Where have the young ministers gone? More and more I read statistics that show the pastorate is graying across most evangelical denominations. And in my personal experience, more and more young ministers do not want to make their tie to a denomination too firm, or they just avoid it altogether. One seminary professor I spoke with recently remarked that we were not facing a demographical problem in the near future; we are smack in the middle of one. In his words, in ten years there will not be enough pastors to head up the churches we have now.
Why is this happening? I would love to hear from some who either know pastors in this category, or are in it themselves.
Some thoughts on what I think is going on.
Often as denominations grow they become overly bureaucratic and entrenched in their ways. Young ministers sometimes find themselves in the unenviable position of accepting their grandfather’s culture and fitting into a top-heavy system, or bucking the trend and fighting tension along the way.
Often an “old guard” confuses theological and doctrinal integrity with cultural norms they are comfortable with. Instead of discerning the things that just simply change with time apart from doctrinal cornerstones, they may confuse the two causing more tension and frustration in younger ministers trying to reach younger generations.
There may be far too much individualism built into a younger generation of pastors. Where previous generations may have been more amenable to accepting the “way things are” and working with the system, the last two or so generations have been raised on cultural flux and change for the sake of it. They are used to change to a degree that they may grow to dislike stability, which is far from a good thing.
The calling of pastor is a pathetic shadow of what it should be. The last several decades have seen the degrading of the biblical calling of spiritual shepherd to a specialized and under trained form of marketing guru. I am convinced that most evangelical pastors, if asked to describe their role as pastor, would sound more like business executives and therapists than spiritual shepherds. If being a pastor now means you could do a similar job across the street for three times the pay, then why exactly should one become a pastor?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Are Christians As Inflexible As They Say We Are?
It is my contention that Christianity, when it is full-blooded, is simultaneously reflexive, reasonable and faithful. The tools of reason and analysis are actually built into and intended to be used by the faith system of Christianity. If God has given us intellectual tools such as reason, and if all truth is God’s truth, the Christian has nothing to fear by examining all things in pursuit of their faith.
In a recent column, Dinesh D'Souza cites Stanley Fish (whose NT Times blog requires subscription) and some recent comments of his critiquing the recent spate of atheist anti-Christian literature. A significant part of what they both have to say question the unflinching dogmatism of these popular authors as compared to the constant reflection of Christianity. Fish, while discussing their analysis of Bunyon’s Pilgrim’s Progress, notes that their indictments of inscrutability and intransigence upon Christianity fail. The text itself, and Christianity in general, contain the kind of reflection and even skepticism they say it doesn’t. D’Souza notes:
Fish comments, "What this shows is that the objections Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens make to religious thinking are themselves part of religious thinking. Rather than being swept under the rug of a seamless discourse, they are the very motor of that discourse."
And,
Fish observes that while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse.
What seems to be lost on most critics of Christianity is that it contains a long and powerful tradition of theological and philosophical development. The dogma of Christianity necessarily includes the tools of self-analysis and reflection – if we are noetically broken creatures, our faith requires constant attention. The reigning dogma of popular atheism is apparently marked by self-satisfaction, inflexibility and myopia. I would not be surprised if it were true that no other tradition in human history has offered more to the advancement of the human mind than the Body of Christ.
In a recent column, Dinesh D'Souza cites Stanley Fish (whose NT Times blog requires subscription) and some recent comments of his critiquing the recent spate of atheist anti-Christian literature. A significant part of what they both have to say question the unflinching dogmatism of these popular authors as compared to the constant reflection of Christianity. Fish, while discussing their analysis of Bunyon’s Pilgrim’s Progress, notes that their indictments of inscrutability and intransigence upon Christianity fail. The text itself, and Christianity in general, contain the kind of reflection and even skepticism they say it doesn’t. D’Souza notes:
Fish comments, "What this shows is that the objections Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens make to religious thinking are themselves part of religious thinking. Rather than being swept under the rug of a seamless discourse, they are the very motor of that discourse."
And,
Fish observes that while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse.
What seems to be lost on most critics of Christianity is that it contains a long and powerful tradition of theological and philosophical development. The dogma of Christianity necessarily includes the tools of self-analysis and reflection – if we are noetically broken creatures, our faith requires constant attention. The reigning dogma of popular atheism is apparently marked by self-satisfaction, inflexibility and myopia. I would not be surprised if it were true that no other tradition in human history has offered more to the advancement of the human mind than the Body of Christ.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Theocracy Ahead!
I did not know this (but am not surprised) that there is an organized effort to “Blog Against Theocracy.” One post in particular caught my attention this morning. In it the blogger is concerned that evangelicals are making their way into schools through biblical literacy initiatives and Intelligent Design. One of the blogger’s arguments against evangelicalism in schools is their stated goal of global evangelism. He even quotes from the doctrinal statement of my denomination, the Assemblies of God.
This growing criticism of “theocracy” is an interesting one to me. First of all, I don’t think the, “they evangelize people” argument carries any weight. Any group with serious convictions is trying to gain adherents, and the more they gain, the happier they will be. No doubt, Bloggers Against Theocracy would like more people to hold their views than fewer, and they are actively evangelizing them. As a consequence of their own argument, they should be legislated out of our schools.
On a much more interesting note is the claim that Christians in the public square constitutes a breech of the “separation of the church and state” doctrine. Since there is no such thing in our Constitution, this is a political/philosophical view. What are the presuppositions that lead to this view?
One might be the fact/value distinction which holds that religion is a private value that does not make truth claims about reality, and thus cannot be considered with seriousness in the public square. On the other hand, secularism has a grip on the facts of the world (science, etc.) and is the only serious contender for the public mind. This simple sweeping away of religion has been attacked on several levels, and when we learn what it means to know things and have them correspond with reality, there is nothing that excludes religious knowledge. Science (naturalistically understood) does not have privileged access to the world.
Another presupposition might be that religion – Christianity in particular – has been proven false. But this view would just be naivety and wishful thinking.
Another would be that religion is not open to thought, reflection, or even modification. As a result, a culture “ruled” by religion would be disastrous to open thought and dangerous to dissenters. And since we value an open and thinking society, religion needs to be relegated to the margins. But this again is a mistaken notion of Christianity. No doubt there are a plethora of examples where “fundamentalism” or other forms of Christianity have denied the life of the mind, but they would be the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. For example, the University system so prized by free-thinkers was established by the Church as an institution of innovation. It was Catholic universities that taught the sun was the center of the solar system; medieval universities constantly critiqued and analyzed doctrine and refined theology. One of the reasons we know Thomas Aquinas and not his predecessors was his innovation on their work.
Christianity, where it is allowed to flourish according to its own worldview, is currently less of a threat to free-thought than secularism. After all, who is trying to exclude whom from schools?
I think that when all the reasons for the separation of church and state (as opposed to this short list) are laid on the table, they all fail for good reasons. Religious views have just as much legitimate access to the public as do secularist views.
This growing criticism of “theocracy” is an interesting one to me. First of all, I don’t think the, “they evangelize people” argument carries any weight. Any group with serious convictions is trying to gain adherents, and the more they gain, the happier they will be. No doubt, Bloggers Against Theocracy would like more people to hold their views than fewer, and they are actively evangelizing them. As a consequence of their own argument, they should be legislated out of our schools.
On a much more interesting note is the claim that Christians in the public square constitutes a breech of the “separation of the church and state” doctrine. Since there is no such thing in our Constitution, this is a political/philosophical view. What are the presuppositions that lead to this view?
One might be the fact/value distinction which holds that religion is a private value that does not make truth claims about reality, and thus cannot be considered with seriousness in the public square. On the other hand, secularism has a grip on the facts of the world (science, etc.) and is the only serious contender for the public mind. This simple sweeping away of religion has been attacked on several levels, and when we learn what it means to know things and have them correspond with reality, there is nothing that excludes religious knowledge. Science (naturalistically understood) does not have privileged access to the world.
Another presupposition might be that religion – Christianity in particular – has been proven false. But this view would just be naivety and wishful thinking.
Another would be that religion is not open to thought, reflection, or even modification. As a result, a culture “ruled” by religion would be disastrous to open thought and dangerous to dissenters. And since we value an open and thinking society, religion needs to be relegated to the margins. But this again is a mistaken notion of Christianity. No doubt there are a plethora of examples where “fundamentalism” or other forms of Christianity have denied the life of the mind, but they would be the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. For example, the University system so prized by free-thinkers was established by the Church as an institution of innovation. It was Catholic universities that taught the sun was the center of the solar system; medieval universities constantly critiqued and analyzed doctrine and refined theology. One of the reasons we know Thomas Aquinas and not his predecessors was his innovation on their work.
Christianity, where it is allowed to flourish according to its own worldview, is currently less of a threat to free-thought than secularism. After all, who is trying to exclude whom from schools?
I think that when all the reasons for the separation of church and state (as opposed to this short list) are laid on the table, they all fail for good reasons. Religious views have just as much legitimate access to the public as do secularist views.
New Evangelical Political Litmus Test!
I am not against political involvement by evangelicals as such, but from time to time I wonder if certain segments of the evangelical world have their focus on the right targets. On a basic level, I believe the Christian faith necessarily has political consequences. But when explicitly Christian organizations exist only for lobbying purposes, I get a little uncomfortable.
The new head of the National Association of Evangelicals is moving in a direction probably deemed as mild heresy by the former president, Ted Haggard. (Ironically, during Haggard’s tenure as president of the NAE, their offices moved from D.C. to the campus of New Life Church.) Cizik’s policy matter de jur is global warming. It is so important to Cizik that:
Not content to merely repeat his mantra about global warming being "a moral and spiritual issue," he dropped a major political bombshell.
"The National Association of Evangelicals," he declared, "has every intention of making [global-warming legislation] a litmus test for evangelical support."
Not surprisingly several evangelical organizations have requested that the NAE reign in Cizik and his politicking. If this sounds too much like something that happens between political parties, don’t be too shocked. This is how the NAE, and its liberal doppelganger the NCC (National Council of Churches) have been set up. The article notes:
To counter the NCC’s influence, the NAE established its Washington office in the 1970s, and in the 1980s expanded its lobbying role. Cizik became vice president for government affairs in 1997. Groups belonging to the NCC were barred from joining the NAE.
The Kingdom of God here on earth is often a many-splendored thing!
The new head of the National Association of Evangelicals is moving in a direction probably deemed as mild heresy by the former president, Ted Haggard. (Ironically, during Haggard’s tenure as president of the NAE, their offices moved from D.C. to the campus of New Life Church.) Cizik’s policy matter de jur is global warming. It is so important to Cizik that:
Not content to merely repeat his mantra about global warming being "a moral and spiritual issue," he dropped a major political bombshell.
"The National Association of Evangelicals," he declared, "has every intention of making [global-warming legislation] a litmus test for evangelical support."
Not surprisingly several evangelical organizations have requested that the NAE reign in Cizik and his politicking. If this sounds too much like something that happens between political parties, don’t be too shocked. This is how the NAE, and its liberal doppelganger the NCC (National Council of Churches) have been set up. The article notes:
To counter the NCC’s influence, the NAE established its Washington office in the 1970s, and in the 1980s expanded its lobbying role. Cizik became vice president for government affairs in 1997. Groups belonging to the NCC were barred from joining the NAE.
The Kingdom of God here on earth is often a many-splendored thing!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Intelligent Design - Darwin's Black Box
Our church has started an Intelligent Design book club, and we chose Darwin’s Black Box as our first book. As someone who has been a fan of ID for a while, I feel a little ashamed to say I haven’t read this seminal book until now.
But now that I have started it, I have a couple of simple observations right off the bat. First, I am enjoying how non-religious the argument is so far. There is a chapter at the end of the book about “Science, Philosophy, and Religion” but so far the argument is nothing but biochemistry. It has always irked me that the ID argument is rejected out-of-hand, labeled a “religious argument.” That kind of a priori and ad hominum maneuver is indicative of a position that does not want to be debated in public. In addition, that kind of labeling keeps the real issues – the scientific and philosophical issues – from being dealt with seriously.
The second issue is related to his famous notion of irreducible complexity: the idea of minimal function. In part this states that not only do all the parts of an organism need to be in place all at once for it to function, but all the parts need to be the right parts. The fact that not just any set of amino acids will do for the construction of proteins is a rather powerful addition to irreducible complexity. Using his analogy of the mousetrap, it cannot be constructed from a tongue depressor, a crowbar and a ballpoint pen spring. To function, the mousetrap needs to have all its constituent parts be the right parts. This reality makes the chance origin of life without intelligent direction all that more improbable.
But now that I have started it, I have a couple of simple observations right off the bat. First, I am enjoying how non-religious the argument is so far. There is a chapter at the end of the book about “Science, Philosophy, and Religion” but so far the argument is nothing but biochemistry. It has always irked me that the ID argument is rejected out-of-hand, labeled a “religious argument.” That kind of a priori and ad hominum maneuver is indicative of a position that does not want to be debated in public. In addition, that kind of labeling keeps the real issues – the scientific and philosophical issues – from being dealt with seriously.
The second issue is related to his famous notion of irreducible complexity: the idea of minimal function. In part this states that not only do all the parts of an organism need to be in place all at once for it to function, but all the parts need to be the right parts. The fact that not just any set of amino acids will do for the construction of proteins is a rather powerful addition to irreducible complexity. Using his analogy of the mousetrap, it cannot be constructed from a tongue depressor, a crowbar and a ballpoint pen spring. To function, the mousetrap needs to have all its constituent parts be the right parts. This reality makes the chance origin of life without intelligent direction all that more improbable.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Endnotes, Academic Pressure, and Darwinism
Some books take a long time for me to get through because I get all caught up in following endnotes and tracking down other resources. I think I read the best endnote I have ever read in a tremendous book I am reading, For The Glory of God, by Rodney Stark.
In his chapter on “God’s Handiwork: The Religious Origins of Science,” endnote 179 occurs in a section introducing evolution, Darwinism and science. In the middle of critiquing the thin science of Darwinism, these sentences shows up: “My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on.” The first sentence was tagged with endnote 179, which intrigued me because there was no direct quote.
The endnote: “I was advised by several colleagues that to criticize evolutionary theory would damage my ‘career.’ This merely hardened my resolve to suffer no more of this arrogant occultism.”
Yeah, baby. Yeah!
In his chapter on “God’s Handiwork: The Religious Origins of Science,” endnote 179 occurs in a section introducing evolution, Darwinism and science. In the middle of critiquing the thin science of Darwinism, these sentences shows up: “My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution. They seem to fear that someone might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on.” The first sentence was tagged with endnote 179, which intrigued me because there was no direct quote.
The endnote: “I was advised by several colleagues that to criticize evolutionary theory would damage my ‘career.’ This merely hardened my resolve to suffer no more of this arrogant occultism.”
Yeah, baby. Yeah!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Irony of Postmodern Power
I don’t mind being a little alarmist from time to time. After reading one of the latest Breakpoint Commentaries by Chuck Colson, I feel like sounding one of those alarms. The essay dealt with a now “old” story about rampant relativism among our churched youth. What caused Colson to write this essay was a story that linked that relativism in some middle school kids to their parents and pastor. Speaking for one of their worldview trainees, “Centurions,” Colson relates this story:
Everything was going fine until the group reached lesson 10 [in their youth worldview training course]. Lesson 10 leads the kids through a series of choices to learn to recognize the difference between matters of truth and matters of taste. One of the choices, “believing Islam, Buddhism or Christianity,” flashed on the screen.
Our Centurion—I’ll call her Joanne, told me what happened next: “The students went nuts. All but one of the eight leaders completely balked at the concept of distinguishing Christianity as true and other religions as false.”
Joanne learned that several of the seventh graders had talked to their parents or pastors over night. But the result of those conversations was shocking. One girl had written a paper that night on “why we shouldn't hurt others feelings by claiming our way is right.” One young lady had met with her pastor, who told her no one can be sure of truth. “It is all perspective,” he said. The students agreed that they should not offend others by saying Christianity is true. Only one was prepared to teach it.
I think it is very simple: a person who has lost a sense of truth either becomes the pawn of power or a power-player himself or herself. When the concept of a truth that exists outside a person or a culture is lost, all that is left is propaganda and power.
It is one of the great ironies of postmodernism. Pomos are quick to say they react against the power plays of Enlightenment truth with something more able to listen, dialogue, and flex. Though truth has been used as a concept to oppress in the past, there is absolutely no necessary connection between the concept of objective truth and coercion. Conversely, where there is only culture, convention, or personal conviction to appeal to—as is the case with postmodern relativism—there is only power. As a brief example, I may argue that my view of justice and fair play is superior to yours, and the evidence I muster in support of my claim has nothing to do with who is closer to reality. The only way to implement my view is to become more powerful than the other. There is no convincing or argumentation in a postmodern, relativistic world, there is only emotivism and assertion. As a result, there is a necessary connection between postmodern relativism and coercion.
Young people who grow up with the mush of relativism have doomed themselves to insignificance. They have condemned themselves to being pawns in propaganda games with nothing substantial to appeal to in order to counter the views of others. “I don’t feel that way,” is not a counterview—it is a feeling.
Everything was going fine until the group reached lesson 10 [in their youth worldview training course]. Lesson 10 leads the kids through a series of choices to learn to recognize the difference between matters of truth and matters of taste. One of the choices, “believing Islam, Buddhism or Christianity,” flashed on the screen.
Our Centurion—I’ll call her Joanne, told me what happened next: “The students went nuts. All but one of the eight leaders completely balked at the concept of distinguishing Christianity as true and other religions as false.”
Joanne learned that several of the seventh graders had talked to their parents or pastors over night. But the result of those conversations was shocking. One girl had written a paper that night on “why we shouldn't hurt others feelings by claiming our way is right.” One young lady had met with her pastor, who told her no one can be sure of truth. “It is all perspective,” he said. The students agreed that they should not offend others by saying Christianity is true. Only one was prepared to teach it.
I think it is very simple: a person who has lost a sense of truth either becomes the pawn of power or a power-player himself or herself. When the concept of a truth that exists outside a person or a culture is lost, all that is left is propaganda and power.
It is one of the great ironies of postmodernism. Pomos are quick to say they react against the power plays of Enlightenment truth with something more able to listen, dialogue, and flex. Though truth has been used as a concept to oppress in the past, there is absolutely no necessary connection between the concept of objective truth and coercion. Conversely, where there is only culture, convention, or personal conviction to appeal to—as is the case with postmodern relativism—there is only power. As a brief example, I may argue that my view of justice and fair play is superior to yours, and the evidence I muster in support of my claim has nothing to do with who is closer to reality. The only way to implement my view is to become more powerful than the other. There is no convincing or argumentation in a postmodern, relativistic world, there is only emotivism and assertion. As a result, there is a necessary connection between postmodern relativism and coercion.
Young people who grow up with the mush of relativism have doomed themselves to insignificance. They have condemned themselves to being pawns in propaganda games with nothing substantial to appeal to in order to counter the views of others. “I don’t feel that way,” is not a counterview—it is a feeling.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Sermons for Sale!
Also from the most recent edition of my denomination’s journal, comes a small news piece concerning the proliferation of websites dedicated to producing sermons for pastors. (Unfortunately, this item is not on-line.) The basic concern of the piece is plagiarism among pastors. I have written about pastors and plagiarism before, and what caught my attention this time was the number of sites out there dedicated to this sort of thing, how creative and detailed they have become, and lucrative some of them are.
Among the sites listed are creativepastors.com, desperatepreacher.com, pastors.com, sermoncentral.com, and powerpointsermon.com. The article notes that creativepastors.com earned 1.7 million since its inception in 2004.
The author ponders whether copying a sermon off a website is plagiarism, and though he doesn’t come down hard in one direction, he notes that many do not feel plagiarism is committed if the pastor pays for the sermon.
Though that might be technically correct, I think there is more at stake with the integrity demanded between a pastor and congregation than whether they paid for the sermon or not. I believe the rightly implied and inferred subtext to a sermon given by a pastor is that it is the pastor’s work for this congregation at this time. I believe that copying a sermon or buying a sermon breaks this implicit relationship, and is thus unethical behavior.
One line in the journal article said that a “time-strapped” pastor might need resources like these websites to create their sermons for them. I think this comment betrays a fundamental problem in the pastoring world—pastors who are too busy being executives to pastor. The biblical role of shepherd/pastor is unfortunately only a subtext in the world of advice to pastors in the current evangelical world. One of the primary jobs of the pastor is to prayerfully and as expertly as possible handle Scripture. Something might have gone awry if a pastor is too “time-strapped” to do that from week to week.
Among the sites listed are creativepastors.com, desperatepreacher.com, pastors.com, sermoncentral.com, and powerpointsermon.com. The article notes that creativepastors.com earned 1.7 million since its inception in 2004.
The author ponders whether copying a sermon off a website is plagiarism, and though he doesn’t come down hard in one direction, he notes that many do not feel plagiarism is committed if the pastor pays for the sermon.
Though that might be technically correct, I think there is more at stake with the integrity demanded between a pastor and congregation than whether they paid for the sermon or not. I believe the rightly implied and inferred subtext to a sermon given by a pastor is that it is the pastor’s work for this congregation at this time. I believe that copying a sermon or buying a sermon breaks this implicit relationship, and is thus unethical behavior.
One line in the journal article said that a “time-strapped” pastor might need resources like these websites to create their sermons for them. I think this comment betrays a fundamental problem in the pastoring world—pastors who are too busy being executives to pastor. The biblical role of shepherd/pastor is unfortunately only a subtext in the world of advice to pastors in the current evangelical world. One of the primary jobs of the pastor is to prayerfully and as expertly as possible handle Scripture. Something might have gone awry if a pastor is too “time-strapped” to do that from week to week.
Monday, June 11, 2007
What to do with Spare Embryos?
A great biotech watchdog organization, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, recently put out this press release regarding legislation and the use of “spare” embryos.
June 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois – The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (CBHD) calls upon the President to exercise both his moral resolve and his presidential prerogatives and veto immediately the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill unhinges any restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research derived from “discarded” embryos that result from excessive fertility procedures.
The debate over this bill misleadingly presented the source of embryonic stem cells as medical waste and thus of no consequential value. The growing number of Snowflake children seriously questions the nature of this assumption. CBHD Director, C. Ben Mitchell, PhD, comments: “Human embryos belong in nurturing wombs, not in dissecting dishes in a research lab. Killing human embryos for their stem cells is a form of biotech cannibalism that we must not countenance as a civilized society.”
While the Center applauds the House for rebuffing recent efforts to legalize human cloning research, we strongly urge members of Congress to examine the overwhelming evidence of successful trials of non-embryonic derived stem cell treatments. Mitchell comments, “We cannot permit good intentions to blur the moral boundaries of science. Compassion must be informed by ethics.” Thus, the Center calls upon Congress to approve legislation upholding its own interest to “prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit” by supporting proven non-embryonic stem cell research initiatives that offer genuine medical assistance to those suffering from these difficult conditions.
I must admit a personal wavering from time to time when it comes to the use of “spare” embryos that are simply wards of the local utility company. But the more I reflect, the more I object to the notion of “spare embryos” itself, and am worried about the direction legislation is taking toward them. Since when has any human being been “spare”?
As the release notes, the number of snowflake babies is growing, and should be seen as not just a viable option, but as the primary objective. What we should be doing with these frozen embryos is finding ways to encourage their adoption, not their destruction.
June 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois – The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (CBHD) calls upon the President to exercise both his moral resolve and his presidential prerogatives and veto immediately the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill unhinges any restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research derived from “discarded” embryos that result from excessive fertility procedures.
The debate over this bill misleadingly presented the source of embryonic stem cells as medical waste and thus of no consequential value. The growing number of Snowflake children seriously questions the nature of this assumption. CBHD Director, C. Ben Mitchell, PhD, comments: “Human embryos belong in nurturing wombs, not in dissecting dishes in a research lab. Killing human embryos for their stem cells is a form of biotech cannibalism that we must not countenance as a civilized society.”
While the Center applauds the House for rebuffing recent efforts to legalize human cloning research, we strongly urge members of Congress to examine the overwhelming evidence of successful trials of non-embryonic derived stem cell treatments. Mitchell comments, “We cannot permit good intentions to blur the moral boundaries of science. Compassion must be informed by ethics.” Thus, the Center calls upon Congress to approve legislation upholding its own interest to “prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit” by supporting proven non-embryonic stem cell research initiatives that offer genuine medical assistance to those suffering from these difficult conditions.
I must admit a personal wavering from time to time when it comes to the use of “spare” embryos that are simply wards of the local utility company. But the more I reflect, the more I object to the notion of “spare embryos” itself, and am worried about the direction legislation is taking toward them. Since when has any human being been “spare”?
As the release notes, the number of snowflake babies is growing, and should be seen as not just a viable option, but as the primary objective. What we should be doing with these frozen embryos is finding ways to encourage their adoption, not their destruction.
There is no distinction Here
I am right now sitting in a bagel/coffee shop in my neighborhood taking care of my Monday work. The gal sitting directly in front of me sat down with her coffee and work, and when the young lady showed up with her bagel she asked her if there was anything else she needed. Without even looking up, the older gal dismissed her with a condescending wave of her hand.
This caused me to reflect on a passage we dealt with recently in church. Colossians 3:11 states:
“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
In addition, Galatians 3:28 says:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In addition to the obvious sense that God created us all, no matter our position in the world and sees us all through the same eyes of love and forgiveness, I am struck by the first word of Colossians 3:11: “Here.”
The world is supernaturally efficient at erecting barriers between people, but here there are no barriers. The world loves to draw ad hoc distinctions between people, but here they simply do not belong.
The Church is an amazing thing. Here all that matters is Christ and the grace he has shown to each and every one of us. In here we tear down barriers that dominate the world around us.
If I don’t pay attention to it, I will become a child of my culture and will see people through the lenses of discrimination and prejudice. How have my eyes been tinted in this way? What barriers within me need to be broken down, so that when I encounter the world as a Christ-follower, or when I walk through the doors of the church, there is no distinction here?
UPDATE: The gal sitting across from me is now on the phone talking about her church experience this weekend. Lord, help me be an honest and genuine witness to your love!
This caused me to reflect on a passage we dealt with recently in church. Colossians 3:11 states:
“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
In addition, Galatians 3:28 says:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In addition to the obvious sense that God created us all, no matter our position in the world and sees us all through the same eyes of love and forgiveness, I am struck by the first word of Colossians 3:11: “Here.”
The world is supernaturally efficient at erecting barriers between people, but here there are no barriers. The world loves to draw ad hoc distinctions between people, but here they simply do not belong.
The Church is an amazing thing. Here all that matters is Christ and the grace he has shown to each and every one of us. In here we tear down barriers that dominate the world around us.
If I don’t pay attention to it, I will become a child of my culture and will see people through the lenses of discrimination and prejudice. How have my eyes been tinted in this way? What barriers within me need to be broken down, so that when I encounter the world as a Christ-follower, or when I walk through the doors of the church, there is no distinction here?
UPDATE: The gal sitting across from me is now on the phone talking about her church experience this weekend. Lord, help me be an honest and genuine witness to your love!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Genes, Environment and Moral Determination
My denominational journal, Enrichment Journal, has a wonderful article on the issue of genetic makeup and behavioral determination in general, and on the search for a “homosexual gene” specifically. The article does a wonderful job of dealing with the state of the science on the issue. Though there have been a handful of rather publicized studies done that purportedly show that homosexuality is a genetic (and by strong implication unalterable) trait, none of them have stood up to scrutiny. (The video link gives you more information than the article excerpt.)
There are a couple of very important points that are not often dealt with when the issue of the behavior of homosexuality and genetic make-up are raised. First of all, if we want to morally justify some behavior based on the genetic foundation for that behavior, it is logical to extend our justification then to other behaviors that have a stronger genetic base than the first behavior. For example, there is more evidence connecting certain genetic markers to violent behavior than to homosexuality. If we want to use genes to justify homosexuality, it is reasonable to expect us to justify violent behavior to a greater degree. If I am OK with homosexuality based on the science, then I am really OK with violence.
The fact that most people don’t want to take that logical step—even those with a vested interest in the connection between genes and homosexuality--means the real issue is not about genetic make-up at all. The question of behavior (outside of extraordinary cases of pathology) is irreducibly a moral question.
Genes are not destiny. They may predispose someone to be an abuser given the right environment, but we rightly hold that person to a higher moral standard, and consider them morally responsible for their actions. This moral standard necessitates that we assume the person genetically predisposed to violence has the wherewithal to obey a higher, non-physical law. We expect him or her to overcome genes and environment and obey a moral precept.
Even the language we use to describe this moment of moral decision is revealing. We may colloquially rephrase that last sentence to say, “We expect him or her to disobey genes and environment and obey a moral precept,” but that would be technically false usage. “Disobey” in the first usage is loose in its meaning while “obey” in the second is strict—we equivocated. We cannot obey something that does not give binding orders. Cancer does not order (in a moral sense) cells to reproduce uncontrollably; civil governments do order citizens to not kill each other.
When encountering this very touchy and sensitive issue in the public square, we need to be clear on our moral reasoning. Though there clearly are genetic and environmental predispositions, those do not necessarily predetermine behavior. If they did, moral culpability would be a completely different notion than we rightly hold it to be.
There are a couple of very important points that are not often dealt with when the issue of the behavior of homosexuality and genetic make-up are raised. First of all, if we want to morally justify some behavior based on the genetic foundation for that behavior, it is logical to extend our justification then to other behaviors that have a stronger genetic base than the first behavior. For example, there is more evidence connecting certain genetic markers to violent behavior than to homosexuality. If we want to use genes to justify homosexuality, it is reasonable to expect us to justify violent behavior to a greater degree. If I am OK with homosexuality based on the science, then I am really OK with violence.
The fact that most people don’t want to take that logical step—even those with a vested interest in the connection between genes and homosexuality--means the real issue is not about genetic make-up at all. The question of behavior (outside of extraordinary cases of pathology) is irreducibly a moral question.
Genes are not destiny. They may predispose someone to be an abuser given the right environment, but we rightly hold that person to a higher moral standard, and consider them morally responsible for their actions. This moral standard necessitates that we assume the person genetically predisposed to violence has the wherewithal to obey a higher, non-physical law. We expect him or her to overcome genes and environment and obey a moral precept.
Even the language we use to describe this moment of moral decision is revealing. We may colloquially rephrase that last sentence to say, “We expect him or her to disobey genes and environment and obey a moral precept,” but that would be technically false usage. “Disobey” in the first usage is loose in its meaning while “obey” in the second is strict—we equivocated. We cannot obey something that does not give binding orders. Cancer does not order (in a moral sense) cells to reproduce uncontrollably; civil governments do order citizens to not kill each other.
When encountering this very touchy and sensitive issue in the public square, we need to be clear on our moral reasoning. Though there clearly are genetic and environmental predispositions, those do not necessarily predetermine behavior. If they did, moral culpability would be a completely different notion than we rightly hold it to be.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Hitchens, The Great God Debate, and Evidence
There is a wonderful post at STR concerning Hitchens' recent book and debate about religion and the existence of God. If you don't know, Hitchens' book is God is Not Great, and is the latest is a string of anti-Christian books. (A wonderful pastor who has engaged him in debate blogs here.)
One of Hitchens' claims, as Melinda notes at STR, dates back to Hume--extrodinary evidence is needed for the "extrodinary" claims of Scripture. The implication is that the evidence required to support Scriptual claims cannot be produced. STR quotes a former philosophy professor of mine (Dr. Gary DeWeese) dealing with Hitchens' remark. It is worth a careful read.
One of Hitchens' claims, as Melinda notes at STR, dates back to Hume--extrodinary evidence is needed for the "extrodinary" claims of Scripture. The implication is that the evidence required to support Scriptual claims cannot be produced. STR quotes a former philosophy professor of mine (Dr. Gary DeWeese) dealing with Hitchens' remark. It is worth a careful read.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Ted Haggard, A Tell-All Book, and Evangelicals
The man with whom Ted Haggard had his affair, Mike Jones, has written a book describing their liaison and the fall-out that resulted from the “outing.” His book tour begins soon in New York, but then he quickly makes his way to Denver. But not to Colorado Springs. The two major bookstore chains here have denied book signings. According to the stores here, the decision is about business and even community health.
“Although the (Colorado Springs) stores will be selling the book, they did not feel that there was enough community interest to support holding a book signing,” said Carolyn Brown, director of corporate communications for Barnes & Noble.
A Borders spokeswoman said bringing Jones to Colorado Springs “would have opened up a wound just healing. This would have not created a comfortable environment for the author, our customers who live in this community or our staff who also live in the community.”
The article in The Gazette details Jones’ feelings on the subject, and in all honesty, the whole thing is awful.
Being a pastor in Colorado Springs, I am asked from time to time what life is like in the wake of Haggard’s fall. (It was interesting enough before it.) I typically respond in honest regret about several things, but the wake of this tragedy is clearly larger than just being a pastor here. Jones himself is of the opinion that this story raises larger issues about the evangelical church itself.
“But the biggest thing in this book is that this is much more than Ted Haggard. This is about the evangelical church in America.”
Really?
There is a rash of “hate evangelical Christians” out there, and it is a highly-contagious condition. Evangelicals are easy and socially-acceptable targets in our culture today, but is it really true that the actions of one man say something about the evangelical church at large? The complex answer in this case, I think, is “yes,” but not in the way Jones means it. But complexity and nuance might get me in trouble.
The straight-forward answer is, “no.” The actions of one man do not comment significantly on evangelicalism. Though he was relatively influential, his actions were his own. To the extent that he agreed to or diverged from orthodoxy is also his matter, and not a reflection on a larger movement. Though there are many like Jones who would like to comment on evangelical belief and homosexuality through the lens of Haggard’s double-life, time and reality won’t let that stick. God’s truth, whether spoken by an evangelical pastor, a Quaker wife, or an Orthodox priest, will always be true no matter the cultural context, or the latest scandal.
“Although the (Colorado Springs) stores will be selling the book, they did not feel that there was enough community interest to support holding a book signing,” said Carolyn Brown, director of corporate communications for Barnes & Noble.
A Borders spokeswoman said bringing Jones to Colorado Springs “would have opened up a wound just healing. This would have not created a comfortable environment for the author, our customers who live in this community or our staff who also live in the community.”
The article in The Gazette details Jones’ feelings on the subject, and in all honesty, the whole thing is awful.
Being a pastor in Colorado Springs, I am asked from time to time what life is like in the wake of Haggard’s fall. (It was interesting enough before it.) I typically respond in honest regret about several things, but the wake of this tragedy is clearly larger than just being a pastor here. Jones himself is of the opinion that this story raises larger issues about the evangelical church itself.
“But the biggest thing in this book is that this is much more than Ted Haggard. This is about the evangelical church in America.”
Really?
There is a rash of “hate evangelical Christians” out there, and it is a highly-contagious condition. Evangelicals are easy and socially-acceptable targets in our culture today, but is it really true that the actions of one man say something about the evangelical church at large? The complex answer in this case, I think, is “yes,” but not in the way Jones means it. But complexity and nuance might get me in trouble.
The straight-forward answer is, “no.” The actions of one man do not comment significantly on evangelicalism. Though he was relatively influential, his actions were his own. To the extent that he agreed to or diverged from orthodoxy is also his matter, and not a reflection on a larger movement. Though there are many like Jones who would like to comment on evangelical belief and homosexuality through the lens of Haggard’s double-life, time and reality won’t let that stick. God’s truth, whether spoken by an evangelical pastor, a Quaker wife, or an Orthodox priest, will always be true no matter the cultural context, or the latest scandal.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Coffeeshops and "Third Places"
In this great little article by David Swanson, the importance of what have been called the “third places” is highlighted. A “third place” is a niche in a society between the home and the church where people find themselves relating. In some cultures it may be a bar or a pub, a lodge, or a neighborhood park. In our culture, it tends to be the local coffee shop.
Swanson notes one of the characteristics of a place like this as opposed to a church gathering:
Not only don't I know who I'll bump into at the coffeeshop, chances are, they won't look like me. While many churches tend to attract people who are similar, the coffeeshop doesn't have a target demographic....Our church is a highly structured and very busy suburban environment where spontaneous interaction with friends rarely happens....At the coffeeshop, however, I can count on bumping into someone who will be up for some conversation.
The “third place” offers an atmosphere that a church or even a home cannot, and it invites people a church or a home cannot. Is there a way for the church to engage in what the author calls “coffeeshop discipleship”?
It seems to me that there may be a great deal of upside to a third place where discussion and social circles can be more free-flowing than in a pre-structured environment. They might be great places for small groups, for planned discussions, and for impromptu meetings. Just recently I had a good discussion with a young man in a local coffee shop simply because I was sitting there reading a book.
HT: faith-journey
Swanson notes one of the characteristics of a place like this as opposed to a church gathering:
Not only don't I know who I'll bump into at the coffeeshop, chances are, they won't look like me. While many churches tend to attract people who are similar, the coffeeshop doesn't have a target demographic....Our church is a highly structured and very busy suburban environment where spontaneous interaction with friends rarely happens....At the coffeeshop, however, I can count on bumping into someone who will be up for some conversation.
The “third place” offers an atmosphere that a church or even a home cannot, and it invites people a church or a home cannot. Is there a way for the church to engage in what the author calls “coffeeshop discipleship”?
It seems to me that there may be a great deal of upside to a third place where discussion and social circles can be more free-flowing than in a pre-structured environment. They might be great places for small groups, for planned discussions, and for impromptu meetings. Just recently I had a good discussion with a young man in a local coffee shop simply because I was sitting there reading a book.
HT: faith-journey
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Churchill and Academic Freedom
The infamous Ward Churchill is in the news again as the current CU Boulder president has noted that he should be fired. Predictably, there are a lot of professors taking Churchill’s side in this argument, not a few of them trumpeting the “catch-all” freedom of speech defense.
If there is still any confusion about this issue, Churchill should be fired for doing what any student or applicant would be kicked out of school for doing—plagiarizing and falsifying information in your school records. Churchill is not an academic in any serious sense of the word. He is a myopic political ideologue.
And if there is still any confusion about whether the school has a leaning in Churchill’s favor, consider the case of acclaimed history professor, Phil Mitchell. A highly awarded and tenured history professor, Dr. Mitchell was fired from his position for using the book, In His Steps in a religious history class. (In His Steps is the turn-of-the-century book that inspired the “WWJD” question.) Without any defense from the faculty senate (which cannot let go of Churchill) and without much ink spilled in the press, Mitchell was let go.
This is another example of a theory I have concerning Christians in the Academy. Not only is it a calling by God for a committed Christian to be an active and winsome part of the Ivory Tower, but they face an atmosphere that is currently making them the leading thinkers and researchers in the English-speaking world. When a Christian academic needs to argue their point every step of the way and win their positions of tenure and publication, they will certainly come out sharper and brighter than those who have it easy. Churchill will be able to find a position at just about any major University, not because he is convincing, innovative, and thoughtful, but because he is a poster boy for so much of the academic establishment.
If there is still any confusion about this issue, Churchill should be fired for doing what any student or applicant would be kicked out of school for doing—plagiarizing and falsifying information in your school records. Churchill is not an academic in any serious sense of the word. He is a myopic political ideologue.
And if there is still any confusion about whether the school has a leaning in Churchill’s favor, consider the case of acclaimed history professor, Phil Mitchell. A highly awarded and tenured history professor, Dr. Mitchell was fired from his position for using the book, In His Steps in a religious history class. (In His Steps is the turn-of-the-century book that inspired the “WWJD” question.) Without any defense from the faculty senate (which cannot let go of Churchill) and without much ink spilled in the press, Mitchell was let go.
This is another example of a theory I have concerning Christians in the Academy. Not only is it a calling by God for a committed Christian to be an active and winsome part of the Ivory Tower, but they face an atmosphere that is currently making them the leading thinkers and researchers in the English-speaking world. When a Christian academic needs to argue their point every step of the way and win their positions of tenure and publication, they will certainly come out sharper and brighter than those who have it easy. Churchill will be able to find a position at just about any major University, not because he is convincing, innovative, and thoughtful, but because he is a poster boy for so much of the academic establishment.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Christians and Literary Theory
The book, Shaping a Christian Worldview, is a good compendium of essays ranging from foundational, “big picture,” essays to a list of essays addressing specific areas of discipline and what it would mean to shape a Christian worldview among them. One of the more interesting essays is by Barbara McMillin and is on the Christian worldview in the area of literary criticism.
To begin with, I approach this arena with a great deal of skepticism and even distaste for theories such as Deconstructionism and Marxist literary theory. With my prejudices firmly in place, I was pleasantly surprised by a practitioner at a Christian university who thoughtfully engaged several types of interpretive theory and saw things to be learned from each. The value of what McMillin drew from each theory ranged from genuine positive lessons, to the conclusion that a theory can be easily seen as vacuous when compared to a Christian worldview.
I like the sense from a Christian academic that her students need to be positively exposed to every prevailing point of view in their field if they are to be ready to engage the ivory tower. Christian English professors who know nothing about Feminist Literary theory will not teach at Princeton.
I also like the conclusion that when thoughtfully compared to a robust Christian worldview, other theories fall apart. I personally see little to no lasting value to postmodern deconstruction unless you are willing to throw away fundamental concepts like human personhood, God in Christ reconciling the world, and truth.
One great lesson drawn from her essay, and from this book as a whole, is that Christians need to engage every corner of the academic world, no matter how far-fetched it may seem or be. Another lesson, just as valuable, is that there may not be truth in everything. A point of view may be so skewed, that the only worth to be drawn from it is the invaluable lesson about what to avoid.
To begin with, I approach this arena with a great deal of skepticism and even distaste for theories such as Deconstructionism and Marxist literary theory. With my prejudices firmly in place, I was pleasantly surprised by a practitioner at a Christian university who thoughtfully engaged several types of interpretive theory and saw things to be learned from each. The value of what McMillin drew from each theory ranged from genuine positive lessons, to the conclusion that a theory can be easily seen as vacuous when compared to a Christian worldview.
I like the sense from a Christian academic that her students need to be positively exposed to every prevailing point of view in their field if they are to be ready to engage the ivory tower. Christian English professors who know nothing about Feminist Literary theory will not teach at Princeton.
I also like the conclusion that when thoughtfully compared to a robust Christian worldview, other theories fall apart. I personally see little to no lasting value to postmodern deconstruction unless you are willing to throw away fundamental concepts like human personhood, God in Christ reconciling the world, and truth.
One great lesson drawn from her essay, and from this book as a whole, is that Christians need to engage every corner of the academic world, no matter how far-fetched it may seem or be. Another lesson, just as valuable, is that there may not be truth in everything. A point of view may be so skewed, that the only worth to be drawn from it is the invaluable lesson about what to avoid.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Falwell Haters
G.K. Chesterton opened his essay, “A Defense of Humility” by stating, “The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.” So it is with the death of Jerry Falwell and those who were not fans of his. No person is perfect, and since Falwell was a person, I think we can safely say he wasn’t perfect. And being in the public eye for as long as he was meant he did things many people were not thrilled about. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but in our culture’s atmosphere, the way non-Christians “disagree” with Christians has turned, in Chesterton’s words, “exhilarating.”
The kind of vitriol being poured out against him in death is sub-human and deplorable. As one prominent example, the (basically) conservative atheist, Christopher Hitchens was interviewed on Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday. Part of the transcript reads:
Hitchens has his reasons, and I agree that Falwell’s pronouncements after 9/11 were out of place, but the point is broader than that.
All you need to do in our culture to get your head cut off is stand up for orthodox Christian values. Even in death, those who cannot countenance the idea of Truth or the existence of God are eviscerating him. And on a larger scale, one of the greatest evils in the world today, if you listen to them, is the very existence of the Christian religion.
Christ was right when he said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34). The simple truth of his existence and uniqueness will sharply divide people—even divide them over the coffins of Christ’s followers.
The kind of vitriol being poured out against him in death is sub-human and deplorable. As one prominent example, the (basically) conservative atheist, Christopher Hitchens was interviewed on Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday. Part of the transcript reads:
COOPER: Christopher, I'm not sure if you believe in heaven, but, if you do, do
you think Jerry Falwell is in it?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS,
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "VANITY FAIR": No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a
hell for him to go to.
COOPER: What is it about him that brings up
such vitriol?
HITCHENS: The empty life of this ugly little
charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most
extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just
get yourself called reverend.
Hitchens has his reasons, and I agree that Falwell’s pronouncements after 9/11 were out of place, but the point is broader than that.
All you need to do in our culture to get your head cut off is stand up for orthodox Christian values. Even in death, those who cannot countenance the idea of Truth or the existence of God are eviscerating him. And on a larger scale, one of the greatest evils in the world today, if you listen to them, is the very existence of the Christian religion.
Christ was right when he said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34). The simple truth of his existence and uniqueness will sharply divide people—even divide them over the coffins of Christ’s followers.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Spiritual Formation and Spiritual Progress
I was talking with a pastor friend of mine just a few days ago, and he expressed a frustration I have felt from time to time regarding discipleship, spiritual formation, and the progress people make or don’t make. After spending almost two years with a group of young guys in a small group specifically geared toward spiritual growth and formation, he described the amount of progress he had seen by lifting his hand and making the “zero” gesture with his thumb and finger.
How often have we seen that exact thing in the lives of the people we work with, pastor, pray for, and live life with? It has to be one of the most disheartening realities in ministry—people who don’t progress in their walk with Christ.
Why does this happen, and what should be done about it? First of all, I think we all know that true formation to the image of Christ is something only the Holy Spirit can do. We can pray, work, and be as intelligent and clever as we want to be, but if a soul is not ready or open to growth, it probably won’t take place. That being said, however, pastors and leaders need to be as prayerful, intelligent, and attentive as possible when discipling people. The primary job of the spiritual director/mentor/coach is learning how God made a person, where God put that person, what God has given that person, and where God is taking them. From there, the wise director can lead the disciple on a journey of profound discovery and growth.
I had a really ugly experience with a “coach” in which this fundamental rule was broken. He ended up pigeon-holing me based on his latest conference notes, telling me I needed to reevaluate where God had put me (because I didn’t fit neatly into his latest conventional wisdom), and in the end, he questioned my calling. Needless to say, I did not experience the grace of the Spirit in the growth of my soul.
Secondly, there is another difficult reality to note with spiritual growth. In his wonderful little book, Invitation to a Journey, M. Robert Mulholland speaks wisely to the difference between “being conformed” and conforming myself. The first, the biblical principle, happens solely on God’s time and in God’s way. He does the conforming. The second, the way we like to handle things, requires that we wrest control from God’s hand, time and power. When I try to conform myself (or others), I formulate spiritual growth, erect unreasonable expectations for “input and output” (five days of Scripture reading=a deeper relationship with Christ), and anticipate the same from others. This is a recipe for disaster, confusion, and frustration.
When I allow myself to be conformed, however, the frustration is on the front end. I usually need to wait longer than I want. I tend to see fewer results in the short-run than I would hope for. But when God is allowed to do his work in his way and time, the pay-off will be more than I can even now imagine or hope.
These simple thoughts probably do not go very far in alleviating my friend’s frustration. I think he is a wise and prayerful pastor and leader, but the willingness of the disciple to be discipled…that is a different matter altogether.
How often have we seen that exact thing in the lives of the people we work with, pastor, pray for, and live life with? It has to be one of the most disheartening realities in ministry—people who don’t progress in their walk with Christ.
Why does this happen, and what should be done about it? First of all, I think we all know that true formation to the image of Christ is something only the Holy Spirit can do. We can pray, work, and be as intelligent and clever as we want to be, but if a soul is not ready or open to growth, it probably won’t take place. That being said, however, pastors and leaders need to be as prayerful, intelligent, and attentive as possible when discipling people. The primary job of the spiritual director/mentor/coach is learning how God made a person, where God put that person, what God has given that person, and where God is taking them. From there, the wise director can lead the disciple on a journey of profound discovery and growth.
I had a really ugly experience with a “coach” in which this fundamental rule was broken. He ended up pigeon-holing me based on his latest conference notes, telling me I needed to reevaluate where God had put me (because I didn’t fit neatly into his latest conventional wisdom), and in the end, he questioned my calling. Needless to say, I did not experience the grace of the Spirit in the growth of my soul.
Secondly, there is another difficult reality to note with spiritual growth. In his wonderful little book, Invitation to a Journey, M. Robert Mulholland speaks wisely to the difference between “being conformed” and conforming myself. The first, the biblical principle, happens solely on God’s time and in God’s way. He does the conforming. The second, the way we like to handle things, requires that we wrest control from God’s hand, time and power. When I try to conform myself (or others), I formulate spiritual growth, erect unreasonable expectations for “input and output” (five days of Scripture reading=a deeper relationship with Christ), and anticipate the same from others. This is a recipe for disaster, confusion, and frustration.
When I allow myself to be conformed, however, the frustration is on the front end. I usually need to wait longer than I want. I tend to see fewer results in the short-run than I would hope for. But when God is allowed to do his work in his way and time, the pay-off will be more than I can even now imagine or hope.
These simple thoughts probably do not go very far in alleviating my friend’s frustration. I think he is a wise and prayerful pastor and leader, but the willingness of the disciple to be discipled…that is a different matter altogether.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Ethical Relativism and Moral Reasoning
I haven’t blogged in a long time, and I can blame the holiday season on most of that. The rest of it is just my own schedule and some added time-constraints.
One of those—in a really good way—is that I am teaching an Introduction to Ethics class at a local community college. I am enjoying the teaching, the interaction, and the students, so there is nothing to complain about there. I do, however, have a conundrum I need to process.
Ultimately, how do you teach people who have breathed the air of pre-theoretical relativism and find themselves as simplistic subjectivists how to think clearly? I was prepared for a lot of reactionary relativism, but I am taken back a bit by some of the consequences of their ethical system.
It is my early contention (maybe someone can change my mind on this), that growing up to be a simple relativist softens the mind and discourages clear thinking. Instead of recognizing the value of good and bad arguments, the fact that disagreement exists is, for the simple relativist, proof of their relativism. The reaction to anything that is labeled as “good” or “right” is met with the allegedly discussion confounding response, “good for whom?”
Forget whether there is, say absolute ethical truth, the loss of the very notion of “absolute truth” severely discourages any real, critical, reasoned, engagement with a position. If something deep inside a person’s cognitive structure tells them not to “judge” another position, or that there is no way to discern any substantial difference between ethical systems, their thought process has then, as a matter of necessity, ceased. One of the consequences of ethical relativism is that there cannot be any real, actual disagreement between points of view (arguing about slavery is on the same preferential level as arguing about favorite colors). And I believe that consequence to have very real, mind-numbing realities in the ethical structures of simple relativists.
I guess one might say, from the point of view of a kind of Aristotelian view of human teleology and flourishing, that this actually constitutes a good argument against ethical relativism. If it does actually stunt a person’s reasoning capacity and hinder critical engagement with life, then it cannot be good for human flourishing.
One of those—in a really good way—is that I am teaching an Introduction to Ethics class at a local community college. I am enjoying the teaching, the interaction, and the students, so there is nothing to complain about there. I do, however, have a conundrum I need to process.
Ultimately, how do you teach people who have breathed the air of pre-theoretical relativism and find themselves as simplistic subjectivists how to think clearly? I was prepared for a lot of reactionary relativism, but I am taken back a bit by some of the consequences of their ethical system.
It is my early contention (maybe someone can change my mind on this), that growing up to be a simple relativist softens the mind and discourages clear thinking. Instead of recognizing the value of good and bad arguments, the fact that disagreement exists is, for the simple relativist, proof of their relativism. The reaction to anything that is labeled as “good” or “right” is met with the allegedly discussion confounding response, “good for whom?”
Forget whether there is, say absolute ethical truth, the loss of the very notion of “absolute truth” severely discourages any real, critical, reasoned, engagement with a position. If something deep inside a person’s cognitive structure tells them not to “judge” another position, or that there is no way to discern any substantial difference between ethical systems, their thought process has then, as a matter of necessity, ceased. One of the consequences of ethical relativism is that there cannot be any real, actual disagreement between points of view (arguing about slavery is on the same preferential level as arguing about favorite colors). And I believe that consequence to have very real, mind-numbing realities in the ethical structures of simple relativists.
I guess one might say, from the point of view of a kind of Aristotelian view of human teleology and flourishing, that this actually constitutes a good argument against ethical relativism. If it does actually stunt a person’s reasoning capacity and hinder critical engagement with life, then it cannot be good for human flourishing.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Evil, Bloody Religion
Dinesh d’Souza, a wonderful public thinker in our age, has written a great little article [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html -Blogger seems to be tripping over links right now] confronting and dispelling one of the most widely disseminated falsehoods of our day: religion is one of the most violent and bloody things that has happened to humanity. According to such authors as Richard Dawkins, religion needs to be done away with and all will be well (read-Christianity especially needs to be done away with) .
The slogan is that religion has killed more people through the ages than anything else. D’Souza remarks:
The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25....It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
D’Souza goes on to make the observation, made by many, that more people have been killed in the name of atheism in the last 100 years than in all the religious conflicts in the last 2,000.
I am indebted to the CU philosophy grad student email list for this link and for this professors incisive response to D’Souza’s assertions:
The basic argument is that atheism has killed tons more people than religion.
(Okay, holding my tongue about that...)
It is not hard to hold your tongue when there is nothing intelligent to say in response except to repeat the tired old slogans about evil and bloody religion.
The slogan is that religion has killed more people through the ages than anything else. D’Souza remarks:
The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25....It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
D’Souza goes on to make the observation, made by many, that more people have been killed in the name of atheism in the last 100 years than in all the religious conflicts in the last 2,000.
I am indebted to the CU philosophy grad student email list for this link and for this professors incisive response to D’Souza’s assertions:
The basic argument is that atheism has killed tons more people than religion.
(Okay, holding my tongue about that...)
It is not hard to hold your tongue when there is nothing intelligent to say in response except to repeat the tired old slogans about evil and bloody religion.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Pastors-Their Role in the Church, Their Role in the Culture
I recently picked up America’s God by Mark Noll and ran across an idea early in the book that struck a chord for me. Several authors have written about the decline of the position of clergy in the American culture. It was once the case, in colonial and later history right through the 20th century, that the local minister was the resident expert on nearly every issue of importance and a highly respected individual. Recent surveys show that pastors and priests no longer hold a position like that in our contemporary culture.
Most of the time, when people lament this reality, it is framed in terms of anti-intellectualism and popular perceptions of ministers picked up from scandals and televangelists. I think these analyses have a lot going for them, but Noll brought something to this table I found interesting.
He noted that local pastors were held in high esteem in large part because of the theology of early America. Because, theologically speaking, the role of pastor was a position of high calling and esteem within the body of Christ, it became a public reality that ministers were held in high esteem.
Advancing Noll’s comment to current trends in ecclesiology and theology, one of the factors that may be leading to the diminished cultural role of the pastor is the diminished role he or she plays within the church. With evangelicalism’s thirst for everything contemporary, while corporate authority structures have been allegedly “flattened,” giving more of a team atmosphere to employees, our ecclesiology is following suit. If American people want to feel empowered and have a significant role in the direction of a church, it seems evident to many that we should flatten the authority structure, thus implicitly (if not explicitly) reducing the status and role of the pastor. We are, after all, a nation of priests, aren’t we?
Is the flattening of the church structure a good thing, bad thing, or mixed bag? Has it helped lead to the relative irrelevance of pastors in the culture at large? Has this trend in evangelicalism traded an ecclesiology gleaned from Scripture for one pulled from today’s best sellers?
Most of the time, when people lament this reality, it is framed in terms of anti-intellectualism and popular perceptions of ministers picked up from scandals and televangelists. I think these analyses have a lot going for them, but Noll brought something to this table I found interesting.
He noted that local pastors were held in high esteem in large part because of the theology of early America. Because, theologically speaking, the role of pastor was a position of high calling and esteem within the body of Christ, it became a public reality that ministers were held in high esteem.
Advancing Noll’s comment to current trends in ecclesiology and theology, one of the factors that may be leading to the diminished cultural role of the pastor is the diminished role he or she plays within the church. With evangelicalism’s thirst for everything contemporary, while corporate authority structures have been allegedly “flattened,” giving more of a team atmosphere to employees, our ecclesiology is following suit. If American people want to feel empowered and have a significant role in the direction of a church, it seems evident to many that we should flatten the authority structure, thus implicitly (if not explicitly) reducing the status and role of the pastor. We are, after all, a nation of priests, aren’t we?
Is the flattening of the church structure a good thing, bad thing, or mixed bag? Has it helped lead to the relative irrelevance of pastors in the culture at large? Has this trend in evangelicalism traded an ecclesiology gleaned from Scripture for one pulled from today’s best sellers?
Friday, December 08, 2006
Richard Baxter and Pastoral Preparation
I was flipping though my copy of Baxter’s Reformed Pastor this evening and ran across the following quote concerning the preparation of the pastor’s heart and mind before preaching:
Therefore, go then specially to God for life: read some rousing, awakening book, or meditate on the weight of the subject of which you are to speak, and on the great necessity of your people’s souls, that you may go in the zeal of the Lord into his house. Maintain, in this manner, the life of grace in yourselves, that it may appear in all your sermons from the pulpit,--that every one who comes cold to the assembly, may have some warmth imparted to him before he depart.
I want to highlight a couple of thoughts raised by this brief quote. First, read a book—a good book. Pastors and church leaders should not just be reading books on contemporary marketing practices or leadership models. They should be reading books like Baxter’s. There is a depth to the soul they create as we interact with people who were close to God, serious about their souls and their minds, and serious about shepherding the flock all at the same time. I can always tell when I am not reading. As I prepare sermons, the books that have sunk into me sometimes come out in amazing ways. Their depth of insight becomes part of the insight my congregation benefits from. If all I read is written by sports coaches, leadership and marketing gurus, and newspaper columnists, then that is the “depth” the congregation will languish under.
Second, what Baxter means by congregants leaving with “warmth” is wrapped up in the consolations of the Gospel of Christ. Baxter strikes a note over and over in this work in which he admonished pastors to be solidly doctrinal, and to pass that along to the flock. One of the primary themes, in fact, is the necessity of catechism, or the teaching of right doctrine to the lay people. If the pastor is not serious about right doctrine him or herself and serious about communicating it, the congregants will not leave with “some warmth imparted to them.” The last thing Baxter intends to convey by “warmth” is a feeling of niceness or goodness left after a good story or two.
Therefore, go then specially to God for life: read some rousing, awakening book, or meditate on the weight of the subject of which you are to speak, and on the great necessity of your people’s souls, that you may go in the zeal of the Lord into his house. Maintain, in this manner, the life of grace in yourselves, that it may appear in all your sermons from the pulpit,--that every one who comes cold to the assembly, may have some warmth imparted to him before he depart.
I want to highlight a couple of thoughts raised by this brief quote. First, read a book—a good book. Pastors and church leaders should not just be reading books on contemporary marketing practices or leadership models. They should be reading books like Baxter’s. There is a depth to the soul they create as we interact with people who were close to God, serious about their souls and their minds, and serious about shepherding the flock all at the same time. I can always tell when I am not reading. As I prepare sermons, the books that have sunk into me sometimes come out in amazing ways. Their depth of insight becomes part of the insight my congregation benefits from. If all I read is written by sports coaches, leadership and marketing gurus, and newspaper columnists, then that is the “depth” the congregation will languish under.
Second, what Baxter means by congregants leaving with “warmth” is wrapped up in the consolations of the Gospel of Christ. Baxter strikes a note over and over in this work in which he admonished pastors to be solidly doctrinal, and to pass that along to the flock. One of the primary themes, in fact, is the necessity of catechism, or the teaching of right doctrine to the lay people. If the pastor is not serious about right doctrine him or herself and serious about communicating it, the congregants will not leave with “some warmth imparted to them.” The last thing Baxter intends to convey by “warmth” is a feeling of niceness or goodness left after a good story or two.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Book Review: Is The Bible Intolerant?
A review I posted on Amazon:
This book is a wonderful and easy to read resource that counters many of the slogans used to deny the truth claims of Christianity or the Bible. Often your garden-variety skeptic will say things like, “the Bible has been changed so many times we can’t trust what we have,” or, “more people have died because of religion than any other reason,” and use such good-sounding slogans to ward off any serious argument. Orr-Ewing’s book does a masterful job of dealing with such claims head-on, and in this way it makes a great read for both Christians and skeptics.
There is more to the book than just anti-sloganeering. Orr-Ewing also deals well in the realms of comparative religions--being especially well versed with Islam and the Qur’an--biblical criticism, and philosophy. For example, the author does a wonderful job of addressing the criticism that Scripture is homophobic. While noting the values inherent in such a charge, she speaks well to the biblical witness on human sexuality. She notes that the biblical view is far from culturally conditioned. The surrounding cultures in the times represented by both the Old and New Testaments were very open with their homosexual, and other sexual, practices. Both Testaments represent a very counter-cultural view for their times, and it just happens to be the case that the biblical view on human sexuality is again deeply counter-cultural. There was nothing culturally conditioned about its view when it was written, and there is no good reason for its view to be altered now that it is again.
This is one of those wonderful books written by a serious theologian that addresses several pertinent issues in a manner accessible to most every reader. I highly recommend this book to any skeptic honestly seeking answers to their questions and to Christians looking for a solid apologetic resource.
This book is a wonderful and easy to read resource that counters many of the slogans used to deny the truth claims of Christianity or the Bible. Often your garden-variety skeptic will say things like, “the Bible has been changed so many times we can’t trust what we have,” or, “more people have died because of religion than any other reason,” and use such good-sounding slogans to ward off any serious argument. Orr-Ewing’s book does a masterful job of dealing with such claims head-on, and in this way it makes a great read for both Christians and skeptics.
There is more to the book than just anti-sloganeering. Orr-Ewing also deals well in the realms of comparative religions--being especially well versed with Islam and the Qur’an--biblical criticism, and philosophy. For example, the author does a wonderful job of addressing the criticism that Scripture is homophobic. While noting the values inherent in such a charge, she speaks well to the biblical witness on human sexuality. She notes that the biblical view is far from culturally conditioned. The surrounding cultures in the times represented by both the Old and New Testaments were very open with their homosexual, and other sexual, practices. Both Testaments represent a very counter-cultural view for their times, and it just happens to be the case that the biblical view on human sexuality is again deeply counter-cultural. There was nothing culturally conditioned about its view when it was written, and there is no good reason for its view to be altered now that it is again.
This is one of those wonderful books written by a serious theologian that addresses several pertinent issues in a manner accessible to most every reader. I highly recommend this book to any skeptic honestly seeking answers to their questions and to Christians looking for a solid apologetic resource.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Reflections on Discipleship, Appendix: Youth and Doctrine
In support of our thesis that principle (or theology and doctrine in our case) is far more practical and important than pragmatism from the pulpit, enter Time Magazine. Apparently one of the latest trends in youth ministry is to return to the fundamentals of theology and doctrine, and to help students encounter God on a much more meaningful, and might I add, substantive, level.
Isn’t it ironic how the basic principles of the Church for 2000 years seem to rise to the surface no matter how much make-up and propping we put over it?
Two snippets from the article:
Believing that a message wrapped in pop-culture packaging was the way to attract teens to their flocks, pastors watered down the religious content and boosted the entertainment. But in recent years churches have begun offering their young people a style of religious instruction grounded in Bible study and teachings about the doctrines of their denomination. Their conversion has been sparked by the recognition that sugarcoated Christianity, popular in the 1980s and early '90s, has caused growing numbers of kids to turn away not just from attending youth-fellowship activities but also from practicing their faith at all. In a national survey recently released by Barna Group, a polling firm that tracks religious trends, only 33% of kids 13 to 18 responded that they attend a youth-group event regularly--a 3% drop since 1998. And while nearly 75% pray each week, that number has declined 9%.
Then there is Christian Smith, the Notre Dame sociologist recently known for his profound study, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers.
The vast majority of teens who call themselves Christians haven't been well educated in religious doctrine and therefore don't really know what they believe…
Isn’t it ironic how the basic principles of the Church for 2000 years seem to rise to the surface no matter how much make-up and propping we put over it?
Two snippets from the article:
Believing that a message wrapped in pop-culture packaging was the way to attract teens to their flocks, pastors watered down the religious content and boosted the entertainment. But in recent years churches have begun offering their young people a style of religious instruction grounded in Bible study and teachings about the doctrines of their denomination. Their conversion has been sparked by the recognition that sugarcoated Christianity, popular in the 1980s and early '90s, has caused growing numbers of kids to turn away not just from attending youth-fellowship activities but also from practicing their faith at all. In a national survey recently released by Barna Group, a polling firm that tracks religious trends, only 33% of kids 13 to 18 responded that they attend a youth-group event regularly--a 3% drop since 1998. And while nearly 75% pray each week, that number has declined 9%.
Then there is Christian Smith, the Notre Dame sociologist recently known for his profound study, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers.
The vast majority of teens who call themselves Christians haven't been well educated in religious doctrine and therefore don't really know what they believe…
Monday, October 30, 2006
Reflections on Discipleship 5: Life Application Sermons
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
In this post I want to tackle a possibly controversial topic. It is my belief that when pastors try to be too “practical application” oriented in their sermons, the paradoxical but inevitable result is that their sermons apply to fewer and fewer people. The solution to sermonizing that is nothing but storytelling and “life-application” is sermonizing that is exegetically grounded. I believe that when we let the text do the speaking, the Holy Spirit is able to take the Word and apply it to each and every life far better than I could if I worried too much about applying it for people.
This first struck me as a real problem with “story-telling” preaching several years ago sitting under a pastor who had a gift for connecting with people, and who genuinely loved the members of his church. I enjoyed him personally, and was enjoying the prospect of sitting under his preaching. But just a couple of weeks in, I knew I wasn’t taking anything home with me. His sermons were comprised of story after story and a few thoughts thrown in from books on coaching. As I listened to his stories, it dawned on me that exactly zero of his “life application” attempts had any kind of real connection with my life.
The reason was that he narrowed the focus of his sermons to the list of stories he could come up with for his topic, thus excluding the congregants whose lives did not fit any of the contexts of the tales.
On the other hand, over the years I have spent pastoring, teaching, and sermonizing, the greatest results I have seen or heard from sermons came after a minister opened Scripture and let it do the talking. It is absolutely incredible what a passage of Scripture can do when it is allowed to do all the work. Recently I spoke on 1 Kings 19 and focused on how God worked with the depressed and hopeless Elijah. My primary point concerned the “low whisper” (how the ESV translates “still small voice”) in which God spoke to His prophet. After the service, a bunch of us went out to eat, and people were talking to me about the sermon and what they got out of it. To my pleasant surprise, they did see and comprehend what I put across, but they were all drawn to other parts of the passage that were read aloud in service and dealt with, if even on a cursory level. God spoke to people because the service let Him do the talking and applying.
The overarching point, I believe, is this: practical application without principal is practically useless. It is the principals in Scripture that do the work of transforming the heart and mind, and they can only do their work if the minister behind the pulpit is dedicated enough to do their homework theologically and biblically and brave enough to get out of the way.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
In this post I want to tackle a possibly controversial topic. It is my belief that when pastors try to be too “practical application” oriented in their sermons, the paradoxical but inevitable result is that their sermons apply to fewer and fewer people. The solution to sermonizing that is nothing but storytelling and “life-application” is sermonizing that is exegetically grounded. I believe that when we let the text do the speaking, the Holy Spirit is able to take the Word and apply it to each and every life far better than I could if I worried too much about applying it for people.
This first struck me as a real problem with “story-telling” preaching several years ago sitting under a pastor who had a gift for connecting with people, and who genuinely loved the members of his church. I enjoyed him personally, and was enjoying the prospect of sitting under his preaching. But just a couple of weeks in, I knew I wasn’t taking anything home with me. His sermons were comprised of story after story and a few thoughts thrown in from books on coaching. As I listened to his stories, it dawned on me that exactly zero of his “life application” attempts had any kind of real connection with my life.
The reason was that he narrowed the focus of his sermons to the list of stories he could come up with for his topic, thus excluding the congregants whose lives did not fit any of the contexts of the tales.
On the other hand, over the years I have spent pastoring, teaching, and sermonizing, the greatest results I have seen or heard from sermons came after a minister opened Scripture and let it do the talking. It is absolutely incredible what a passage of Scripture can do when it is allowed to do all the work. Recently I spoke on 1 Kings 19 and focused on how God worked with the depressed and hopeless Elijah. My primary point concerned the “low whisper” (how the ESV translates “still small voice”) in which God spoke to His prophet. After the service, a bunch of us went out to eat, and people were talking to me about the sermon and what they got out of it. To my pleasant surprise, they did see and comprehend what I put across, but they were all drawn to other parts of the passage that were read aloud in service and dealt with, if even on a cursory level. God spoke to people because the service let Him do the talking and applying.
The overarching point, I believe, is this: practical application without principal is practically useless. It is the principals in Scripture that do the work of transforming the heart and mind, and they can only do their work if the minister behind the pulpit is dedicated enough to do their homework theologically and biblically and brave enough to get out of the way.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Reflections on Discipleship 4 - Truth vs. Grace?
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
In this post I want to discuss the outcomes of discipleship. If we are trying to disciple people (or ourselves), then surely we can come to some kind of conclusion regarding what looks like success.
I was recently perusing a blog dedicated to discipleship and noticed that many of the posts and large chunks of the discussion were dedicated to service—both to the community and to the rest of the world. In fact, a recent edition of Christianity Today contained an article describing a growing trend among college-aged evangelicals in which they are more than willing to give up a consumerist lifestyle in order to serve the needy across the world. More and more young people are willing to embrace relative poverty to engage with social justice.
There is a catch, however, with this crowd of young people, and it is the catch with all action/service oriented discipleship. The article notes:
Unfortunately, many students today exhibit theological confusion. "Too many college students are not convinced about the exclusive claims of Christ and the eternal lostness of humanity," says Terry Erickson, InterVarsity's director of evangelism. "Students today are more grace-oriented than truth-oriented." Erickson notes that young people on missions trips today may not be articulating the gospel's promise of eternal salvation through Christ's death on the Cross as clearly as they are demonstrating their concern for social justice and compassion for the poor.
In other words, these missionaries are trading truth for grace. In such a scenario, we find ourselves meeting the earthly needs of people who will die and be lost for eternity because we were soft on spiritual truth. It is a wonderful and necessary thing to meet physical and economic needs; it is a necessary thing to meet spiritual needs.
The fundamental problem with seeing service or action as discipleship is that it is entirely possible to be engaged in service without following Christ. And if we are engaged in service and not following the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we are not engaged in Christian discipleship. I take it to be fundamentally true that someone cannot be an advancing disciple of Christ and reject/neglect His and Scripture’s truth claims about the nature of the human soul and spiritual realities.
Don’t get me wrong. Service and action are necessary results of discipleship. Paul says we are saved to do the works God planned for us: “He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.” (Eph. 2:10)
So if we can “do things for God” without actually being a disciple of Christ, what would constitute something in our lives that would guarantee or certify discipleship? The first things that come to mind are the fruit of the Spirit. In fact, isn’t that exactly how they are delivered to us? The flesh does certain things, but the Spirit of God does other things. Therefore, we know the Spirit of God is at work within us when those things are in our lives. In addition, I would add the virtue lists of the New Testament. Again, these lists have everything to do with character that is formed more by Christ than by this world.
On one level it might seem simplistic to say that a disciple of Christ is someone who is longsuffering; they are patient people. But, if you have ever had your patience tried, and failed at being patient, you know that when the rubber hits the road, there is nothing simplistic about it at all. In fact, you might reflect and say that the only way you could have been patient in certain circumstances is with a kind of divine aid. Add to this forgiveness, humility, joy, repentance, or peace, and you have a list that sounds only like Christ and sounds almost nothing like me.
Part 2
Part 3
In this post I want to discuss the outcomes of discipleship. If we are trying to disciple people (or ourselves), then surely we can come to some kind of conclusion regarding what looks like success.
I was recently perusing a blog dedicated to discipleship and noticed that many of the posts and large chunks of the discussion were dedicated to service—both to the community and to the rest of the world. In fact, a recent edition of Christianity Today contained an article describing a growing trend among college-aged evangelicals in which they are more than willing to give up a consumerist lifestyle in order to serve the needy across the world. More and more young people are willing to embrace relative poverty to engage with social justice.
There is a catch, however, with this crowd of young people, and it is the catch with all action/service oriented discipleship. The article notes:
Unfortunately, many students today exhibit theological confusion. "Too many college students are not convinced about the exclusive claims of Christ and the eternal lostness of humanity," says Terry Erickson, InterVarsity's director of evangelism. "Students today are more grace-oriented than truth-oriented." Erickson notes that young people on missions trips today may not be articulating the gospel's promise of eternal salvation through Christ's death on the Cross as clearly as they are demonstrating their concern for social justice and compassion for the poor.
In other words, these missionaries are trading truth for grace. In such a scenario, we find ourselves meeting the earthly needs of people who will die and be lost for eternity because we were soft on spiritual truth. It is a wonderful and necessary thing to meet physical and economic needs; it is a necessary thing to meet spiritual needs.
The fundamental problem with seeing service or action as discipleship is that it is entirely possible to be engaged in service without following Christ. And if we are engaged in service and not following the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we are not engaged in Christian discipleship. I take it to be fundamentally true that someone cannot be an advancing disciple of Christ and reject/neglect His and Scripture’s truth claims about the nature of the human soul and spiritual realities.
Don’t get me wrong. Service and action are necessary results of discipleship. Paul says we are saved to do the works God planned for us: “He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.” (Eph. 2:10)
So if we can “do things for God” without actually being a disciple of Christ, what would constitute something in our lives that would guarantee or certify discipleship? The first things that come to mind are the fruit of the Spirit. In fact, isn’t that exactly how they are delivered to us? The flesh does certain things, but the Spirit of God does other things. Therefore, we know the Spirit of God is at work within us when those things are in our lives. In addition, I would add the virtue lists of the New Testament. Again, these lists have everything to do with character that is formed more by Christ than by this world.
On one level it might seem simplistic to say that a disciple of Christ is someone who is longsuffering; they are patient people. But, if you have ever had your patience tried, and failed at being patient, you know that when the rubber hits the road, there is nothing simplistic about it at all. In fact, you might reflect and say that the only way you could have been patient in certain circumstances is with a kind of divine aid. Add to this forgiveness, humility, joy, repentance, or peace, and you have a list that sounds only like Christ and sounds almost nothing like me.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Reflections on Discipleship 3: Barriers to Following Christ
Post 1 Post 2
In this post I want to raise two important barriers to Christian discipleship. My wife and I were recently in a neighborhood showing of The Truth Project. It is a DVD series intended to convey the Christian worldview, especially to Christians and spiritual seekers. The conversation that followed fascinated me when it came to reflecting on belief formation in general and Christian discipleship specifically.
As a result of our conversation, and many others I have had with Christians and non-Christians over the years, I see at least two serious barriers to becoming thorough followers of Christ: individualism, and our current attitude toward authority.
The two attitudes are closely related but have a subtle distinction in this context. By individualism I intend to convey the idea that many people in our culture consider themselves the most important guide in the formation of their spiritual beliefs. Most people would not consider themselves the primary source of good information on biology, constitutional law, quantum theory, simple math, or many other things, but they do when it comes to spiritual truths. The belief that spiritual matters are not true in the same way that science is true creates the intellectual space in most people to consider themselves to be their own experts on spiritual matters. If, however, we believed that finding spiritual truth is akin to finding quantum truth, we might not be so haughty.
In addition, our current attitude toward authority keeps us from listening seriously to the teachings of the Church, theologians, or any spiritual authority (e.g. the first reaction of many people to the expression of authority is negative). Very simply, we are in a culture that has a basic, and rather deep-seated, distrust of authority. Again, we do not necessarily have that reaction to the resident authority on molecular biology or astronomy, but such terms as “ethical authority” or “religious authority” strike us as oxymoronic.
Why are these problems for Christian discipleship? First of all, finding spiritual truth is not, in a significant way, unlike finding truth in anthropology or astrophysics. All three fields make propositional statements about the structure of reality, and there are better and worse reasons for believing one theory or another. Holding a false belief about anything this fundamental is a barrier to progress. Secondly, individualists who distrust religious authority are less likely to find the right path when they have wondered down the wrong one. Not only will they need to have the wherewithal to reason through their errors, but they also need to be convinced that there are errors at all in the world of the spiritual.
These are a pair of the challenges that face the church of Jesus Christ today. Our pews are filled with latent and fully aware individualists. Our streets are filled with cultural Christians who have no good reason to take anybody’s word but their own when it comes to their spiritual beliefs.
In this post I want to raise two important barriers to Christian discipleship. My wife and I were recently in a neighborhood showing of The Truth Project. It is a DVD series intended to convey the Christian worldview, especially to Christians and spiritual seekers. The conversation that followed fascinated me when it came to reflecting on belief formation in general and Christian discipleship specifically.
As a result of our conversation, and many others I have had with Christians and non-Christians over the years, I see at least two serious barriers to becoming thorough followers of Christ: individualism, and our current attitude toward authority.
The two attitudes are closely related but have a subtle distinction in this context. By individualism I intend to convey the idea that many people in our culture consider themselves the most important guide in the formation of their spiritual beliefs. Most people would not consider themselves the primary source of good information on biology, constitutional law, quantum theory, simple math, or many other things, but they do when it comes to spiritual truths. The belief that spiritual matters are not true in the same way that science is true creates the intellectual space in most people to consider themselves to be their own experts on spiritual matters. If, however, we believed that finding spiritual truth is akin to finding quantum truth, we might not be so haughty.
In addition, our current attitude toward authority keeps us from listening seriously to the teachings of the Church, theologians, or any spiritual authority (e.g. the first reaction of many people to the expression of authority is negative). Very simply, we are in a culture that has a basic, and rather deep-seated, distrust of authority. Again, we do not necessarily have that reaction to the resident authority on molecular biology or astronomy, but such terms as “ethical authority” or “religious authority” strike us as oxymoronic.
Why are these problems for Christian discipleship? First of all, finding spiritual truth is not, in a significant way, unlike finding truth in anthropology or astrophysics. All three fields make propositional statements about the structure of reality, and there are better and worse reasons for believing one theory or another. Holding a false belief about anything this fundamental is a barrier to progress. Secondly, individualists who distrust religious authority are less likely to find the right path when they have wondered down the wrong one. Not only will they need to have the wherewithal to reason through their errors, but they also need to be convinced that there are errors at all in the world of the spiritual.
These are a pair of the challenges that face the church of Jesus Christ today. Our pews are filled with latent and fully aware individualists. Our streets are filled with cultural Christians who have no good reason to take anybody’s word but their own when it comes to their spiritual beliefs.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Gender Variance, Baby!
This blog by Albert Mohler cites a couple of articles in Florida and California in which school children are being subjected to a view sometimes labeled “gender variance” where children are not “forced” into traditional gender roles, but encouraged to construct their own genders from a very young age.
As Mohler notes, this is a dramatic and profound worldview shift. Right at the foundation of the issue is the conflict between a Christian view of humanity where personhood is essentially a given and the postmodern view where personhood is essentially constructed. This postmodern view reflects the rampant individualism and narcissism inherent in our current culture. Not only will we not let “the man” tell us who we are going to be, we won’t even let our own genetic make up tell us what gender we will be! Instead of resting in the “givenness” and grace of our creation in the image of God, we are left to drift on the currents of our shifting culture and mores. Though many might argue that this postmodern view allows us to become who we really want to be, and is actually empowering, it leaves us in a mire of moral confusion with no real ground to stand on. Has our culture, which has been finding itself for decades, become more mentally healthy and grounded or less?
As Mohler notes, this is a dramatic and profound worldview shift. Right at the foundation of the issue is the conflict between a Christian view of humanity where personhood is essentially a given and the postmodern view where personhood is essentially constructed. This postmodern view reflects the rampant individualism and narcissism inherent in our current culture. Not only will we not let “the man” tell us who we are going to be, we won’t even let our own genetic make up tell us what gender we will be! Instead of resting in the “givenness” and grace of our creation in the image of God, we are left to drift on the currents of our shifting culture and mores. Though many might argue that this postmodern view allows us to become who we really want to be, and is actually empowering, it leaves us in a mire of moral confusion with no real ground to stand on. Has our culture, which has been finding itself for decades, become more mentally healthy and grounded or less?
Reincarnation Conundrum
This latest Q&A at Dr. Science is priceless. This philosophy student asks a rather observant question about the plausibility of reincarnation. Dr. Science's answer is priceless--especially the first line.
Q: I'm a student of esoteric spiritual philosophy at a community college, and am puzzled by theories of reincarnation. If the population of the world keeps steadily increasing, how can we all be reincarnated from the smaller number of people who lived before? And why do so many people insist that in their former lives they were kings and queens, when obviously royalty were the vast minority?
A: I've got a secret for you, Bob. Most people are really, really stupid. The delusional few insist they are reincarnated versions of Louis the Fourteenth, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc or John Wilkes Booth are probably borderline schizophrenics. The only form of continual re-birth that has been proven is "Reintarnation," which is a common in Arkansas and insures a steady supply of hillbillies.
Q: I'm a student of esoteric spiritual philosophy at a community college, and am puzzled by theories of reincarnation. If the population of the world keeps steadily increasing, how can we all be reincarnated from the smaller number of people who lived before? And why do so many people insist that in their former lives they were kings and queens, when obviously royalty were the vast minority?
A: I've got a secret for you, Bob. Most people are really, really stupid. The delusional few insist they are reincarnated versions of Louis the Fourteenth, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc or John Wilkes Booth are probably borderline schizophrenics. The only form of continual re-birth that has been proven is "Reintarnation," which is a common in Arkansas and insures a steady supply of hillbillies.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Virtual Narcissism
In another project that I am involved in at the moment, I have been reading a lot about online/virtual communities. A popular argument is that given the judicious use of technology and interaction, virtual communities can be as rewarding, if not more rewarding, than face to face communities.
One of the arguments usually made to support the value of getting to know people online is that I am able to find people who match my interests and values better if I look for them online. If I were left to just the people I come in contact with on a regular basis, I might be left with a pretty small group of real friends.
First, the act of creating communities among those who are very much like me is inherently narcissistic. I go to MySpace, my favorite forum board, Goggle some topic I am fond of, and find someone to talk with. It all begins with me and what I find interesting and important. Part of what is so valuable with face to face communication is that if forces me to interact with people unlike myself, people I do not presently like, and people with whom I have a very difficult time communicating. It forces me to grow.
Secondly, one of the values of face to face friendships is that they make me expand and step out of my personal likes and dislikes. A good friend will help me become a better person, in part, by being different than I am. If I am to enjoy their company, I am going to learn how to interact with them on a deep and meaningful level.
If I am buried in virtual communities of people who are mostly like me, and find most of my relationships in these circles, I lose out on these real and meaningful benefits of face to face interactions.
One of the arguments usually made to support the value of getting to know people online is that I am able to find people who match my interests and values better if I look for them online. If I were left to just the people I come in contact with on a regular basis, I might be left with a pretty small group of real friends.
First, the act of creating communities among those who are very much like me is inherently narcissistic. I go to MySpace, my favorite forum board, Goggle some topic I am fond of, and find someone to talk with. It all begins with me and what I find interesting and important. Part of what is so valuable with face to face communication is that if forces me to interact with people unlike myself, people I do not presently like, and people with whom I have a very difficult time communicating. It forces me to grow.
Secondly, one of the values of face to face friendships is that they make me expand and step out of my personal likes and dislikes. A good friend will help me become a better person, in part, by being different than I am. If I am to enjoy their company, I am going to learn how to interact with them on a deep and meaningful level.
If I am buried in virtual communities of people who are mostly like me, and find most of my relationships in these circles, I lose out on these real and meaningful benefits of face to face interactions.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Intelligent Design In The Square
I have a personal theory that is gaining speed all the time. Naturalists, atheists and well-meaning agnostics have a sense of academic and intellectual entitlement that leads them to believe they have a corner on the market of truth and science. It has lead many of them to become intellectually lazy. Theists and Christians have been on the receiving end of the academic blows for the past several decades (if not centuries) and have become all the stronger for it. As a result, many of them present superior arguments and demeanors in public debate when serious academic issues are at stake.
To put a fine point on it, when I say they present “superior arguments,” I mean they actually present arguments about the issues and not about the people involved. Many of the “arguments” against views that overlap with theistic views today are, frankly, ad hominum and off point.
Case in point.
In a recent edition of Think Tank on PBS, Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, was on to present the Intelligent Design point of view. His interlocutor was Dr. Michael Ruse, Director of the Program in the Philosophy of the History of Science at Florida State University and a leading Darwinist. In the first few minutes the host asked Meyer if he could distinguish ID from Creationism. He did a very good job of doing so. He then asked Ruse to rebut or respond to Meyer’s assertion.
How long do you think it took for Ruse to argue that because Meyer and other ID proponents were theists of one stripe or another that their theory should be rejected? If you read the transcript, you will scroll through about 4 pages of material (most of it introductory). In fact, Ruse revealed all his philosophical cards early on in the interview:
Nevertheless, I would want to say, for both creationism and intelligent design theory, there’s a deeply, deeply, antiscientific, anti naturalistic attitude which ultimately goes back to the bible being read more literally than traditional Christians would read it.
In other words, to be scientific in any publicly acceptable meaning of the word is to, by definition, be a naturalist. This ubiquitous opinion is exactly why Johnson’s and the Discovery Institute’s famous “Wedge Strategy” is so on point—the first battle to be won in this debate is philosophical.
Ruse was not shy in his evaluation of ID’s basic flaw:
I think you’re profoundly mistaken, I think you are often more religious than you let on, I think that you do try strategies to get around the separation of church and state, I think all of those things. But I think that you are deeply sincerely, if misguided evangelical Christians. So that is very much where I come from, and that’s where I feel at least we can meet there. Now let’s get back to the science.
And this after dwelling on the topic of religion which he and the interviewer raised as real defeaters for the ID case.
To this particular point in the discussion, Dr. Meyer has made it clear that the premises of ID are not theological, and to damn it for its possible theological implications is what he called a “fashionable way of avoiding our arguments.” And of course, Ruse rejected that point while continuing to make theology and religion the issue. By the time Ruse accuses Meyer of possibly being a “misguided evangelical,” Meyer has stated in no uncertain terms, at least twice, what the basic scientific position of Intelligent Design is: is design in nature apparent or real? To this same point, Dr. Ruse’s only rebuttal has been ad hominum: you and your kind are Christians and not naturalists.
Dr. Meyer has also, by this point, revealed the flaws in Ruse’s reasoning. First, Ruse dislikes a possible philosophical/theological implication of ID, and thus rejects the scientific arguments. That is a little bit like arguing: I really want to be able to fly, so I am going to reject the science of gravity. (ID is not a natural law like gravity, but the point is analogous—avoid the premise by denying the implications of the conclusion.)
Secondly, Ruse commits the ‘guilty by association’ fallacy. Because Meyer is a practicing Christian (the interviewer questions him on his religious beliefs at least twice), his motives are devious and his science is inadmissible. I have a friend whose mother would not let him grow a mustache because, she believed, all people with moustaches were “hiding something.” Dr. Ruse has a moustache. Am I justified, based on his reasoning, and taking a cue from my friend’s mother, in believing that he is hiding something?
I am willing to believe that there are serious Darwinists and Naturalists out there who are actually doing scientific and philosophical work on ID, but every time an expert is pulled out of the queue, even on a serious program like Think Tank, they never do.
To put a fine point on it, when I say they present “superior arguments,” I mean they actually present arguments about the issues and not about the people involved. Many of the “arguments” against views that overlap with theistic views today are, frankly, ad hominum and off point.
Case in point.
In a recent edition of Think Tank on PBS, Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, was on to present the Intelligent Design point of view. His interlocutor was Dr. Michael Ruse, Director of the Program in the Philosophy of the History of Science at Florida State University and a leading Darwinist. In the first few minutes the host asked Meyer if he could distinguish ID from Creationism. He did a very good job of doing so. He then asked Ruse to rebut or respond to Meyer’s assertion.
How long do you think it took for Ruse to argue that because Meyer and other ID proponents were theists of one stripe or another that their theory should be rejected? If you read the transcript, you will scroll through about 4 pages of material (most of it introductory). In fact, Ruse revealed all his philosophical cards early on in the interview:
Nevertheless, I would want to say, for both creationism and intelligent design theory, there’s a deeply, deeply, antiscientific, anti naturalistic attitude which ultimately goes back to the bible being read more literally than traditional Christians would read it.
In other words, to be scientific in any publicly acceptable meaning of the word is to, by definition, be a naturalist. This ubiquitous opinion is exactly why Johnson’s and the Discovery Institute’s famous “Wedge Strategy” is so on point—the first battle to be won in this debate is philosophical.
Ruse was not shy in his evaluation of ID’s basic flaw:
I think you’re profoundly mistaken, I think you are often more religious than you let on, I think that you do try strategies to get around the separation of church and state, I think all of those things. But I think that you are deeply sincerely, if misguided evangelical Christians. So that is very much where I come from, and that’s where I feel at least we can meet there. Now let’s get back to the science.
And this after dwelling on the topic of religion which he and the interviewer raised as real defeaters for the ID case.
To this particular point in the discussion, Dr. Meyer has made it clear that the premises of ID are not theological, and to damn it for its possible theological implications is what he called a “fashionable way of avoiding our arguments.” And of course, Ruse rejected that point while continuing to make theology and religion the issue. By the time Ruse accuses Meyer of possibly being a “misguided evangelical,” Meyer has stated in no uncertain terms, at least twice, what the basic scientific position of Intelligent Design is: is design in nature apparent or real? To this same point, Dr. Ruse’s only rebuttal has been ad hominum: you and your kind are Christians and not naturalists.
Dr. Meyer has also, by this point, revealed the flaws in Ruse’s reasoning. First, Ruse dislikes a possible philosophical/theological implication of ID, and thus rejects the scientific arguments. That is a little bit like arguing: I really want to be able to fly, so I am going to reject the science of gravity. (ID is not a natural law like gravity, but the point is analogous—avoid the premise by denying the implications of the conclusion.)
Secondly, Ruse commits the ‘guilty by association’ fallacy. Because Meyer is a practicing Christian (the interviewer questions him on his religious beliefs at least twice), his motives are devious and his science is inadmissible. I have a friend whose mother would not let him grow a mustache because, she believed, all people with moustaches were “hiding something.” Dr. Ruse has a moustache. Am I justified, based on his reasoning, and taking a cue from my friend’s mother, in believing that he is hiding something?
I am willing to believe that there are serious Darwinists and Naturalists out there who are actually doing scientific and philosophical work on ID, but every time an expert is pulled out of the queue, even on a serious program like Think Tank, they never do.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Reflections On Discipleship 2
Part 1
First of all, thanks to all who have contributed so far to this thread of posts!
As a result, I want to focus briefly on a couple of issues.
First: An associate pastor friend of mine and I were talking about discipleship and we both were in agreement when it came to the necessary component of what gets modeled from behind the pulpits of the church. Rich noted in the comments to the last post that more often than not senior pastors see discipleship as something that they can relegate to an associate over C.E. and that a few people will choose to engage in. Frankly, if the senior pastor is not growing in discipleship, that lack will show in their ministry, and the church will follow suit. If maturity in Christ likeness is not a value to the ministry of a church, the church will not value it either.
Dallas Willard has noted that discipleship is not for the specially gifted or for those who desire to be discipled; it is the most basic and fundamental activity expected of every Christ follower. Where do we get this notion that discipleship is for the egg-heads and intellectuals among us? Wherever we got it, it has done a great deal of disservice to the Church.
This kind of modeling behavior does not only take place from behind the pulpit but in deliberate relationships as well. We learn what it means to live a Christ like life not just from learning the life of Christ, but from watching the lives of those who are further down the path than we are.
Second: I don’t know how long we can continue to pretend to “do church” when Scripture is not the center piece of our services. Due to a lot of forces out there, not the least of which is the church-growth/seeker-sensitive set of models, the role of Scripture has diminished in our churches. The more preachers I hear, the more I fit their sermons into one of two categories: Personal Soapbox and Glorified Self-Help. In both cases Scripture is given a nod as the minister grabs some small portion of Scripture to support the sermon on either the evils of [pick your demon] or the practical blessings of adding Jesus to your busy life. “With Jesus, it will all be better!”
Leave the self-help to the self-help gurus. Give people Jesus Christ and watch Him put their lives in order.
The result of this kind of preaching is a biblically illiterate culture of church-goers who are clearly not any kind of serious impact on our culture. Augustine changed his world by feeding his flocks true doctrine and, for example, going into great theological depth concerning issues like lying. John Wesley told a young preacher he was lively but shallow and that the only way to deepen himself as a preacher and a Christian was to read the classics (by which he meant Plato, Homer, Hume, Pascal, etc.) And I think we would agree that Wesley clearly made an impact.
First of all, thanks to all who have contributed so far to this thread of posts!
As a result, I want to focus briefly on a couple of issues.
First: An associate pastor friend of mine and I were talking about discipleship and we both were in agreement when it came to the necessary component of what gets modeled from behind the pulpits of the church. Rich noted in the comments to the last post that more often than not senior pastors see discipleship as something that they can relegate to an associate over C.E. and that a few people will choose to engage in. Frankly, if the senior pastor is not growing in discipleship, that lack will show in their ministry, and the church will follow suit. If maturity in Christ likeness is not a value to the ministry of a church, the church will not value it either.
Dallas Willard has noted that discipleship is not for the specially gifted or for those who desire to be discipled; it is the most basic and fundamental activity expected of every Christ follower. Where do we get this notion that discipleship is for the egg-heads and intellectuals among us? Wherever we got it, it has done a great deal of disservice to the Church.
This kind of modeling behavior does not only take place from behind the pulpit but in deliberate relationships as well. We learn what it means to live a Christ like life not just from learning the life of Christ, but from watching the lives of those who are further down the path than we are.
Second: I don’t know how long we can continue to pretend to “do church” when Scripture is not the center piece of our services. Due to a lot of forces out there, not the least of which is the church-growth/seeker-sensitive set of models, the role of Scripture has diminished in our churches. The more preachers I hear, the more I fit their sermons into one of two categories: Personal Soapbox and Glorified Self-Help. In both cases Scripture is given a nod as the minister grabs some small portion of Scripture to support the sermon on either the evils of [pick your demon] or the practical blessings of adding Jesus to your busy life. “With Jesus, it will all be better!”
Leave the self-help to the self-help gurus. Give people Jesus Christ and watch Him put their lives in order.
The result of this kind of preaching is a biblically illiterate culture of church-goers who are clearly not any kind of serious impact on our culture. Augustine changed his world by feeding his flocks true doctrine and, for example, going into great theological depth concerning issues like lying. John Wesley told a young preacher he was lively but shallow and that the only way to deepen himself as a preacher and a Christian was to read the classics (by which he meant Plato, Homer, Hume, Pascal, etc.) And I think we would agree that Wesley clearly made an impact.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Keep that Religion To Yourself!
In this timely blog entry, Robert George and Patrick Lee respond to a new book about science, religion and politics. In Challenging Nature, Lee Silver contends that the view that embryos are humans is inherently theological in nature, and thus does not belong in the public square. According to George and Lee, Silver:
insists that our views about the humanity and dignity of the human embryo are grounded in religious beliefs. He accuses us of concocting a scientific sounding case against embryo-destructive research in an effort to impose our religious beliefs on others while evading the constitutional prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion
and
Silver says that the claim that human embryos are human beings at an early stage of development is “hidden theology.”
George and Lee then analyze this claim by splitting it into two possible assertions. First, they say, Silver could be saying they hold their view of embryonic status as a theological view and are hiding that fact behind scientific sounding arguments. George and Lee appropriately dismiss that argument as ridiculously ad hominum. In the second place, Silver could be saying their argument depends on a theological premise whether they admit it or not.
The rest of the article is a phenomenal critique of this second argument by Silver and a great position paper for the full human status of embryos. What I want to comment on is the prevalence of Silver’s conclusion in our political culture.
It is assumed in a growing number of circles that religious points of view have no place in political dialogue. The form this is currently taking is actually quite frightening. As Silver’s position serves to show us, if you believe a human being is a human being, you are a closet religious fundamentalist and do not deserve the status of public thinker.
And it is not just the debate about embryonic status. Take abortion, or the Intelligent Design argument. Because the conclusions of many are in line with orthodox Christian theology, those conclusions ought not to be considered. It’s a classic “guilty by association” point of view. This argument (as the blog above shows) and the consequences of this view are absurd.
The argument is a kind of conspiracy theory on one level. It goes like: if you hold a belief that overlaps a belief consistent with Christianity, you are not being honest about your theological fundamentalism and you need to be “outed” as someone who should not be listened to (no matter your actual argument or evidence). Another way of putting it: it is impossible to come to conclusions consistent with Christianity and not be a dishonest fundamentalist.
The consequence is the strangling of serious ethical dialogue. According to Silver’s argument, the argument of the judge who presided over the Dover ID case, and the positions of many in the public eye, there are views that simply do not belong in the public square. And that is, as presented above, a deeply myopic and naïve view to hold. If scientists and public figures like Silver cannot seriously interact with a view contrary to their own, deal with the premises, come up with counter arguments or revise their own arguments, then they are probably susceptible to the charge of being intellectually dishonest.
Another problem at the root of this problem is another gigantic issue—the pervasive and pre-reflective religious relativism in our culture. Religious views are personal and not applicable to the real world; scientific views (as held by naturalists) are the only allowable views in public dialogue.
But that is a whole other set of thoughts.
Rabbit Trail: I am growing in my conviction in a theory of mine. Because Christians and theists have been perceived as the riffraff of public intellectuals for so long, they have had the time and incentive to develop better and better arguments for their points of view. Intellectuals like Silver and the Dover judge have grown intellectually sluggish with their supposed academic dominance over that “medieval” point of view. As a result, it will not be long before most of the serious and great thinkers in our culture will be theists of one stripe or another. I guess Darwin was right…
insists that our views about the humanity and dignity of the human embryo are grounded in religious beliefs. He accuses us of concocting a scientific sounding case against embryo-destructive research in an effort to impose our religious beliefs on others while evading the constitutional prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion
and
Silver says that the claim that human embryos are human beings at an early stage of development is “hidden theology.”
George and Lee then analyze this claim by splitting it into two possible assertions. First, they say, Silver could be saying they hold their view of embryonic status as a theological view and are hiding that fact behind scientific sounding arguments. George and Lee appropriately dismiss that argument as ridiculously ad hominum. In the second place, Silver could be saying their argument depends on a theological premise whether they admit it or not.
The rest of the article is a phenomenal critique of this second argument by Silver and a great position paper for the full human status of embryos. What I want to comment on is the prevalence of Silver’s conclusion in our political culture.
It is assumed in a growing number of circles that religious points of view have no place in political dialogue. The form this is currently taking is actually quite frightening. As Silver’s position serves to show us, if you believe a human being is a human being, you are a closet religious fundamentalist and do not deserve the status of public thinker.
And it is not just the debate about embryonic status. Take abortion, or the Intelligent Design argument. Because the conclusions of many are in line with orthodox Christian theology, those conclusions ought not to be considered. It’s a classic “guilty by association” point of view. This argument (as the blog above shows) and the consequences of this view are absurd.
The argument is a kind of conspiracy theory on one level. It goes like: if you hold a belief that overlaps a belief consistent with Christianity, you are not being honest about your theological fundamentalism and you need to be “outed” as someone who should not be listened to (no matter your actual argument or evidence). Another way of putting it: it is impossible to come to conclusions consistent with Christianity and not be a dishonest fundamentalist.
The consequence is the strangling of serious ethical dialogue. According to Silver’s argument, the argument of the judge who presided over the Dover ID case, and the positions of many in the public eye, there are views that simply do not belong in the public square. And that is, as presented above, a deeply myopic and naïve view to hold. If scientists and public figures like Silver cannot seriously interact with a view contrary to their own, deal with the premises, come up with counter arguments or revise their own arguments, then they are probably susceptible to the charge of being intellectually dishonest.
Another problem at the root of this problem is another gigantic issue—the pervasive and pre-reflective religious relativism in our culture. Religious views are personal and not applicable to the real world; scientific views (as held by naturalists) are the only allowable views in public dialogue.
But that is a whole other set of thoughts.
Rabbit Trail: I am growing in my conviction in a theory of mine. Because Christians and theists have been perceived as the riffraff of public intellectuals for so long, they have had the time and incentive to develop better and better arguments for their points of view. Intellectuals like Silver and the Dover judge have grown intellectually sluggish with their supposed academic dominance over that “medieval” point of view. As a result, it will not be long before most of the serious and great thinkers in our culture will be theists of one stripe or another. I guess Darwin was right…
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Reflections on Discipleship--Part 1
I was recently asked to take part in a Commission my denomination is putting together on Christian Education and Discipleship. I am very excited to be a part of this for several reasons, but primarily because discipleship is at the heart of my calling. God called me and constructed me to be a discipler and teacher, and now I have an opportunity to mix with others of the same mindset from across the country and hopefully combine some of my ideas with theirs. It promises to be a terrific learning and growing experience.
But what I want to do here, partly in preparation for our meetings, is to spend some time brainstorming on Christian Discipleship. I hope to create a small online think tank on the issue for at least a while as we share our ideas, experiences, and hopes for the growth and maturity of the Church. Feel free to share any thoughts on where you agree, disagree, or have something to add.
To get us started, here are some of my initial thoughts on the issue in general.
First: a focus on discipleship is sorely needed in the evangelical church. The statistics on what young people believe about the facts of Scripture and theology are deeply depressing, and the overall impact of the evangelical church in the culture at large is arguably minimal.
Second: nominal Christianity is rampant and dulling our senses to our need. Because most people in our culture (if the polls are to be believed) have a vague sense that they believe in God, their understanding of their need to know Christ intimately is nearly nil. The problem is not much less in our churches.
Third: discipleship is not for the spiritually gifted. It is a fundamental expectation of each and every Christ-follower. The early church was careful to pass along correct doctrine, catechize its new and young members, and expected all to be a follower of Christ in word and deed.
Fourth: discipleship is not just a destination, but also a journey. We cannot accomplish discipleship in a 6-week course. We also cannot look at discipleship as something that “happened” at some point in our life. Both the destination and the journey are crucial. We cannot remove the targets of relationship with Christ and knowledge of God, and we need to whet appetites for the lifelong journey that is following Christ.
Fifth: discipleship requires biblical literacy. I, along with some others I have read recently, am convinced that a great deal of the nominalism, and hence ineffectiveness, in the Church today can be traced back in large part to biblical illiteracy. We simply cannot actually answer the question: What would Jesus do?
Sixth: discipleship will be greatly aided with the resurgence of the spiritual disciplines in the evangelical world. The disciplines are not about rote activity or vain repetition—they are about putting our hearts, minds, and bodies in a place where they can be touched and used by God.
What else?
But what I want to do here, partly in preparation for our meetings, is to spend some time brainstorming on Christian Discipleship. I hope to create a small online think tank on the issue for at least a while as we share our ideas, experiences, and hopes for the growth and maturity of the Church. Feel free to share any thoughts on where you agree, disagree, or have something to add.
To get us started, here are some of my initial thoughts on the issue in general.
First: a focus on discipleship is sorely needed in the evangelical church. The statistics on what young people believe about the facts of Scripture and theology are deeply depressing, and the overall impact of the evangelical church in the culture at large is arguably minimal.
Second: nominal Christianity is rampant and dulling our senses to our need. Because most people in our culture (if the polls are to be believed) have a vague sense that they believe in God, their understanding of their need to know Christ intimately is nearly nil. The problem is not much less in our churches.
Third: discipleship is not for the spiritually gifted. It is a fundamental expectation of each and every Christ-follower. The early church was careful to pass along correct doctrine, catechize its new and young members, and expected all to be a follower of Christ in word and deed.
Fourth: discipleship is not just a destination, but also a journey. We cannot accomplish discipleship in a 6-week course. We also cannot look at discipleship as something that “happened” at some point in our life. Both the destination and the journey are crucial. We cannot remove the targets of relationship with Christ and knowledge of God, and we need to whet appetites for the lifelong journey that is following Christ.
Fifth: discipleship requires biblical literacy. I, along with some others I have read recently, am convinced that a great deal of the nominalism, and hence ineffectiveness, in the Church today can be traced back in large part to biblical illiteracy. We simply cannot actually answer the question: What would Jesus do?
Sixth: discipleship will be greatly aided with the resurgence of the spiritual disciplines in the evangelical world. The disciplines are not about rote activity or vain repetition—they are about putting our hearts, minds, and bodies in a place where they can be touched and used by God.
What else?
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Encouragement for Pastors of Smaller Churches
Between Two Worlds: Encouragement for Pastors of Smaller Churches
These are some great thoughts concerning preaching the Word and the size of your church. We place so much emphasis upon size that we often miss the point John Piper makes to the question about small churches that teach doctrine--Jesus told Peter three times to feed my sheep. The command is pretty straight forward and independent from congregational size.
It is easy for us to get on the bandwagon of size and internal (within our own church circles) influence, but is that really what pastoring is about?
These are some great thoughts concerning preaching the Word and the size of your church. We place so much emphasis upon size that we often miss the point John Piper makes to the question about small churches that teach doctrine--Jesus told Peter three times to feed my sheep. The command is pretty straight forward and independent from congregational size.
It is easy for us to get on the bandwagon of size and internal (within our own church circles) influence, but is that really what pastoring is about?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Evangelicals and the Bravery of Naming Heresy
.: That Which Stands Under :.: Contemporary Christianity and Heresy
This, in my opinion, is a good question. Why is it so hard for the evangelical church to call those within its ranks heretics when they preach and teach such things?
Are evangelicals too culturally relevant to rest on a deeper docrtinal morring? Is there any good definition of "evangelicalism" in the first place? Are we being eatten alive by our own antiintellectualism?
This, in my opinion, is a good question. Why is it so hard for the evangelical church to call those within its ranks heretics when they preach and teach such things?
Are evangelicals too culturally relevant to rest on a deeper docrtinal morring? Is there any good definition of "evangelicalism" in the first place? Are we being eatten alive by our own antiintellectualism?
The Christian and Anger
In my sermon last weekend I made a statement or two about anger and the Christian life that provoked a discussion or two. In the general context of developing Spiritual Disciplines and the specific context of Colossians 3:1-17, I made the statement that Christians should strive to never be angry.
Admittedly that is a provocative, if not hyperbolic, statement. The discussion it elicited had to do with specific cases when actual wrongs are done and Christians must act, or the example of Christ in the temple turning over the seller’s tables. Certainly, many people were saying, there are cases when we ought to be angry at sin and strive to rectify it, and even the life of Jesus provides an example justifying “righteous indignation.”
I don’t want to try and settle the matter here, but rather provide a couple more thoughts for discussion. First of all, I know what I said was provocative--it was deliberate. I am glad people are now thinking and talking about the work of Spiritual Disciplines on their souls and their emotional states. Secondly, I would like to throw a couple of thoughts out there concerning the Christian and anger.
In the specific context of Colossians 3:1-17, Paul gives no quarter. He does not encourage the believer to “put off” anger in all cases except a handful in which we all know every reasonable person has a right to be angry. If what I said was provocative, it is because what Paul said is provocative. Having said that, however, I think it can be reasonably assumed, in a larger biblical context, that the point is to be able not to sin, even when we are angry. After all, the direct command is, “Be angry and sin not.” (Eph. 4:26)
But what is that direct command about? Is it about giving me the wiggle room to be angry, or is it about the injunction to not sin? Ultimately, I imagine the point is that I learn not to sin, not specifically about when I have a right to be angry.
And then there is Christ’s example of “righteous indignation.” It can be argued, and not dismissed lightly, that I am almost, if not entirely, incapable of being righteous in my indignation. If I am honest with myself, most all my anger, even at the wrongs and evils of sin and rebellion, is full of sin.
Is anger, especially when it is fraught with sin, a lack of trust in God’s providence? Is anger not only justified in certain circumstances, but necessary, for the attentive believer?
Admittedly that is a provocative, if not hyperbolic, statement. The discussion it elicited had to do with specific cases when actual wrongs are done and Christians must act, or the example of Christ in the temple turning over the seller’s tables. Certainly, many people were saying, there are cases when we ought to be angry at sin and strive to rectify it, and even the life of Jesus provides an example justifying “righteous indignation.”
I don’t want to try and settle the matter here, but rather provide a couple more thoughts for discussion. First of all, I know what I said was provocative--it was deliberate. I am glad people are now thinking and talking about the work of Spiritual Disciplines on their souls and their emotional states. Secondly, I would like to throw a couple of thoughts out there concerning the Christian and anger.
In the specific context of Colossians 3:1-17, Paul gives no quarter. He does not encourage the believer to “put off” anger in all cases except a handful in which we all know every reasonable person has a right to be angry. If what I said was provocative, it is because what Paul said is provocative. Having said that, however, I think it can be reasonably assumed, in a larger biblical context, that the point is to be able not to sin, even when we are angry. After all, the direct command is, “Be angry and sin not.” (Eph. 4:26)
But what is that direct command about? Is it about giving me the wiggle room to be angry, or is it about the injunction to not sin? Ultimately, I imagine the point is that I learn not to sin, not specifically about when I have a right to be angry.
And then there is Christ’s example of “righteous indignation.” It can be argued, and not dismissed lightly, that I am almost, if not entirely, incapable of being righteous in my indignation. If I am honest with myself, most all my anger, even at the wrongs and evils of sin and rebellion, is full of sin.
Is anger, especially when it is fraught with sin, a lack of trust in God’s providence? Is anger not only justified in certain circumstances, but necessary, for the attentive believer?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Destructive Virtue
I believe there is a virtue alive and well in our culture that is destroying us. It has come to dominate the social, religious, moral, political and legal landscapes and is by its very nature corroding the fabric of our souls. The virtue of Tolerance is killing us.
I of course mean Tolerance in terms understood by the majority of our culture today: it is the state of character where we put up with any behavior or belief and consider it morally OK as long as it is not intolerant. One might dispute my use of “virtue” to describe Tolerance, but I use it because that is exactly how it is understood today. To not draw real moral distinctions or to avoid moral judgment altogether are traits of character prized in our milieu.
The reason it is so corrosive is it allows a person to feel virtuous while at the same time leading a life of debauchery and general engagement in vice. All we need now to be good people is Tolerance. As long as we do not judge the actions and beliefs of others, we can do what we please with ourselves and be good. Living my life is now a matter of narcissistic pragmatism, and I am now justified in pursuing every whim as long as I allow you to do the same.
Chastity is no longer a virtue to us. Intellectual Honesty isn’t either. We will look long and hard to find the virtues of Moderation, Courage (especially the moral variety), Patience, and Hope. Love is a sickly and sycophantic shadow of its real self. And good luck finding the value we place in the virtue of real, objective and world-engaging Faith.
You are good as long as you are Tolerant.
But express a second of moral clarity, an ounce of judgment for evil, and you are no longer worthy of our culture’s approbation. As soon as real evil and real sin is labeled as such, Tolerance will come crashing down around you.
We are allowing ourselves to be rusted from the inside out, and our Brave New Virtue is doing it to us.
I of course mean Tolerance in terms understood by the majority of our culture today: it is the state of character where we put up with any behavior or belief and consider it morally OK as long as it is not intolerant. One might dispute my use of “virtue” to describe Tolerance, but I use it because that is exactly how it is understood today. To not draw real moral distinctions or to avoid moral judgment altogether are traits of character prized in our milieu.
The reason it is so corrosive is it allows a person to feel virtuous while at the same time leading a life of debauchery and general engagement in vice. All we need now to be good people is Tolerance. As long as we do not judge the actions and beliefs of others, we can do what we please with ourselves and be good. Living my life is now a matter of narcissistic pragmatism, and I am now justified in pursuing every whim as long as I allow you to do the same.
Chastity is no longer a virtue to us. Intellectual Honesty isn’t either. We will look long and hard to find the virtues of Moderation, Courage (especially the moral variety), Patience, and Hope. Love is a sickly and sycophantic shadow of its real self. And good luck finding the value we place in the virtue of real, objective and world-engaging Faith.
You are good as long as you are Tolerant.
But express a second of moral clarity, an ounce of judgment for evil, and you are no longer worthy of our culture’s approbation. As soon as real evil and real sin is labeled as such, Tolerance will come crashing down around you.
We are allowing ourselves to be rusted from the inside out, and our Brave New Virtue is doing it to us.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Out Of The Mystery...And Right Back In
The basic burden of Leonard Sweet’s book, Out of the Question…Into the Mystery: Getting Lost In The Godlife Relationship, is to express the absolute centrality of relationship with God. For Sweet, knowing God is far more than just knowing the right kinds of things about God, but is about living a life of deep and meaningful relationship with God. Each section focuses on different forms of our relationships: with God, God’s story, other believers, those of other faiths, and so forth.
At times this book has a lot to offer. There are moments when Sweet expresses the interaction between “head knowledge” and relationship well, and, I argue, rightly. The opening sentence of the chapter “The Truth in Text” says, “The gift of life is to know the truth, and not just intellectually, but to experience its power and impact.” (98) In several other places he simply makes the point that following Jesus the way he wants to be followed is not just about doctrine but faith; not just about creed but trust.
Overall, I would say the second half of the book is more helpful than the first. The fundamental problem, however, is that Sweet sets up his argument and builds his foundation in the first half. The arguments and foundation are, for the most part, pretty thin and unconvincing. Sweet makes a move over and over in the first 100 pages of the book that I originally labeled as false dichotomies, but the more I read and discussed it with friends, I turned to labeling them “unhelpful and unnecessary distinctions.” There are literally dozens of these kinds of statements, but a brief taste will suffice:
“Belief is Plato; faith is Jesus.” (10)
“Is it better to believe, or to follow?” (13-chapter subtitle)
“The Christian church was created, not to preach doctrine, but to preach Jesus.” (24)
“Biblical faith is not about living a moral life.” (59)
“Truth is not certainty, nor is it doubt—both of which reject Christ.” (69)
“The Christian message is not a timeless tablet of moral principals or a code of metaphysics.” (74)
Each of these statements are intended to put across the necessity of relationship and faith, but they do so in a way that can actually lead the reader in the direction of seeking faith instead of knowledge, which is, ultimately, an absurd position to hold.
Take for instance the statement “The Christian church was created, not to preach doctrine, but to preach Jesus.” Sweet’s intent is to argue that many churches may ignore the person of Jesus and teach only catechetic dogma. But that is not what he says and what he says doesn’t make much sense if we unpack it just a little bit. Let us say I want to preach Jesus, so near Christmas I preach he was born of the virgin Mary. But then I need to back up because the virgin birth is a doctrinal affirmation. Now jump to Easter when I want to preach on our future hope based on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. But then I need to change my approach because the resurrection is doctrine.
The position, as actually stated, is silly. I literally cannot preach Jesus without making some kind of doctrinal statement. If I try to preach Jesus without doctrine, I do not preach the Jesus of the Bible and we are suddenly on a completely different playing field. Doctrine, right doctrine, about Jesus is essential to preaching the person of Jesus Christ.
In addition to this category of affirmation in the book, Sweet falls into the trap of believing that truth as we know it now (correspondence to reality/objectivity) is a recent creation, and that the early church and early philosophers had no conception of objective truth. He says, “Until a few centuries ago, ‘truth’ had no independent status outside of relationships with and obligations to God and to others.” (67) There seems to be a consistent lacuna in the theological view he represents—there is no knowledge of the philosophy of Aristotle, Socrates or Plato. To Sweet, and others with similar views, the notion of Truth was novel to Descartes and other Modernists. They seem to not know what the three ancient Greek giants taught about objective truth.
Did the early church teach doctrine as “truth” or were they simply a community of relationships? “The first Christians didn’t proclaim a creed or a statement of faith; they didn’t demand assent to a list of facts; they proclaimed the Cross; they proclaimed the Resurrection; they proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of Christ.” (9) As an initial observation, Sweet says the early church didn’t have doctrines except for the ones on his list. Secondly, we know that the earliest NT documents contain creedal formats that were not a creation of the author, but a reflection of what the Church already taught. Additionally, during the first 200-300 years of the Church the process of catechism was rigorous to say the least. It might be legitimately argued that catechism was more prevalent in the early church than it is now.
Ultimately, it is silly to think I can have a serious relationship with someone I am not required to have specific knowledge about. Can I relate with my wife without knowing important and personalized details about her? Can she essentially be just any woman? Can I express my relationship with her (analogously: declare the Gospel of Christ) without knowing those details (analogously: without basic doctrine)?
Why am I being this critical of the book and the way it presents its case? I have a friend who grew up Christian and has since turned her back on the church in favor of a more personalized spirituality that is more drawn to Buddhism than to Christ. Her journey has lead her to reading and appreciating the writings of Emergent and liberal Catholic authors. The reason she reads them is that they give her the space she needs spiritually to reject the claims of Christ on her life in favor of a Christ that is not about doctrine or theology. As a result, she may still hold a personal claim on Christ as presented by authors like Sweet, without believing in her need to cling to Christ only.
One may rejoin that any reader of any book can take out of it what they want, and that might be true. But when a Christian author makes it this easy for me to reject the doctrine of Christ in favor of a personalized Christ who makes no particular claim upon me, then I believe the primary error is with the author.
When we come to a point where we think we can have a meaningful relationship with a person we are not required to actually know, we have strayed too far from the biblical witness of the person Christ. For that reason, I cannot recommend this book as a useful tool in building that relationship.
At times this book has a lot to offer. There are moments when Sweet expresses the interaction between “head knowledge” and relationship well, and, I argue, rightly. The opening sentence of the chapter “The Truth in Text” says, “The gift of life is to know the truth, and not just intellectually, but to experience its power and impact.” (98) In several other places he simply makes the point that following Jesus the way he wants to be followed is not just about doctrine but faith; not just about creed but trust.
Overall, I would say the second half of the book is more helpful than the first. The fundamental problem, however, is that Sweet sets up his argument and builds his foundation in the first half. The arguments and foundation are, for the most part, pretty thin and unconvincing. Sweet makes a move over and over in the first 100 pages of the book that I originally labeled as false dichotomies, but the more I read and discussed it with friends, I turned to labeling them “unhelpful and unnecessary distinctions.” There are literally dozens of these kinds of statements, but a brief taste will suffice:
“Belief is Plato; faith is Jesus.” (10)
“Is it better to believe, or to follow?” (13-chapter subtitle)
“The Christian church was created, not to preach doctrine, but to preach Jesus.” (24)
“Biblical faith is not about living a moral life.” (59)
“Truth is not certainty, nor is it doubt—both of which reject Christ.” (69)
“The Christian message is not a timeless tablet of moral principals or a code of metaphysics.” (74)
Each of these statements are intended to put across the necessity of relationship and faith, but they do so in a way that can actually lead the reader in the direction of seeking faith instead of knowledge, which is, ultimately, an absurd position to hold.
Take for instance the statement “The Christian church was created, not to preach doctrine, but to preach Jesus.” Sweet’s intent is to argue that many churches may ignore the person of Jesus and teach only catechetic dogma. But that is not what he says and what he says doesn’t make much sense if we unpack it just a little bit. Let us say I want to preach Jesus, so near Christmas I preach he was born of the virgin Mary. But then I need to back up because the virgin birth is a doctrinal affirmation. Now jump to Easter when I want to preach on our future hope based on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. But then I need to change my approach because the resurrection is doctrine.
The position, as actually stated, is silly. I literally cannot preach Jesus without making some kind of doctrinal statement. If I try to preach Jesus without doctrine, I do not preach the Jesus of the Bible and we are suddenly on a completely different playing field. Doctrine, right doctrine, about Jesus is essential to preaching the person of Jesus Christ.
In addition to this category of affirmation in the book, Sweet falls into the trap of believing that truth as we know it now (correspondence to reality/objectivity) is a recent creation, and that the early church and early philosophers had no conception of objective truth. He says, “Until a few centuries ago, ‘truth’ had no independent status outside of relationships with and obligations to God and to others.” (67) There seems to be a consistent lacuna in the theological view he represents—there is no knowledge of the philosophy of Aristotle, Socrates or Plato. To Sweet, and others with similar views, the notion of Truth was novel to Descartes and other Modernists. They seem to not know what the three ancient Greek giants taught about objective truth.
Did the early church teach doctrine as “truth” or were they simply a community of relationships? “The first Christians didn’t proclaim a creed or a statement of faith; they didn’t demand assent to a list of facts; they proclaimed the Cross; they proclaimed the Resurrection; they proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of Christ.” (9) As an initial observation, Sweet says the early church didn’t have doctrines except for the ones on his list. Secondly, we know that the earliest NT documents contain creedal formats that were not a creation of the author, but a reflection of what the Church already taught. Additionally, during the first 200-300 years of the Church the process of catechism was rigorous to say the least. It might be legitimately argued that catechism was more prevalent in the early church than it is now.
Ultimately, it is silly to think I can have a serious relationship with someone I am not required to have specific knowledge about. Can I relate with my wife without knowing important and personalized details about her? Can she essentially be just any woman? Can I express my relationship with her (analogously: declare the Gospel of Christ) without knowing those details (analogously: without basic doctrine)?
Why am I being this critical of the book and the way it presents its case? I have a friend who grew up Christian and has since turned her back on the church in favor of a more personalized spirituality that is more drawn to Buddhism than to Christ. Her journey has lead her to reading and appreciating the writings of Emergent and liberal Catholic authors. The reason she reads them is that they give her the space she needs spiritually to reject the claims of Christ on her life in favor of a Christ that is not about doctrine or theology. As a result, she may still hold a personal claim on Christ as presented by authors like Sweet, without believing in her need to cling to Christ only.
One may rejoin that any reader of any book can take out of it what they want, and that might be true. But when a Christian author makes it this easy for me to reject the doctrine of Christ in favor of a personalized Christ who makes no particular claim upon me, then I believe the primary error is with the author.
When we come to a point where we think we can have a meaningful relationship with a person we are not required to actually know, we have strayed too far from the biblical witness of the person Christ. For that reason, I cannot recommend this book as a useful tool in building that relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)