach To South Africa

outreachsouthafrica

It was cool to get this in a newsletter yesterday. It is the blog of a pair of new missionaries our church has been supporting this year.

The Value of a Holistic Education

This article in Christian History struck a chord with me, “Elementary School: Medieval to Modern.” It is a brief notation on the educational philosophy of Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670).

One section reads:

But he believed that education, though not in itself redemptive, could complement the gospel by fostering international restoration, unity, and peace. People have long understood that one potential benefit of a liberal education is the tolerance and generosity of spirit it can instill in its students. Rising above Europe's fractiousness, Comenius taught a strongly Christ-centered version of this old ideal.

In working to establish Dayspring for Christian Studies, I have run across both a prejudice against the use of any kind of general education, as well as a great appreciation for a well-rounded worldview curriculum. Dayspring’s mission is to engage the University with a Christian worldview. In large part, we do that by providing general core classes to students taught by faithful and studious Christians. A lot of people haven’t understood why we don’t just offer a bunch of Bible classes.

Too many ministers and Christians believe that to be well trained as a Christian means to have four years of evangelism and missions classes. Now, don’t get me wrong: those educational systems serve their purposes and have their role, but it likely isn’t the role of producing people who are well equipped to faithfully live in and exegete well their culture.

I think Comenius had it right. A good grounding in a broad range of topics and studies better prepares Christians to engage our world.

Emergent and Truth II: Can We Be Certain?

The Emergent and Postmodern penchant for uncertainty and our cultural captivity misses a couple of very important points when it comes to human beings as knowers. It is certainly true that we all see the world through lenses, and that our cultures often provide lenses for us that we know not of. But that then does not make it true that we are unalterably bound by our cultures, that language is a kind of game we cannot escape, that we cannot find any kind of epistemic objectivity, or that our belief system as Christians is a muddle of Western and Greek cultures more than is it a genuine representation of Christ and the Apostles.

So can we genuinely know things with any kind of objectivity or are we insurmountably bound by our communities? A good place to begin thinking about this would be the distinction between psychological objectivity and what we might call rational objectivity. Psychological objectivity describes a knower who is outside of or above any particular bias about an issue. While psychological objectivity may be rare or seem to be an impossible mental state, it really does exist. You are totally objective about the present temperature in Singapore. So it exists in any person’s catalogue of knowledge, but it may be trivial in many instances. A second note about psychological objectivity is that it is a good thing in several ways. We adhere to beliefs like the value of family and the good of voting in a democratic society through our cultural lenses. But we are not wrong on either count, and it would be a vice, for instance, to constantly regard your family with an affectionate disconnection.

Psychological objectivity appears to be the only kind of objectivity Emergent authors and pomos are willing to admit. But there is another that makes all the difference. The second form, rational objectivity, is simply the state of having good reasons for believing something, or, having good epistemic access to a thing itself. It is crucial to note the relationship between psychological and rational objectivity:

Being psychologically committed to a belief does not exclude rational objectivity,
and,
Rational objectivity is probably the more important of the two, and it is an entirely possible epistemic state.

If either one of those propositions were false (as some Emergent and all pomo authors claim), then we are in a pickle indeed. If bias made rational objectivity impossible, math teachers would not be a reliable source of mathematical instruction (they would be too biased). You can multiply the examples ad infinitum, leading to utter absurdity.

The best kind of example within a Christian context would be some apologetic matter such as the historical reliability of the Scriptures. I am psychologically committed to their historical reliability, but I have good reasons behind that belief. I do not believe the proposition, “the Christian Scriptures are reliable,” because I dreamt it or because a squirrel once spelled it out in nuts on my back porch. Those would obviously be bad reasons for believing anything, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know the difference between good and bad reasons.

Many Emergents believe they are doing us all a service by rejecting “Modern” or “Enlightenment” views of things and picking up on a much more Postmodern view of things. Exactly the opposite is true in too many cases to count.

A Great New Blog

Dr. Groothuis is a Philosophy professor at Denver Seminary, and of much less importance, a former professor of mine. (I hereby take full responsibility for all philosophical flops in ETC.) His new blog is The Constructive Curmudgeon. He has a way with words you don't find many places. As a teaser, this is from his latest visit to a booksellers convention:

Yet, by the grace of God (which also held back the "cleansing of the temple"), four things made it bearable....(4) I brought my TV-B-Gone with me. This is a universal television remote control device that turns off most televisions. I have been learning the esoteric skill of temporary television termination for several months now, but this surfeit of screens made it possible to break my personal record for TV kills in one day: thirteen terminations (eleven at the convention and two at restaurant before that). I was able to hit four of the God-knows how-many screens showing "Angel Wars"—a partial victory, but one I savor. One must use this blessed device discretely, since one doesn’t want to be caught zapping the great Idol of our age. The downside is that you have to usually watch the screen for up to a minute to properly aim the device. (It cycles through possible frequencies in sixty-nine seconds).

Emergent and the Role of Truth

Much is being said recently about the Emergent movement and the concept of truth, and I am not quite sure what to make of all of it. What I am gaining a better appreciation for, though, is that their needs to be more clear philosophical thinking brought into the discussion. Many emergent bloggers note that people seem to be speaking past each other on this topic and therefore not understanding each other, and that is certainly true. And while there are plenty of Emergent leaders affirming the importance of truth, there are also several “iffy” things being asserted about truth by plenty of other emergents. By no means would it be proper to claim guilt by association, but it would behoove us all to engage in some directed discussion.

There are, for example, a lot of broad and sweeping statements out there about capital “T” Truth as opposed to our articulation of truth. What that may mean, if we are to be precise, is that many emergents are affirming an absolute, or objective sense of truth, but denying a significant epistemological grasp of Truth. It is common for emergent writers to emphasize our “cultural captivity” and point out that we cannot assert anything without it being a result of our cultural influences. Is this a form of relativism, specifically epistemological relativism? It certainly borders on it, and if it is not (as many emergents state), then there needs to be some clarification on the usefulness and role of Truth if we cannot have an adequate epistemological grasp of it. In other words, if emergents want to hold to a deep role for our cultural captivity and the reality of metaphysical truth all at the same time, a significant relationship between the two needs to be clarified. Otherwise, metaphysical truth becomes irrelevant. I do not believe one can claim we are bound by our cultures in this kind of way and then simply assert the reality of metaphysical truth without clarifying what they mean by both assertions.

And this is exactly what I have worried about in the past. I am concerned that emergent thought is too comfortable with pomo philosophy without fully comprehending its consequences. As an example of its consequences, Richard Rorty, a pomo philosopher, has clearly seen and wholeheartedly adhered to epistemological and cultural relativism and the consequential irrelevance of metaphysical truth. He in fact labels his view “antirepresentationalism”: the point is not that metaphysical truth does not exist, the point is that we cannot and do not reflect it, and therefore it is utterly unpragmatic and thus irrelevant. So what naturally follows is that we cannot judge between right and wrong, and in a Christian context, we cannot judge between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. “Christ died for your sins” is then neither true nor false in an objective sense. In fact, “Christ died” suffers the same fate. Not a position a Christian should be in.

In my next couple of posts I will be responding to some of what I am seeing out there on the blogosphere when it comes to the Emergent movement, truth, and epistemological relativism. I think a good place to begin will be to address the issue of certainty and being “bound” by our cultures (a connection between objective truth and our grasp of it). Hopefully we can all bring a little clarification and direction to the discussion.

Eugene Peterson: Spirituality for the Wrong Reasons

I ran across this great interview with Eugene Peterson in Christianity Today, and I think it is worth the time to read and reflect upon. Thanks to Steve at Out In The Sticks for the link!

In the interview, Peterson reflects on the “daliyness” of Christian spirituality and the hollowness of relevance. As Steve points out in his post, it is interesting that the editor of The Message decries relevance so quickly. A couple of snippets:

I have a friend who is an expert at this sort of thing. He's always saying, "You've got to identify people's felt needs. Then you construct a program to meet the felt needs." It's pretty easy to manipulate people. We're so used to being manipulated by the image industry, the publicity industry, and the politicians that we hardly know we're being manipulated.

This impatience to leave the methods of Jesus in order to get the work of Jesus done is what destroys spirituality, because we're using a non-biblical, non-Jesus way to do what Jesus did. That's why spirituality is in such a mess as it is today….

How do we meet the need? Do we do it in Jesus' way or do we do it the Wal-Mart way?

And then the quote in Steve’s post is great:

I think relevance is a crock. I don't think people care a whole lot about what kind of music you have or how you shape the service. They want a place where God is taken seriously, where they're taken seriously, where there is no manipulation of their emotions or their consumer needs.

Why did we get captured by this advertising, publicity mindset? I think it's destroying our church.

Os Guinness has made the point well that relevance is not only an idol that diverts our attention from God, but it is a fickle idol as well. As soon as we catch up with the latest cultural wave, the leading edge has passed us by and we are left looking old.

In the balance between communicating the Gospel to a culture in ways it can understand and holding to the everlasting principles of the faith, there is a wrong way to go. If we were to err in one direction or the other, there is an error with more inherent danger than the other. And too often, it is the direction a lot of evangelicals take in their insatiable pursuit for relevance.

Flaming and Civility: Virtual vs. the Real World

So I received a comment yesterday:

“you’re a moron.”

That is all it said, and it was, of course, anonymous. It is buried somewhere in my old posts and I have not been able to find it, so I can’t even tell if I really was a moron or not.

This kind of thing always causes me to reflect a bit on the means of blogging and electronic communication in general. There is a powerful sense of disconnection and depersonalization that comes with the virtual world, and I wonder if anonymity has a kind of vice inducing power over a lot of people.

Anonymity, for one thing, makes us bold when we would otherwise be more thoughtful and measured with our remarks. In a public, face-to-face conversation, few people would consider that comment an appropriate way to behave. But once all accountability is removed, then deep motivations and twisted character traits are revealed.

I think what I worry about more and more is that the depersonalization of the virtual world is creeping into our face-to-face interactions. I worry that people deem that kind of crass, infantile and base behavior appropriate when they encounter something or someone with which they disagree or simply don’t understand. I guess any daytime talk show may serve as evidence for this concern.

I am finishing a book I hope to review soon, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World, in which the author, Richard Mouw, makes the case for civility as a kind of public virtue for the Christian. One of the goals of the book is to convince individuals that civility is the best way of interacting with your fellow human being, and is certainly a powerful way of communicating the Gospel with a world that doesn’t know Christ. Although I disagree with some of his thoughts, I believe the basic thrust of the book is vital: civil interaction with your fellow human being is a kind of a virtue, and the sort of conversation displayed by my flamer is actually a character flaw-a vice.

Dayspring Center for Christian Studies

Dayspring Center for Christian Studies is still on track for launcing this fall. We bought some ad space on a local radio station, KGFT100.7, and I have been talking to local youth pastors and Christian schools about students looking for college credit. Very exciting!

As some of you know, I transitioned jobs this spring and that has put a small kink in my blogging habits. But I am still hoping to stay in the swing of things as I find my new rhythm.

And just in case you are interested in looking at Dayspring, all our information is on the web page including registration.

Every Thought Captive in the News

blog, blog, blog

This is the second time ETC has made it into the local paper. The last time was a bit of interaction with the emergent community in Colorado Springs, and here it is the lead thought on a good article on religious blogging.

The author, Paul Asay, is becoming a friend, and has done a really good job of getting some thoughful responses from several of the bigger evangelical blogs.

Is There Something Missing In This Declaration Against Poverty?

If you follow religion and politics closely, you are sure to be aware of the Sojourners organization. Recently they organized a delegation to the G8 Summit in order to help deal with the issue of world poverty. A noble goal indeed. But we are not judged only in accordance with the nobility of our goals. Here is part of the text of their declaration contained in a news piece:

We also applaud momentum being built by grass roots campaigns around the world who are addressing these issues and pledge to mobilize our energies, in partnership with faith leaders from the Global South, to realize common goals emerging from these campaigns and the Millennium Development Goals:

Debt – The recent agreement on 100% debt cancellation for eighteen of the world’s poorest countries represents a major step forward that should now be expanded to include all multilateral creditors and more impoverished and heavily indebted nations.

Aid – The moral scandal of extreme poverty requires that the wealthy nations do much more to assist the poorest countries in fighting poverty, hunger and disease through a dramatic improvement in the quantity and quality of aid. We are also united in the call for good governance and an end to the corruption that undermines all nations and people. Conditions attached to aid and debt cancellation must not be used to reinforce existing patterns of inequality that undermine pro-poor policies of local governments.

Trade – The structural inequities and power imbalances in trade rules that tilt toward the rich nations at the expense of impoverished nations must be reformed so that people can earn a sustainable income and the private sector can generate jobs and wealth for the common good. Rich countries must reform their subsidies to prevent the dumping of produce on world markets and strengthen special and differential treatment for poor countries so that they are able to protect vulnerable producers and develop new industries.

Though there is a bit of emphasis on what I consider to be the primay goal in dealing with world poverty-the governmental structure of nations-it is subusmed within the perceived responsibility of rich nations. Rich nations can give aid all day long (and have been for decades), but if toatlitarian regims are not eliminated, will that aid make it to the people who need it the most? History tells us "no."

I applaud the efforts and intentions of Sojourners, but I wonder if their political philosophy has created a blind spot in their declaration.

The Story We Find Ourselves In: A Review

The Story-McLaren
Originally uploaded by Phil Steiger.

In this continuation of Neo and pastor Dan’s story, McLaren does not succeed in giving us much that is genuinely insightful or with great impact. Besides a couple of genuine moments in the story line in which characters appear to come to terms with God and their spirituality (even then, though, McLaren is extremely shy of the concept and the word “conversion”), there is not much in either the fiction or the theology to recommend.

One general point of critique would be the postmodern penchant for story and dialogue in which no clear point is made and, allegedly, no side is taken. As philosophers no less than Aristotle and Davidson have pointed out, a good story or metaphor has a plot or makes a point. What is a metaphor or a story but a clever and unique way of saying something fairly specific? Dialogue simply for the sake of dialogue is basically (and maybe literally) meaningless. Christ did not speak in parables in order not to make a point.

As for the theology, most of what McLaren has to say in this second part of his trilogy is wrapped in politics, an obvious adherence to evolution, and his clear aversion things traditionally evangelical. The only “bad guys” in this work are caricatures of traditional evangelicals. At times McLaren seems to toy with Monism, Pelagianism, and a general lack of definition of sin and redemption. The concept of redemption looms large in his book, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what needs to be redeemed except white evangelicals and conservative politics. In other words, sin does not play the role it needs to in order for McLaren’s version of redemption to be meaningful.

At one point near the end of the story when McLaren is laying the foundation for the third book’s plot, his theology hits the surface. Dan and Neo are reflecting on the death of one character and Dan is questioning him about heaven and hell. Neo is talking around the issue and Dan presses him on the point. Neo’s, and apparently McLaren’s, response is, “Why do you always need to ask that question?” Neo then continues to evade giving a clear or distinct answer to the question. The answer to why the question of heaven and hell needs to be answered is obvious-because it is the one final question every single human being ever born needs to face. Seems to me that a caring and thoughtful response would not be a gloss but an answer.

Unless you are interested in understanding the theology of the emergent church movement, I would not recommend this book.

Serious Times: A Review

SeriousTimes
Originally uploaded by Phil Steiger.

One of the waves of Christian authorship in popular level non-fiction right now deals with what a worldview is and how it gets worked out in a believer’s life. Among what is out there right now, there are a lot of relatively simple and shallow works, and then there are well researched and documented books that are wonderful in their own right. A few span the gap of popular appeal and readability and solid scholarship well, and Serious Times: Making Your Life Matter In An Urgent Day is one of those.

The book itself is fairly short and can be read easily in a few days or a week if one chooses. And due to the fair sized splash the book has made, there are a few resources and aids available to help in the study and application of the book’s topic matter. The accompanying website, www.serioustimes.com, is a good source for further reading and study for the Christian life.

The first three chapters, “The Second Fall”, “The World That Lives In Us”, and “The City of Dreadful Delight” set the cultural stage for the believer. What I appreciated most about this section of White’s work is that he deals honestly (though admittedly briefly) with a few of the major cultural shifts the West has seen. Specifically he deals well with the Enlightenment and its effects on culture. It seems that the Enlightenment has become a popular whipping boy in current church thought, and too often what is whipped is a straw-man or simply a caricature so distorted that it is simply false.

The second set of chapters are well organized around the topics of “Deepening our Souls”, “Developing Our Minds”, “Answering the Call”, and “Aligning With The Church.” Each chapter is worth the book not only in the concepts White puts across, but in the endnotes and resources for further study.

After each chapter there is a short, one to two page biography highlighting the point of the chapter. Often these biographies take over the substance and ideas of a book, but he has kept them brief enough and too the point so that they serve the broader purpose of the book quite well.

As a pastor, this is the kind of book that I would choose for a small group of believers who are serious about the call on their lives and/or interested in leadership within the church. Contrary to the books typically chosen for those kinds of leadership groups, this work is not specifically interested in leadership techniques. Instead, and to its great credit, it is interested in helping each and every believer live lives of significance, and in my opinion, it goes a long way toward reaching that goal.

Good Resource - Serious Times Website

Serious Times

I have recently finished reading the book that this website is based upon, and I enjoyed it greatly. It was a great, and rare, mixture of a work on Christian worldview being accessible and steeped in serious scholarship itself. I hope to get a review written on it, and in the mean time I would encourage you to take a look at it if you would like a book on this subject that will also provide a great resource for further reading.

What Is a 'Religious Point of View'?

My conversation with Public Theologian below has sparked a question for me: in matters of the public square, what compromises a “religious point of view”? This question is of amazing importance in our culture right now as a number of public evangelicals and others do their best to advocate for a Christian point of view while there are entire organizations dedicated to removing a religious point of view from the public square. Hence, the definition of what compromises a religious point of view is of pressing importance.

As a case in point, during the Terri Schaivo scenario I listened to Senators argue that we as a country cannot protect her life because that was a religious point of view and religion does not belong in legislation. I find that line of thought appallingly shallow and dangerous, but it highlights my question. As another case in point, many label the science of ID as a religious point of view, and therefore it cannot be seriously taken as science. So must the science that we are allowed to teach in public schools necessarily lead to atheistic conclusions? No matter how scientific a point of view is, if it leads to some form of Designer or Theism, must it therefore be rejected? Apparently so.

So, what compromises a “religious point of view,” and more to the point, how should they be handled in the public square? Can a certain definition of a “religious point of view” necessarily exclude it from serious consideration in the broader public? (Now that I get to thinking about this, it will take far more than a post, and far more than a series of serious posts to appropriately address this topic-but, here goes…)

Are they views that are simply in accord with views held my one major religion or another? As uselessly broad as this proposal sounds, I would argue that it is more of a reality for us politically than we might imagine. The Senators who argued that legislation should not be in favor of Terri Schaivo living were espousing this point of view, and those who reject any form of scientific endeavor that may not lead to atheism are also espousing this view.

But as a principle, this proposal simply cannot stand. Christianity, for instance, views cold-blooded murder as wrong. Our laws see it the same way. So if this proposal were to stand as is, we must reject all laws prohibiting murder out of hand. These kinds of examples are multifold; so this definition should be rejected, and thus the reasoning behind the Senatorial and scientific views above must also be rejected.

Are they views that begin with expressly religious premises? In other words, must we reject all views as inappropriate for public consumption if the reasoning for those views begins something like, “because God said…” or “because my Holy Book says…”? As a definition of what a religious point of view is, we are closer to the truth than the last proposal. At least here we are beginning on territory claimed by a certain religion, and supposedly reaching conclusions agreeable with that religion. In this way, when we assert the proposition, “this is a religious point of view,” we are meaning to say something like, “I am beginning with principles taught by a certain religion and reaching conclusions in accord with the same religion.” But, of course, it must be added that just beginning with, “because my Holy Book says…” does not guarantee conclusions that are actually amenable with that religion.

But even with views that are this expressly religious, there is no good reason to reject them out of hand in the public square. First, to do so would commit the genetic fallacy. In this context that would mean we reject an opinion about a matter simply because it comes from a certain sector of society or a certain point of view. We would not reject the truth of “the sky looks blue” just because it was uttered by a serial rapist. Second, the worth of any point of view in the public square is a function of its truth, not its adherents. So, if Intelligent Design wants to be heard in the larger scientific world, and its proponents have done their homework, it should be heard. Then and only then should its claims be considered as true or false. Instead, it is being prejudged in relation to its most typical adherents-conservative Christians. (That, in my opinion, is why it is not being given a hearing in the larger scientific world-not because it is 'unscientific'.)

So I am going to leave off here-this will get too long too quickly. I would love to hear other proposals and thoughts.

Pentecostal Pastors and Theological Influences

Pastor's Most Influential Books

Why is this the case?: Pastors who lead charismatic or Pentecostal congregations were by far the least likely to include books on theology among their chosen titles: only 2% did so.

I know polls are limited in their scope and actual sampling, but somehow I am not all that shocked. Don't get me wrong-I read books on church culture, leadership, theology, philosophy and so forth, and I have nothing against any of these categories as such. But I find it a little disheartening that Pentecostal pastors were the least likely to be influenced by a work of theology. (Remember-I am a Pentecostal pastor myself.)

Maybe this is why I can't find much in the way of serious Pentecostal scholarship in the areas of ecclesiology, theology and worldview. Can someone help??

An Official State Dogma?

Georgia Textbook Evolution Stickers Removed

Much has been said about this issue, but reading this article this morning, a familiar phrase caught my attention all over again.

Six parents sued to remove the stickers saying the disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state. A federal judge in January agreed and ordered the stickers be removed.

Are we happy with there being an official state dogma on a scientific theory-a scientific position that is determined and mandated by the state? According to the logic of this ruling, not only is a non-Darwinistic theory inherently religious (a non sequitor itself), but the reigning Darwinistic theory is the only theory allowed in state run schools.

Are adherants to theistic evolution content with this state of affairs?

Still Morally Confused Over Stem Cells

The world of embryonic stem cell research has reached a fevered pitch in the last week with the announcement by the Koreans that they have successfully cloned an embryo and harvested its stem cells. These activities have been going on for some time now, but the “open” announcements are now coming to the surface.

First, I think it needs to be understood that in order to harvest stem cells from embryos, the embryo must be destroyed. So, if we were to translate what the Koreans (among others) have done into morally clear language, they have arbitrarily created a human and promptly murdered it.

But so many right now are supporting what has been done because of the potential benefit ESCs have for disease research. The catch, of course, is that it is still all potential whereas adult stem cells are already having clinical applications as well as showing pluripotent promise. FOX News Sunday recently interviewed a couple of people on this issue, and the public myopia and confusion regarding stem cells was readily apparent.

The first guest was formet NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason who has a son who suffers from cystic fibrosis. Here are a string of quotes that exemplify quite a few of our culture’s moral misconceptions. Chris Wallace is asking the questions.

WALLACE: So far, what does the research indicate about how helpful stem cells might be in treating cystic fibrosis?
ESIASON: You know, well, we don't know….Stem cell research is, you know, many people think in the scientific arena that there are answers there, that we might find a way to cure these diseases.

So Esiason recognizes that the promises are all potential at the moment.

WALLACE: How do you respond to that argument: that it's destroying life in order to save life?
ESIASON: Well, you know, I'm disappointed by that.

Esiason is disappointed that the fact that an embryo is a human being might dissuade some people from allowing their wholesale destruction. Wow-I have never heard of anyone who is “disappointed” at laws against the murder of innocent babies.

What needs to be learned from this part of the dialogue is that Esiason has bought the line that embryos are not human in any way whatsoever. The very next thing he goes on to say:

And with what the South Koreans have come forth with this past week, it just goes to show you that whether or not we support it here in this country, other countries are going to after this. And whether it be in Singapore or South Korea or even in Britain, it's going to be done, whether we support it or not.

It is going to be done anyway, so we might as well be the ones doing it. It’s a good thing the Western world didn’t think that way when it came to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people.

The next exchange was great to see. Esiason avoided answering the question about the personhood of the embryo, so Wallace called him on it-most journalists these days don’t know when they are being given the ol' soft-shoe.

WALLACE: But how do you answer the question? As you well know, there are a lot of very well-meaning people, just as well-meaning as you are, who view the destruction of those embryos as a destruction of life….how do you balance out science and legitimate moral concerns?
ESIASON: Well, when you are affected by a disease like we are, then certainly that's the balance that tilts you in favor of stem cell research.

And here lies one of the more powerful deceptions surrounding this issue-your emotional connection to one side of the problem gives you the moral latitude to “override” murder. Esiason goes on to say that if you were only in his shoes you would also favor embryonic stem cell research because of the emotional toil it causes. No doubt it is difficult, and no one is minimizing that, but it is not a moral trump card. If it were, than people in his position could morally legislate in favor of the vivisection of people with Down’s Syndrome in order to find a “cure” because a cadre of scientists is the former Czech Republic think it “holds a great deal of potential.”

Again, the very next thing out of his mouth:

I don't believe in human cloning. I'm not looking for Mini-me's to be running around with all of us.

Ah, but you do, Mr. Esiason. Its how this is being done even as you speak. What you don’t believe in is the science fiction version of adult-sized clones. But what is the actual, metaphysical difference between what has been done in Korea and what Boomer is allegedly against? Nothing.

Then Wallace brought on someone who is supposedly on the other side of the debate, and the answers didn’t get any better. Governor Mit Romney represented another point of view.

WALLACE: But if I may ask you, governor, specifically, you don't see, as I understand it, the use of these leftover embryos in fertility clinics as destroying life?
ROMNEY: That's right. I believe that when a couple gets together and decides that they want to bring a child into the Earth, and they go to a fertility clinic to do so, and if they're going to be through that process a leftover embryo or two, that they should be able to decide whether to preserve that embryo for future use or to destroy it; to have it put up for adoption or potentially to be used for research and experimentation, hopefully leading to the cure of disease.

This and the rest of his answer represents another gigantic fallacy that has permeated the whole right-to-life debate for over a decade. Romney’s argument is that humanity is tied to the value other people put on a life. So, it could be argued that if we all voted and decided that Romney’s life had little to no value to us, then scientists in the Ukraine could be allowed to run disturbing, but potentially useful, experiments on his devalued, and hence nonhuman, life.

I am sure that there would be all kinds of potential gains from such experimentation, and that plenty of emotionally upset people would see personal relief from such work. I am not seeing a down side here…

Reclaiming Moral Language: Part 1

In a recent post on stem cell research, I made reference to the reality that our culture is adept at euphamizing its way out of morality. We give palatable and semi-scientific names to technologies and actions that, if called by their real names, would raise ethical concerns. Jeff from Dawn Treader posed an important question: how should we go about combating this loss of moral language and reestablish a moral language in the church? Good and vital question indeed.

A recent read of mine dealt briefly with this issue. In his book, The Revenge of Conscience, J. Budziszewski lists a handful of means we can use to confront the loss of moral language; in the context of his book, it is a loss or suppression of moral memory. The book as a whole is a great read. His style of writing is abundantly clear and almost disarmingly straightforward. I recommend it as a thoughtful and clear piece of moral reasoning. Near the end of the work he lists several ‘tactics’ he sees as helpful in trying to help people regain or remember moral realities. The book deals with the establishment of moral language in the public square, and that is what I want to note here, but I also want to address the concept of reclaiming moral language within the church in another post.

He calls the first the act of dissipating smoke. Most people’s objections to Christianity are masked in pseudo-philosophical language, and many times helping them recognize their deeper issues can be illuminating. The next two are connecting the dots and releasing the catch. These refer to the acts of helping people see their way through their own denials or the logical extensions of their own train of thought. More and more I think it is a truism that many people have trained themselves to think poorly so they can feel justified in their own conclusions.

Budziszewski labels the next two approaches playing back the tape and calling attention to the obvious. By these examples he means to tell us that when we discuss with people in the form of well guided questions and questions that fold back on their own comments, we may be able to open them up to their suppression of moral issues. The Socratic method is a powerful tool, and for some of us, it is a difficult tool to master.

The last item on the list besides prayer is what he calls tightening the noose. There will come times in our discussion with people that we will be able to press an issue philosophically and talk our interlocutor into their own corner. Probably the most common form this kind of discussion may take in our cultural climate it the matter of truth. Many commentators on this blog, for instance, have disputed the existence of anything like absolute or objective truth. Those comments are easy to dispense with-if those writers really did not believe in objective truth, they literally could not, and therefore, would not disagree with me.

Pentecost Sunday Reflections

Being a minister in a Pentecostal denomination can be an interesting ride from time to time. I believe in Pentecostal doctrine, and what is sometimes called the "Pentecostal Distinctive," but I wonder from time to time if we charismatic types really get what being charismatic actually means. Because there are spectacular things that sometimes surface in our gatherings, I think many (inside and outside the Pentecostal circle) have put the cart in front of the horse, and equated being Pentecostal with the manifestations of the gifts instead of the empowering presence of the Spirit of God.

My last two weekend services were dedicated to asking ourselves what it meant to be a Pentecostal church, and to avoid answering in terms of spectacular manifestations. I fully believe in those, but I think the point of being Pentecostal is that they follow, not lead, in our theology and ecclesiology. (You can read the notes of the services here and here.)

I am interested in the development of a full-blooded Pentecostal theology and what it means for the life of the church. If you know of any good theological works along those lines, please pass them on!!

McLaren and Arguments-What Kinds are Necessary?

Brian McLaren has some interesting thoughts in one of his latest columns for Leadership Journal. The article, “Avoiding the Argument Party” makes the point that the church probably bickers too much over the wrong things in the wrong way. McLaren’s point is not that we simply should not argue and allow for a fuzzy tolerance of diverse opinions, but that we should argue in a more healthy fashion, possibly lay down old and divisive arguments, and pick up new and more useful issues to discuss.

At the end of the column he states:

Think of arguments bitterly dividing us today. (I won't mention any specifics, but we could all probably name the top three.) Then think of arguments that we aren't having, but probably should—like whether classic just-war theory needs to be re-appraised in light of nuclear and biochemical weapons, or what Christians should do if another genocide begins as one did in Rwanda a decade ago, or how to persuade people to better morality when legislation fails to do the trick, or how Christians should care for God's creation. Perhaps there are some uncomfortable but healthy arguments we should be guiding.

I wholeheartedly agree that the church should be a lot more careful and thoughtful when it comes to some of the doctrinal arguments it has, but I don’t think the answer is to replace the old issues with newer ones.

If I am guessing correctly, by older arguments, McLaren is probably referencing things like Calvinism/Armineanism, Pentecolstalism/Dispensationalism, Exclusivism/Universalism and other denominational distinctives. While these debates can become quite well-worn and divisive at times, they have survived through time exactly because of their necessity-they confront the fundamental questions of, “Who is God?” and, “What is our relationship to Him?”. These are hardly the issues that should be replaced. All these issues should be handled wisely and intelligently in the life of the church-and here I am going to sound a little emergent-it is a both-and situation, not an either-or.

Links Sans Context 5/3

Catez at Allthings2all has another review of the wonderful book, Total Truth. It is worth checking out the review, and if you are looking for a good worldview book, Total Truth is defenitely worth checking out.

Blogicus continues to cover the advance of adult stem cells. Who doesn't see what is going on in the world of embryonic vs. adult stem cells?

Joshua at Razor's Kiss posts some interesting thoughts on a Post-Christian culture. We all need to come to terms with these kinds of realities.

The ID Wedge Report has an entertaining piece on loose lips and the blantant attempt to squeeze theists out of the public square.

As for me, I am trying to get into the habit of blogging given my new work schedule, and it has been harder than I expected. I have read a couple of interesting books lately I hope to do reviews on, and I am reading a McLaren book that I want to review as well to keep up my reputation of being a critic of the emergent church.

Therapeutic vs. Reproductive Research

One of the ironies in the stem cell debate is that there is a camp of scientists and ethicists who are trying to strike a kind of middle ground in which embryonic stem cells are allowed to be cloned or created for research, but only for what is called therapeutic purposes and not for reproductive purposes. (This story makes note of that.) In short, they believe cloning and ESC research should be allowed only to allow the product to be destroyed and the stem cells or organs harvested. It would be much worse, apparently, if infertile couples cloned an embryo to raise it and care for it as a human being.

The poet and ethicist J. Bottum has noted that this runs contrary to our moral intuitions and leads to a scientific culture reminiscent of our worst dystopias. At least, he argues, if we allow cloning and ESC research, let us do so for reasons much more humane than destruction and research. Doubtless the defenders of this odd position point out that the destruction and research is for potential future benefit. But I cannot come up with another situation in which we as a culture allow the wholesale slaughter and destruction of a certain class of humans for the potential future benefit of a few.

We must resist the tendency our scientific culture has to euphemize its way out of moral conundrums. If we beat down our moral intuitions for too long, they may be very hard to regain indeed.

Pragmatism, Behavior and Religion

Here is another study concerning America’s youth and their attitudes toward religion and spirituality.

I don’t “follow” these kinds of studies closely like may pastors and culture watchers do, but when I run across them some of their findings fascinate me. I find that there are a lot of pastoral and missiological implications contained in their findings.

The primary point of this study is that Gen Y likes choice in religion. Like their iPods, they want to be able to control their intake of religion. But I want to focus on one of the last lines in the Washington Times article:

However, although many of these young Americans worry about getting good grades and finding work after school, their biggest concern is the solidly "moral" issue of nonmarital sex -- 35 percent of Generation Y members are "very worried" about "getting a sexually transmitted disease," the study noted.

Don’t ask me why “moral” is in quotes in the article-sexuality is a pretty standard moral issue.

Anyway, some might read this and think it is a good thing. “Whatever their motivation, they are avoiding sinful behavior,” is probably what most think. And I don’t necessarily disagree.

What I am worried about is why they are seemingly avoiding extra-marital sex. The motivation reflected in the article is not moral, theological, relational, marital, societal, philosophical, familial, etc….it is raw and unashamedly pragmatic. According to the study, young people are not thinking about God or other humans when they have the thought, “extra-marital sex should be avoided.” They are thinking of themselves only.

Sure-maybe they are avoiding destructive and sinful behavior, but the reason they have for behaving that way is corrosive. This kind of pragmatism leaves no room for truth, moral rectitude, societal consequences, or other goods we hold in high esteem. It knows only the base drives of the self.

Why is this so corrosive a view? What sort of effect do you think this kind of view of the world has on religion? You might as well throw out any attempt to be unique or exclusive, and you had better not trod on an individual’s “right” to self-determination. So much for Christ and His Cross. Here is a thought experiment: does the typical youth group appeal to theology or pragmatism when trying to get kids to avoid drugs or extra-marital sex?

I have said before on this blog-pragmatism is a philosophy that corrupts people’s souls and will divide them from the grace and bliss of repentance and forgiveness. If we try to play down to the narcissistic drives of individuals, we will end up corrupting our own faith.

Screwtape Must Be Smiling

And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” Luke 5:31

In speaking these words to the Pharisees, do you think Christ’s point was, “Don’t worry about sin and repentance, Mr. Pharisee, because you are doing alright in that regard. This tax collector, though, is really in need of some work on his soul”? Of course not. Jesus has no such view of Pharisees, and no such view of any human in particular.

What Jesus was trying to put across was that Levi the tax collector felt his need of a physician-he knew he needed forgiveness and grace. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were too sure of their own righteousness to partake in the infinite mercy and forgiveness of the divine physician.

One of the most dangerous positions to be in, spiritually speaking, is when we are comfortable with our own moral standing. When we feel good about ourselves, we are guaranteed to miss the greatest gift of all.

This study done by the National Study of Youth and Religion identifies such a state among America’s youth, and likely in the culture at large. The Study concluded that the closest definition it could come up with for the way youth view their Christianity and spirituality was what they called, “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” Albert Mohler condenses some of the findings with this list of beliefs that comprise Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1."A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."

Many of the details which followed in the report described the typical teenager who could be very articulate and detailed about musicians and Hollywood stars, but who were very fuzzy when it came to spiritual and biblical themes. So it is not that teenagers are inarticulate in general or cannot recall details, it is that they think in generalized and fuzzy ways when it comes to their souls and their religiosity.

Screwtape seems to be winning. Instead of our culture becoming more and more atheistic, it is becoming more spiritual in fuzzier and fuzzier ways. And when people feel comfortable in their individualized and home-spun spirituality, they have absolutely no need of repentance and forgiveness.

There is a lot in Mohler’s article worth reading through and reflecting upon.

Good To Know: "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food"

CNN.com - Has Cookie Monster given up sweets? - Apr 7, 2005

Entertaining article on the new song in Cookie Monster's repertoire. There are not too many articles whos primary content is a Sesame Street Puppet and which quotes Senator Frist.

There is a lot of surrogate parenting going on out there!

Polling Papal Possibilities: Presumptuous Public Postulations

We have become trained to expect to get what we want.

I know polls are ubiquitous in our culture, but we are becoming the kind of society that expects polls to have some kind of sway over our public life. Our political climate, for instance, has given us the sense that if most people want something, they have a decent shot of getting it. If 58% of people think politicians should crack pink Easter eggs on their heads, then we expect that some will actually do it.

The Vatican, however, is a different matter. Reading about the polls done on what Americans and American Catholics would like to see out of the next Papacy strikes me as a collision of worlds. Politicians tend to look to polls for a good deal of their guidance; I am imagining that if the Vatican catches wind of these polls, the response will be, “who cares?” Who cares if most American Catholics, or just most Americans want the next Pope to be more “liberal” on stem cell research or abortion? The Papal stance on such matters is not a function of public opinion-it is a function of truth.

Most of all, the juxtaposition of these kinds of polls and the role of Catholic theology (or any orthodox theology for that matter) is a powerful reminder of how narcissistic we have become. From political push polls to postmodern churches we are trying very hard to make the world around us look like what we think it should be. We desperately want “them” to look like “us”; we really want God to look like me.

And yet the church goes on through wave after wave of cultural change and call after call for change in the church. And that is exactly how it should be. Too many people to count have prophesied the church must change or die-and the church has buried each and every one of them.

The Pope and Moral Clarity

In the coming months, and I suspect, years, there will be much to discuss about the legacy and thought of Pope John Paul II. One of the recent articles that caught my eye is by George Weigel, who as I understand it, is a biographer of the Pope.

One of the things that has struck me about the legacy of the Pope is his unwavering determination to be a religious leader-we did not know of the Pope because he was backing a political cause or because he was a decidedly political figure, but because he was clearly and unashamedly theological and Christian in his public life (very often bearing political consequences). This public Christianity of his frustrated a lot of people for all kinds of reasons. I think Weigel nails one of those reasons:

For if there is only your truth and my truth and neither one of us recognizes a transcendent moral standard (call it "the truth") by which to settle our differences, then either you will impose your power on me or I will impose my power on you; Nietszche, great, mad prophet of the 20th century, got at least that right. Freedom uncoupled from truth, John Paul taught, leads to chaos and thence to new forms of tyranny. For, in the face of chaos (or fear), raw power will inexorably replace persuasion, compromise, and agreement as the coin of the political realm. The false humanism of freedom misconstrued as "I did it my way" inevitably leads to freedom's decay, and then to freedom's self-cannibalization. This was not the soured warning of an antimodern scold; this was the sage counsel of a man who had given his life to freedom's cause from 1939 on.

Moral clarity was a theme of his. He embodied so well the Christian ethic of understanding other religions and views and treating them and their adherents with humane respect and attention while at the same time standing clearly for the truth. What bothers many people is that they can’t stand the notion that there is a moral truth to stand upon; they are betting their farms on it.

Hence the silly label, and sometimes criticism, of “conservative.” Sure he was conservative in the sense that he knew that the truths taught from the very beginning needed to be held to, but to our modern American ears the label carries with it political and moralistic overtones. We really are a shallow bunch.

A Severe Doseage of Humor

LarkNews.com

Some of this is almost too funny! I come from a Pentecostal denomination and the article on the man who prophesies in pirate is priceless.

The Role of Scripture in the Missional Church

I want to offer a couple more reflections on missional church gleaned from The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Guder offers this assertion about what an effective and mission oriented church will look like:

The Holy Spirit shapes God’s people for mission through the continuous encounter with the Scripture. Continuing conversion happens as the community “indwells” Scripture.

He goes on to say:

Rigorous biblical learning must be the missional congregation’s priority. The congregation intentionally commits most of its time together to biblical study….This means that the members are learning to think Christianly; they are learning how to see the world through the eyes of Jesus’ they are becoming biblically literates in order to be effective translators of the gospel into their world. [160]

Here! Here! I know there are several good and faithful ways to handle Scripture in a service and in a congregation (exegetical vs. topical preaching, etc.), but this statement of Guder’s has the ring of truth to me. I have personally stuck with verse-by-verse teaching myself because of this conviction, and I know that there are plenty of faithful pastors and congregations that “indwell” Scripture through a more topical way of preaching and teaching. But I have also noticed that many times when a pastor says they preach topically, what they mean is, “I preach a kind of pop-psychology, self-help gospel.” The point of their preaching is taken more from the latest TV show or book written by an NBA coach than from Scripture.

If we are to be salt and light, if we are to be the kind of witness people recognize as distinct from the outside world, then Scripture must be our focus and our text, no matter our style of pulpit ministry. How else are we, the flock of God, to learn what our God desires of us? If the church does not hold up the standard of Scripture, who will?

As a kind of side note, as I read more on the emergent church I read conflicting views on this kind of thing. At one moment I read where some in the EC believe that because of the pomo rejection of authority, pastors should “step out of the way” and let Scripture do the talking; they promote an exegetical style of teaching and preaching. At the same time and for the same reason, I read that the community should therefore be the primary translator of the Christian life, and that the text of Scripture is just another example of the cultural incarnation of the Spirit in that time and place.

Obviously I think the first option is a life-saver for the emergent church, and the second is a death-knell. Are there any readers out there who see the EC as leaning one way or the other?