Some of you might know that there is change brewing in the Assemblies of God, and that there are a lot of people, especially younger ministers, who are wrestling with what it means to be part of this denomination. One blog in particular, FutureAG, is acting as a clearinghouse for discussion and comment as well as prayer. I am very appreciative for this effort, and applaud its demeanor as being part of the AG and part of the effort to lead the denomination into further health in the future.
Many of the issues faced by the AG right now are also of larger concern to evangelicals. One post in particular, Identity Crisis, strikes one of those chords. As evangelicalism sways like a tree in cultural winds, what defines our roots? What keeps us in place and keeps us united in common cause? In addition to the thoughts in that post, I would like to throw some of my thoughts on the table as well.
One of the primary concerns for the AG is what is known as its “doctrinal distinctive”: speaking in tongues. From time to time this doctrine has been emphasized to the detriment and maybe even the exclusion of the other, more universally orthodox, doctrines. Paul notes:
“The truth is that the key to the Pentecostal movement was never tongues but a passionate pursuit of God for an empowering work of the Spirit to carry forth the Great Commission of Jesus.
Meanwhile, as we held tightly to our distinctive doctrine, we gave up many of the things that really made early Pentecostalism special. Our distinctive doctrine became all that defined us and the real character, contribution, and impact of the movement was lost.”
I think it is true that an overemphasis on a single doctrine has hindered us by narrowing our vision too much. What would, in my opinion, broaden our vision is a much deeper emphasis on the core doctrines and theological development available to Pentecostals. Theological work, when done correctly, broadens the vision of a denomination or a movement and sinks roots that stand the test of time. Documents like the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed have acted as solid foundations for millions of believers over nearly, well, thousands of years. And as cultures come and go, those theological works have proved up to the task of handling any one of them. I am not sure we have that kind of body of work behind the AG just yet.
In my view, the primary mistake in the trajectory of the AG has been in trying to rekindle feeling and emotions as a foundation for our present and future growth and in identifying our denomination too closely with that particular kind of spirituality. We may have, from time to time, mistaken the sovereign move of the Holy Spirit in the form of revival with emotionalism. Emotionalism is a poor foundation for anything, and hoping to control the Holy Spirit or recapture “what was” just doesn’t work.
Paul also notes:
“If the AG is going to continue to grow in the future, we need a paradigm that can better reflect the unique qualities of our past -- qualities that could better fit a post-modern paradigm than a modern one.”
I am not sure exactly what that would entail—qualities that fit better in a postmodern paradigm than a modern one. But I would add the caveat that we need to think critically and thoroughly about the philosophy of postmodernism before we dine with that devil.
Paul finishes his thoughtful post with a string of questions:
“What do you think? What is it that truly defines us? Why are we in this fellowship with each other?”
The very fact that these questions should be taken seriously betrays our need as a movement to strengthen the foundations upon which we call ourselves a fellowship.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Where Have The Young Pastors Gone?
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)