CHURCH/STATE AT DARTMOUTH - Yahoo! News
The always fascinating Buckley writes this article in response to both the ID controversy in the courts and a recent brouhaha at Dartmouth College concerning the breaking of the Ultimate Social Taboo-the name of Jesus in a public speech. Espeically noteable is his useage of "morganatic" near the end of the article.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Intelligent Design Now In Court
As I am sure many of you already know a court battle has begun regarding the exposure of Intelligent Design in public classrooms. The issues presented in this AP article caused me to reflect on a couple of things.
First, there really is pressure from the general scientific world (read-“pre-theoretically committed metaphysically naturalistic scientific world”) to make the latest form of Darwinism a state mandated scientific position. Is there another field of public school education in which there is a single dogma mandated by school boards, courts, state and federal governments? Is there another field in which the state has taken sides, forced a position, and created this kind of teaching structure?
Secondly, the evolution position is working at winning the debate by framing the issue in a false and deleterious manner. Anytime you read a piece on this issue, you will read some form of this quote from this article:
Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Ironically, the policy, as represented in the article, says nothing about Christianity, Creationism, or religion. The way the debate is being framed in the public square seems to be, “True Evolution against Blind-Faith Religion.” That framing stacks the deck before anyone gets a chance to weigh the actual merits. An old but quite genius tactic, actually.
Thirdly, I continue to be surprised by the public reasoning employed by ID’s opponents. Sure, there are those who genuinely deal with ID’s scientific and philosophical merits, but the public face of ID’s detractors is more akin to the historical arguments in favor of racial or gender discrimination: if we allow another point of view into the public eye, the way things have always been might change. Deep. Here it is from a witness for the evolutionary case:
The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
So, apparently what “scientific status” means to Miller is, “can never change or be challenged.” Forget ID. What about the Cambrian Explosion versus gradual, cross-species mutation? The statement included in the above paragraph would allow for theoretical changes within evolutionary theory, whereas the reply by the evolutionist would not.
Miller had this to add in response to a question about science and absolute truth:
"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.
If Miller believes Darwinism cannot be challenged as “new evidence is discovered,” it would seem it is pretty absolutely true.
Fourthly, I am disappointed at the context of the case itself. I find the way ID is being presented in this particular school district rather silly. From the article:
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
What is that intended to do? A statement, not even by a teacher, that refers students to another textbook is a pretty pointless context for both ID and the lawsuit against ID. If the school district was ready to implement some form of scientific free-inquiry, this is a pretty shallow attempt. Additionally, if evolutionists wanted to attack the current leading candidate for World’s Worst Nemesis, religion in public schools, this is a pretty trite context.
Update:
Right Reason, a great clearing house for many Christian Philosophers, links to an online debate involving Francis Beckwith regarding the legality of teaching ID in public schools.
Many more thoughts and links at Wittingshire.
First, there really is pressure from the general scientific world (read-“pre-theoretically committed metaphysically naturalistic scientific world”) to make the latest form of Darwinism a state mandated scientific position. Is there another field of public school education in which there is a single dogma mandated by school boards, courts, state and federal governments? Is there another field in which the state has taken sides, forced a position, and created this kind of teaching structure?
Secondly, the evolution position is working at winning the debate by framing the issue in a false and deleterious manner. Anytime you read a piece on this issue, you will read some form of this quote from this article:
Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Ironically, the policy, as represented in the article, says nothing about Christianity, Creationism, or religion. The way the debate is being framed in the public square seems to be, “True Evolution against Blind-Faith Religion.” That framing stacks the deck before anyone gets a chance to weigh the actual merits. An old but quite genius tactic, actually.
Thirdly, I continue to be surprised by the public reasoning employed by ID’s opponents. Sure, there are those who genuinely deal with ID’s scientific and philosophical merits, but the public face of ID’s detractors is more akin to the historical arguments in favor of racial or gender discrimination: if we allow another point of view into the public eye, the way things have always been might change. Deep. Here it is from a witness for the evolutionary case:
The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
So, apparently what “scientific status” means to Miller is, “can never change or be challenged.” Forget ID. What about the Cambrian Explosion versus gradual, cross-species mutation? The statement included in the above paragraph would allow for theoretical changes within evolutionary theory, whereas the reply by the evolutionist would not.
Miller had this to add in response to a question about science and absolute truth:
"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.
If Miller believes Darwinism cannot be challenged as “new evidence is discovered,” it would seem it is pretty absolutely true.
Fourthly, I am disappointed at the context of the case itself. I find the way ID is being presented in this particular school district rather silly. From the article:
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
What is that intended to do? A statement, not even by a teacher, that refers students to another textbook is a pretty pointless context for both ID and the lawsuit against ID. If the school district was ready to implement some form of scientific free-inquiry, this is a pretty shallow attempt. Additionally, if evolutionists wanted to attack the current leading candidate for World’s Worst Nemesis, religion in public schools, this is a pretty trite context.
Update:
Right Reason, a great clearing house for many Christian Philosophers, links to an online debate involving Francis Beckwith regarding the legality of teaching ID in public schools.
Many more thoughts and links at Wittingshire.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The Consequences of Consequentialism
This latest article from Colson, Machiavellian Morality, is a great set of thoughts on “ends justifies the means” morality. Though the setting of the article is the revelation of “deep throat,” the point is that believing justified ends warrant all means leads down a serious path of moral vapidity and relativism.
But this form of moral reasoning is commonly accepted in our cultural climate today. People get outraged at one political party, for instance, and don’t have the moral vision to be angered at “their” party for doing the same things. As long as the ends are right (so-and-so is in power), then the means have been automatically justified. I have been talking about Consequentialism in my Ethics class, and this is one of the classic moral blunders committed by a system that puts all its evaluative weight on consequences.
Take Mill’s argument for Utilitarianism for example. His basic argument might be summarized in this way:
P1: All actions are taken for some end.
P2: If an act is for the sake of some particular end, then the act is justified to the extent that the end is justified.
C: All acts are justified to the extent that their ends are justified.
So in Mill’s system, this justifies all actions that promote the end of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” A resulting problem, though, is that we can lie, steal, cheat and kill in order to make more people happy because the moral evaluation of an action is entirely wrapped up in its consequences. As long as "happiness" results, the acts that got us there are justified.
Sound rather academic and removed from the things you, the Average Bloke, encounter? How about, “it’s not wrong as long as nobody is getting hurt”? How many moral vices are justified with this kind of reasoning?
But this form of moral reasoning is commonly accepted in our cultural climate today. People get outraged at one political party, for instance, and don’t have the moral vision to be angered at “their” party for doing the same things. As long as the ends are right (so-and-so is in power), then the means have been automatically justified. I have been talking about Consequentialism in my Ethics class, and this is one of the classic moral blunders committed by a system that puts all its evaluative weight on consequences.
Take Mill’s argument for Utilitarianism for example. His basic argument might be summarized in this way:
P1: All actions are taken for some end.
P2: If an act is for the sake of some particular end, then the act is justified to the extent that the end is justified.
C: All acts are justified to the extent that their ends are justified.
So in Mill’s system, this justifies all actions that promote the end of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” A resulting problem, though, is that we can lie, steal, cheat and kill in order to make more people happy because the moral evaluation of an action is entirely wrapped up in its consequences. As long as "happiness" results, the acts that got us there are justified.
Sound rather academic and removed from the things you, the Average Bloke, encounter? How about, “it’s not wrong as long as nobody is getting hurt”? How many moral vices are justified with this kind of reasoning?
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Satellite Churches and Spiritual Fruit
Prompted by a comment by Wayne M, I would like to try and think through a couple more issues related to satellite churches.
Wayne wonders out loud if Paul was a pastor of a mega-church with many satellite campuses. I am not so sure there is an analogy here. First, Paul wasn’t a pastor of any particular church. Some may argue that he had a special tie to Antioch, but that was only as a missionary sent with their blessing and support. Paul never considered himself “the pastor” of any particular church, and as we read in places like 1 Corinthians, he noted the equal, if not greater, influence of other ministers and apostles. Additionally, Paul did not expand his ministry with an eye to keeping himself “on the big screen.” He constantly mentored and released other ministers and left them in churches longer than he could stay so they could shepherd the flock. I am not so sure that mega-churches with satellite campuses are after the same goal.
Wayne then goes on to ask important questions based on the notion of looking at the fruit being produced. I have not complained about satellite churches using the argument that they don’t facilitate evangelization. But I have complained about their facilitation of discipleship.
Is it possible for a seeker to enter the doors of a satellite congregation, accept Christ as Lord through a prayer lead via video screen, and then live their new life in Christ for years without ever having contact with a pastor, and live every week through a cold media medium? What will they have learned about the Incarnation? That Christ is as real as their TV? It is these kinds of considerations that make me shiver a bit.
So, to answer one of Wayne’s specific questions, I am not so sure good fruit is produced. People have complained for years about the fruit of itinerate evangelists who blow through town, never make contact with people or churches, and count decision cards. How is a satellite church significantly different? It seems to me their primary purpose, when all is said and done, is to keep on counting.
Wayne wonders out loud if Paul was a pastor of a mega-church with many satellite campuses. I am not so sure there is an analogy here. First, Paul wasn’t a pastor of any particular church. Some may argue that he had a special tie to Antioch, but that was only as a missionary sent with their blessing and support. Paul never considered himself “the pastor” of any particular church, and as we read in places like 1 Corinthians, he noted the equal, if not greater, influence of other ministers and apostles. Additionally, Paul did not expand his ministry with an eye to keeping himself “on the big screen.” He constantly mentored and released other ministers and left them in churches longer than he could stay so they could shepherd the flock. I am not so sure that mega-churches with satellite campuses are after the same goal.
Wayne then goes on to ask important questions based on the notion of looking at the fruit being produced. I have not complained about satellite churches using the argument that they don’t facilitate evangelization. But I have complained about their facilitation of discipleship.
Is it possible for a seeker to enter the doors of a satellite congregation, accept Christ as Lord through a prayer lead via video screen, and then live their new life in Christ for years without ever having contact with a pastor, and live every week through a cold media medium? What will they have learned about the Incarnation? That Christ is as real as their TV? It is these kinds of considerations that make me shiver a bit.
So, to answer one of Wayne’s specific questions, I am not so sure good fruit is produced. People have complained for years about the fruit of itinerate evangelists who blow through town, never make contact with people or churches, and count decision cards. How is a satellite church significantly different? It seems to me their primary purpose, when all is said and done, is to keep on counting.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Provocations and Pantings: Franchising Church
Provocations and Pantings: Franchising Church: The Latest Greatest Trend of the Megachurch Movement
I ran across this thorough and thoughtful post on satellite churches just last night doing a search on the great new tool-Google Blog Search If you are weighing the options and trying to analyze the trend, this post is definitely worth a gander.
I ran across this thorough and thoughtful post on satellite churches just last night doing a search on the great new tool-Google Blog Search If you are weighing the options and trying to analyze the trend, this post is definitely worth a gander.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Satellite Churches-Two Thumbs Down
It is official. I have decided the concept of the satellite church is simply a bad one. Every possible benefit I can come up with for a satellite situation could be fulfilled in a healthy “mothering” situation in which the mother church freely and generously gives of itself to the plated church. All that can be done in a planting scenario-without the egotism.
Let me go through some of the possible benefits of the satellite situation beginning with the concept of a small and young church benefiting from the resources and ministry of the mega-church.
In a typical satellite scenario, the mega-church has either hired or acquired volunteer workers to fill each needed position. A mega-church could do that for a plant just as easily. For instance, most satellite churches have live worship most if not all weekends, and what is stopping the mega-church from blessing a church plant with the same thing?
A satellite is able to partake in any large events promoted and sponsored by the mega-church. The same thing could happen if the mothering church is willing to keep a healthy and involved relationship with the church plant. What is there to stop cooperation between churches?
Most satellite campuses hire a pastor or a handful of pastors to oversee the local church community. So why not bless a new church with the immeasurable blessing of a staff? Many senior pastors may be concerned that if they set up a senior pastor in a new church they will not be good speakers. Why not either groom a protégé or take a chance on God’s calling in someone else’s life?
Pastors of mega-churches may be concerned that the DNA of their church will not be translated properly into another community if they relinquish control. Why not let a community and its pastors shape the personality of the church plant with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
By the way, the answer to each paragraph’s concluding question is the same: EGO.
Let me go through some of the possible benefits of the satellite situation beginning with the concept of a small and young church benefiting from the resources and ministry of the mega-church.
In a typical satellite scenario, the mega-church has either hired or acquired volunteer workers to fill each needed position. A mega-church could do that for a plant just as easily. For instance, most satellite churches have live worship most if not all weekends, and what is stopping the mega-church from blessing a church plant with the same thing?
A satellite is able to partake in any large events promoted and sponsored by the mega-church. The same thing could happen if the mothering church is willing to keep a healthy and involved relationship with the church plant. What is there to stop cooperation between churches?
Most satellite campuses hire a pastor or a handful of pastors to oversee the local church community. So why not bless a new church with the immeasurable blessing of a staff? Many senior pastors may be concerned that if they set up a senior pastor in a new church they will not be good speakers. Why not either groom a protégé or take a chance on God’s calling in someone else’s life?
Pastors of mega-churches may be concerned that the DNA of their church will not be translated properly into another community if they relinquish control. Why not let a community and its pastors shape the personality of the church plant with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
By the way, the answer to each paragraph’s concluding question is the same: EGO.
Review of "No Holds Barred"
No Holds Barred: Wrestling With God in Prayer
This book by Mark D. Roberts is a wonderful guide to praying through the Psalms. Through each chapter, Roberts adeptly addresses different issues raised through the Psalms and how to fold them into your prayer life. Among the many things he addresses are prayers of confession, worship, praise, and silence, and each topic is addressed with personal and pastoral sensitivity.
A growing topic of emphasis in evangelical circles in the last decade or so has been personal and corporate spiritual formation. Although this book does not label itself as being in that tradition, I think it can fit very neatly and usefully into anyone’s quest for personal spiritual growth. Each chapter concludes with a short suggestion on how to implement the Psalms into a prayer life both corporately and personally, and the final chapter contains several helpful and guiding questions relevant for each section.
I have personally benefited from this work, not just in my quest to deepen my prayer life, but in my appreciation for the Psalms as well. No Holds Barred would make a great resource for personal enrichment as well as a great text for a small group wanting to take this kind of journey together.
I would like to thank Mark for a copy of the book.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
United Methodist Church and Religious Pluralism?
I caught this commercial while watching the news last night, and I was a little shocked. To see the commercial, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the “I Believe” ad. My wife comes from a Methodist background, and this ad made her stomach turn.
I say a little shocked because I am not overwhelmingly shocked that the United Methodist Church seems to be selling out as an orthodox denomination, but I was a little shocked that this particular ad was so pluralist and relativist.
On one level I know it “plays well” to have a line in an ad describing your church that goes like this: “I am in no position to judge other people,” but is it right? Of course it isn’t. And this isn’t the kind of thing Christ spoke of in Matthew 7. Given the rest of the ad, it is raw relativistic pluralism about religion and the pursuit of God.
Has the UMC as a denomination gone over the edge of orthodoxy to an official position of religious pluralism? Have they given up on any kind of Christocentric particularism? Is Wesley weeping in heaven?
I say a little shocked because I am not overwhelmingly shocked that the United Methodist Church seems to be selling out as an orthodox denomination, but I was a little shocked that this particular ad was so pluralist and relativist.
On one level I know it “plays well” to have a line in an ad describing your church that goes like this: “I am in no position to judge other people,” but is it right? Of course it isn’t. And this isn’t the kind of thing Christ spoke of in Matthew 7. Given the rest of the ad, it is raw relativistic pluralism about religion and the pursuit of God.
Has the UMC as a denomination gone over the edge of orthodoxy to an official position of religious pluralism? Have they given up on any kind of Christocentric particularism? Is Wesley weeping in heaven?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Satellite Church: More Thoughts On Cultural Captivity
Continuing some thoughts on satellite church campuses, I have run across a few other reactions to the same article and people’s personal experiences with them that I find very instructive.
The first is a comment by Bob Robinson in which he states, “Satellite churches are in danger of making the Sunday worship event so central to ecclesiology that they miss becoming a transformative kingdom community.” This highlights a few crucial issues about why we do church the way we do it.
Are we trying to focus people’s spiritual lives around the experience they receive on the weekend? Even if that is not our intent, it is the inevitable result of a format that is so heavily focused on the concert-like event of a popular and well-funded church? I believe that we help engender consumerism in our adherents when we think our services and pulpit ministers so important that we feel the need to franchise them and keep other communities of differing flavors from evolving. We can ask the question then, looking at how we spend out time and money, what is the difference between where we “worship” and where we buy socks? There is no need for personal involvement or transformation when I purchase socks at the cheapest and best-stocked store or when I choose to “worship” and the latest and greatest fad in evangelical churches.
Should we not rather be focusing people’s spiritual lives on living every breath in the life of Christ? If that is the case, then the focus of our weekend services may change drastically, and might I say, our pastor’s sense of self-importance will be knocked down a few notches. Try as I might to be charitable to this phenomena, I can’t get over the visceral reaction that satellite campuses are inherently prideful. If a large and relatively wealthy church is concerned about another community’s spiritual need, why not plant a church?
The second set of comments comes from the inimitable Dr. Groothuis at The Constructive Curmudgeon. A couple of his comments:
We should unmask the controlling presupposition at work here—functional rationalism. The idea is to create products that can be efficiently reproduced according to a standard model in multiple locations. This works well for mass-market behemoths such as McDonald's, but should we then embrace McChurch, McPastor, or (heaven help us) McGod?
Moreover, these electronically mediated services must be calibrated to the minute if not the second. Hence, the obeisance to the idol of Chronos. What of the serendipitous work of the Holy Spirit wrought through the personal encounter of a pastor with his or her flock?
His first worry is “functional rationalism.” What I think he is concerned with may be colloquially stated as, “you cannot argue with success!” If it works for mega-corporations, it must work for mega-churches, and most importantly, if it makes us bigger it must be theologically and ecclesiologically acceptable. That is a huge leap in logic, but one that is taken way too often in evangelicalism.
The second concern noted above also strikes at the heart of the issue-where does God fit in? What if one congregation needs to be involved in worship longer than the other? What if a pastor senses his “live” audience requires more time on a certain point, but cannot do so because of the time constraints placed on him due to the narcissism of satellite campuses? Does it then become impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the active work of the Holy Spirit in a service when he or she cannot actually interact with the broadcast audience or the “live” congregation? I might think so.
The first is a comment by Bob Robinson in which he states, “Satellite churches are in danger of making the Sunday worship event so central to ecclesiology that they miss becoming a transformative kingdom community.” This highlights a few crucial issues about why we do church the way we do it.
Are we trying to focus people’s spiritual lives around the experience they receive on the weekend? Even if that is not our intent, it is the inevitable result of a format that is so heavily focused on the concert-like event of a popular and well-funded church? I believe that we help engender consumerism in our adherents when we think our services and pulpit ministers so important that we feel the need to franchise them and keep other communities of differing flavors from evolving. We can ask the question then, looking at how we spend out time and money, what is the difference between where we “worship” and where we buy socks? There is no need for personal involvement or transformation when I purchase socks at the cheapest and best-stocked store or when I choose to “worship” and the latest and greatest fad in evangelical churches.
Should we not rather be focusing people’s spiritual lives on living every breath in the life of Christ? If that is the case, then the focus of our weekend services may change drastically, and might I say, our pastor’s sense of self-importance will be knocked down a few notches. Try as I might to be charitable to this phenomena, I can’t get over the visceral reaction that satellite campuses are inherently prideful. If a large and relatively wealthy church is concerned about another community’s spiritual need, why not plant a church?
The second set of comments comes from the inimitable Dr. Groothuis at The Constructive Curmudgeon. A couple of his comments:
We should unmask the controlling presupposition at work here—functional rationalism. The idea is to create products that can be efficiently reproduced according to a standard model in multiple locations. This works well for mass-market behemoths such as McDonald's, but should we then embrace McChurch, McPastor, or (heaven help us) McGod?
Moreover, these electronically mediated services must be calibrated to the minute if not the second. Hence, the obeisance to the idol of Chronos. What of the serendipitous work of the Holy Spirit wrought through the personal encounter of a pastor with his or her flock?
His first worry is “functional rationalism.” What I think he is concerned with may be colloquially stated as, “you cannot argue with success!” If it works for mega-corporations, it must work for mega-churches, and most importantly, if it makes us bigger it must be theologically and ecclesiologically acceptable. That is a huge leap in logic, but one that is taken way too often in evangelicalism.
The second concern noted above also strikes at the heart of the issue-where does God fit in? What if one congregation needs to be involved in worship longer than the other? What if a pastor senses his “live” audience requires more time on a certain point, but cannot do so because of the time constraints placed on him due to the narcissism of satellite campuses? Does it then become impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the active work of the Holy Spirit in a service when he or she cannot actually interact with the broadcast audience or the “live” congregation? I might think so.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Satellite Church Campuses: The Next Great Model, Or The Latest In Consumer Capitulation?
One of the growing trends in the evangelical world today is the satellite campus. When a church grows too much for its surroundings, or it feels it needs to expand in some significant way but cannot build, it may decide to start a cloned campus of itself.
I want to thank Steve for the link to the story in Christianity Today and his thoughts on the matter. He addresses what is an interesting twist in this trend-what of small rural areas that may not be able to hire a pastor? Would it be beneficial for them if they were part of a satellite campus network? I encourage you to visit his post.
For the uninitiated, a satellite church is a second (or third, fourth…) campus under the auspices of a single church in which the services are a mixture of live and video feed worship and/or sermon. The satellite campus serves another part of a community, but maintains the name, the character and the senior pastor of the main campus. The CT story notes that the Willow Creek satellite campuses are made to look and feel as much like the main campus as possible-like a franchise. The pastor there overseeing the satellite campuses notes:
Even the parking lot directors wear the same orange jackets—so that when people drive up, they immediately feel like they are at Willow. [Jim] Tomberlin says, "We do the same things same way you would do at Starbucks or a McDonald's or a brand name that works."
So what are we to make of this trend? As a church planter, I must admit a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing. Isn’t a satellite church a little self-centered? Isn’t it a bit too much of an extension of a pastor’s or pastoral staff’s ego? What you find with most churches with satellite campuses is that they are large-up into the tens of thousands many times. Is it really all that hard to plant a sovereign church with all those resources and let them grow in a community themselves? Wouldn’t a church plant be better able to know and meet the needs of a specific community better than a video feed from across town?
Many satellite churches, and the ones mentioned in the article, try to meet those challenges by having pastors who oversee the ministry of the satellite campus and are physically there much the same way a typical pastoral staff would be at the main campus.
After reading the article and reflecting a bit, I have to say that I see some potential positives to this trend.
First, as noted by Steve, there may be ways to make this useful to churches and communities that cannot support a full-time pastor, or who have a hard time finding pastors who will stay for more than a couple of years. Steve also notes, though, that this situation has serious drawbacks as well such as the lack of connection between the “pastor” and the church and the relevance of the pulpit ministry. But if those can be overcome, is there a way to extend the ministry of a large church with many resources to a community that cannot enjoy some of those perks?
Secondly, there simply are things a large church can provide that small churches cannot. I have ministered in both, and see advantages in both sizes, and the advantages in a large church have a lot to do with budget.
Jim Tomberlin notes in the CT article that they have found that if parishioners drive more than 30 minutes to church, they are less likely to be involved or to invite friends. So the satellite, for them, helps to mitigate those problems. If they can drive 10 minutes to the “same” church, they are much more likely to invite friends and be involved. Not a bad result.
But there are other critiques that may go deeper than the results of involvement and franchised convenience. This post is getting long, so those will be developed later…
What are your reactions to this phenomena?
I want to thank Steve for the link to the story in Christianity Today and his thoughts on the matter. He addresses what is an interesting twist in this trend-what of small rural areas that may not be able to hire a pastor? Would it be beneficial for them if they were part of a satellite campus network? I encourage you to visit his post.
For the uninitiated, a satellite church is a second (or third, fourth…) campus under the auspices of a single church in which the services are a mixture of live and video feed worship and/or sermon. The satellite campus serves another part of a community, but maintains the name, the character and the senior pastor of the main campus. The CT story notes that the Willow Creek satellite campuses are made to look and feel as much like the main campus as possible-like a franchise. The pastor there overseeing the satellite campuses notes:
Even the parking lot directors wear the same orange jackets—so that when people drive up, they immediately feel like they are at Willow. [Jim] Tomberlin says, "We do the same things same way you would do at Starbucks or a McDonald's or a brand name that works."
So what are we to make of this trend? As a church planter, I must admit a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing. Isn’t a satellite church a little self-centered? Isn’t it a bit too much of an extension of a pastor’s or pastoral staff’s ego? What you find with most churches with satellite campuses is that they are large-up into the tens of thousands many times. Is it really all that hard to plant a sovereign church with all those resources and let them grow in a community themselves? Wouldn’t a church plant be better able to know and meet the needs of a specific community better than a video feed from across town?
Many satellite churches, and the ones mentioned in the article, try to meet those challenges by having pastors who oversee the ministry of the satellite campus and are physically there much the same way a typical pastoral staff would be at the main campus.
After reading the article and reflecting a bit, I have to say that I see some potential positives to this trend.
First, as noted by Steve, there may be ways to make this useful to churches and communities that cannot support a full-time pastor, or who have a hard time finding pastors who will stay for more than a couple of years. Steve also notes, though, that this situation has serious drawbacks as well such as the lack of connection between the “pastor” and the church and the relevance of the pulpit ministry. But if those can be overcome, is there a way to extend the ministry of a large church with many resources to a community that cannot enjoy some of those perks?
Secondly, there simply are things a large church can provide that small churches cannot. I have ministered in both, and see advantages in both sizes, and the advantages in a large church have a lot to do with budget.
Jim Tomberlin notes in the CT article that they have found that if parishioners drive more than 30 minutes to church, they are less likely to be involved or to invite friends. So the satellite, for them, helps to mitigate those problems. If they can drive 10 minutes to the “same” church, they are much more likely to invite friends and be involved. Not a bad result.
But there are other critiques that may go deeper than the results of involvement and franchised convenience. This post is getting long, so those will be developed later…
What are your reactions to this phenomena?
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
"Yes" Theology: Is That All We Can Say?
LeadershipJournal.net - The Inadequacy of "Yes" Theology
This is a good, short article on the necessary task of saying "no" to certain theological positions; saying "yes" necessarily means we say "no" to other postions. If you are a reader of this blog, you are well aware that I am concerned for a sizeable chunk of contemporary evangelicalism-I am worried it is becoming too comfortable with saying "yes" to the exclusion of saying "no." It feels good to assent and dialogue (with very little of a definable goal), and it hurts to say "no." After all, some people will be left carrying the lable of "wrong" if we do so.
The author writes:
Few issues portend so much for the future of the church, because none carries so much potential to fly in the face of the spirit of the age. I speak of the infatuation with pluralism and inclusivism and certain brands of multiculturalism; the belief in the egalitarianism of opinions and feelings—that it is not only wrong, but rude and bigoted to this that some people's ideas and feelings may not be as good or as valid as others. It's the "Who's to Say?" syndrome: Who's to say what is right? The answer is everyone, or no one, or both. Whatever. It's cool.
In response to the accusation that "no" is a narrow response:
But its narrowness is the narrowness of the birth canal, or of a path between two precipices...
Another great religious leader once said something about narrow gates and broad paths.
This is a good, short article on the necessary task of saying "no" to certain theological positions; saying "yes" necessarily means we say "no" to other postions. If you are a reader of this blog, you are well aware that I am concerned for a sizeable chunk of contemporary evangelicalism-I am worried it is becoming too comfortable with saying "yes" to the exclusion of saying "no." It feels good to assent and dialogue (with very little of a definable goal), and it hurts to say "no." After all, some people will be left carrying the lable of "wrong" if we do so.
The author writes:
Few issues portend so much for the future of the church, because none carries so much potential to fly in the face of the spirit of the age. I speak of the infatuation with pluralism and inclusivism and certain brands of multiculturalism; the belief in the egalitarianism of opinions and feelings—that it is not only wrong, but rude and bigoted to this that some people's ideas and feelings may not be as good or as valid as others. It's the "Who's to Say?" syndrome: Who's to say what is right? The answer is everyone, or no one, or both. Whatever. It's cool.
In response to the accusation that "no" is a narrow response:
But its narrowness is the narrowness of the birth canal, or of a path between two precipices...
Another great religious leader once said something about narrow gates and broad paths.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Reviewer for Mind and Media
It is always exciting to read good books and share your thoughts-how great is it to do it "officially" and even get a free book or two out of the deal?
Friday, August 26, 2005
What is a Christian to do?
I have recently been dialoguing with Bob Robinson about postmodern philosophy and the church world, and as a result of our conversation, I thought it helpful to expand on a couple of thoughts. I have always appreciated the thoughtfulness of our exchanges and the fruit it has born in my thinking. This post is a result of our discussion, but it rests on what I see as a general sense of things in the emergent church, or schools of thought that approve of much of pomo philosophy.
In our discussion about the possible role of pomo philosophy, I have made some pretty straight-forward and blanket statements.
For example, pomo philosophy argues that community is deeply formative-gives us our ethics, metaphysics, and human nature-and that kind of deep formation does not jive with Christianity.
I still wholeheartedly believe, especially given the distinction between understanding pomo culture and assenting to pomo philosophy, that there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview.
Bob then countered, wondering if I wasn’t brushing Postmodernism aside too quickly without giving it fair play:
I think it is would actually be more intellectual if Christians did not simply write off pomo as wrong-headed and wash their hands of it all. In doing so, these Christian thinkers would miss the important lesson to be learned: Christianity has always been about "community," we are actually mandated to created such communities to "make disciples...baptizing them...and teaching them."
So, I think Christian thinkers, if they want to intellectually deal with postmodernity, need to have a more nuanced strategy than just simply creating what may be a false dichotomy--"there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview."
As I respond, I want to emphasize that this is not intended to “lambaste” Bob. What he has expressed is part of a much larger whole in the evangelical world today, and that is what I want to address. I want to talk about two issues: Pomo philosophy and community, and what the intelligent thing is for the Christian to do in such situations.
Postmodern Philosophy and Community
The statement that is made often as a defense of the usefulness of Postmodernism is, “the importance of community has been recovered.” That, as is so often asserted, is not a Postmodern view. A more accurate representation of a Postmodern view of community is something like, “our communities and cultures are formative.” Now we need to define terms.
What the typical evangelical means by “community is important” is far from novel, wholly in line with all good Christian theology for 2000 years, and completely biblical. We are the body of Christ, should behave that way toward one another and the outside world, and represent Christ to the culture at large. It means we assimilate the Gospel that was communicated long ago into our present-day lives. We don’t need Postmodernism or any of its philosophical baggage to re-learn that lesson.
The evangelical, orthodox Christian view of community is one thing; the Postmodern view of community is entirely different.
When I say, “community is formative,” there is a world of difference between “important” and “formative.” “Formative” in this context means that our communities and cultures actually form, or create, our views on all the important things: ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, religion, etc. We do not-and for many pomo thinkers it is impossible to-receive useful information about these issues from outside our communities. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for an American to receive any useful (or salvific) information about the first century Jew, Jesus.
Recognizing that there are literally dozens of other issues like this one, I want to reassert and restate one of my original proposals: “community is formative” is inconsistent with “community is important.” One is a Postmodern view, the other is an orthodox Christian view. The two cannot meet without seriously damaging the content and intent of one or the other.
Which brings me to my second point.
What is the intellectual thing to do?
Fundamentally the answer is that the Christian should strive to understand a philosophy, theology, or cultural trend on its own terms, treat it charitably, take it seriously, and asses it on its own terms. When Christian thinkers and writers conflate “important” with “formative,” they are not treating pomo philosophy on its own terms and taking it seriously. For instance, if we really took Rorty seriously, truth would be “what our colleagues let us get away with.” Clearly not a view Christ would take. If we took Derrida seriously, there “is no text.” Then there is no communicable Gospel. It seems to me there is no common ground on those two points.
Being taken with popular, and thus incomplete, treatments of Postmodern philosophy may get some “oohs” and “aahs” from the crowd, but we need to ask a difficult question-is Postmodernism a useful gift or a Trojan Horse?
In our discussion about the possible role of pomo philosophy, I have made some pretty straight-forward and blanket statements.
For example, pomo philosophy argues that community is deeply formative-gives us our ethics, metaphysics, and human nature-and that kind of deep formation does not jive with Christianity.
I still wholeheartedly believe, especially given the distinction between understanding pomo culture and assenting to pomo philosophy, that there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview.
Bob then countered, wondering if I wasn’t brushing Postmodernism aside too quickly without giving it fair play:
I think it is would actually be more intellectual if Christians did not simply write off pomo as wrong-headed and wash their hands of it all. In doing so, these Christian thinkers would miss the important lesson to be learned: Christianity has always been about "community," we are actually mandated to created such communities to "make disciples...baptizing them...and teaching them."
So, I think Christian thinkers, if they want to intellectually deal with postmodernity, need to have a more nuanced strategy than just simply creating what may be a false dichotomy--"there is no room for pomo philosophy in the Christian worldview."
As I respond, I want to emphasize that this is not intended to “lambaste” Bob. What he has expressed is part of a much larger whole in the evangelical world today, and that is what I want to address. I want to talk about two issues: Pomo philosophy and community, and what the intelligent thing is for the Christian to do in such situations.
Postmodern Philosophy and Community
The statement that is made often as a defense of the usefulness of Postmodernism is, “the importance of community has been recovered.” That, as is so often asserted, is not a Postmodern view. A more accurate representation of a Postmodern view of community is something like, “our communities and cultures are formative.” Now we need to define terms.
What the typical evangelical means by “community is important” is far from novel, wholly in line with all good Christian theology for 2000 years, and completely biblical. We are the body of Christ, should behave that way toward one another and the outside world, and represent Christ to the culture at large. It means we assimilate the Gospel that was communicated long ago into our present-day lives. We don’t need Postmodernism or any of its philosophical baggage to re-learn that lesson.
The evangelical, orthodox Christian view of community is one thing; the Postmodern view of community is entirely different.
When I say, “community is formative,” there is a world of difference between “important” and “formative.” “Formative” in this context means that our communities and cultures actually form, or create, our views on all the important things: ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, religion, etc. We do not-and for many pomo thinkers it is impossible to-receive useful information about these issues from outside our communities. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, for an American to receive any useful (or salvific) information about the first century Jew, Jesus.
Recognizing that there are literally dozens of other issues like this one, I want to reassert and restate one of my original proposals: “community is formative” is inconsistent with “community is important.” One is a Postmodern view, the other is an orthodox Christian view. The two cannot meet without seriously damaging the content and intent of one or the other.
Which brings me to my second point.
What is the intellectual thing to do?
Fundamentally the answer is that the Christian should strive to understand a philosophy, theology, or cultural trend on its own terms, treat it charitably, take it seriously, and asses it on its own terms. When Christian thinkers and writers conflate “important” with “formative,” they are not treating pomo philosophy on its own terms and taking it seriously. For instance, if we really took Rorty seriously, truth would be “what our colleagues let us get away with.” Clearly not a view Christ would take. If we took Derrida seriously, there “is no text.” Then there is no communicable Gospel. It seems to me there is no common ground on those two points.
Being taken with popular, and thus incomplete, treatments of Postmodern philosophy may get some “oohs” and “aahs” from the crowd, but we need to ask a difficult question-is Postmodernism a useful gift or a Trojan Horse?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The Latest In the ID Controversy: Scientists Behaving Badly
I have said in the past that the opponents of Intelligent Design boil down to people who are scared to death of their science and philosophical conclusions, and who spend their time at ad homonim attacks; they smear ID scientists, try to label them with nasty names, and brush them aside. I have taken some smack for that, but I think a recent series of events shows this to be the case.
Richard Sternberg was an editor at a journal that published an article on ID by Stephen Meyer. He is no longer in that role because his fellow “scientists” in the Smithsonian smeared his name and his education and got him removed from his position.
Sound like a story line written up in a fundamentalist, evangelical tabloid? Try the Washington Post. Here are some of the important segments of the article:
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
The underhanded child’s play was so pervasive, an independent investigation was launched to protect Sternberg’s academic integrity.
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
One possible “out” for the Smithsonian accusers is that Sternberg is a Trojan horse-a religiously educated nut-job in a real thinker’s (read “scientist”) clothing. But that one, though tried, didn’t work either:
Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
Ouch! So, how about accusing him of faking the review process?
He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists, a claim McVay dismissed.
You be the judge as to who is behaving like a rational scientist.
Richard Sternberg was an editor at a journal that published an article on ID by Stephen Meyer. He is no longer in that role because his fellow “scientists” in the Smithsonian smeared his name and his education and got him removed from his position.
Sound like a story line written up in a fundamentalist, evangelical tabloid? Try the Washington Post. Here are some of the important segments of the article:
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
The underhanded child’s play was so pervasive, an independent investigation was launched to protect Sternberg’s academic integrity.
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
One possible “out” for the Smithsonian accusers is that Sternberg is a Trojan horse-a religiously educated nut-job in a real thinker’s (read “scientist”) clothing. But that one, though tried, didn’t work either:
Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
Ouch! So, how about accusing him of faking the review process?
He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists, a claim McVay dismissed.
You be the judge as to who is behaving like a rational scientist.
Friday, August 12, 2005
The Alt Church - Who/What Is It, and What Does It Mean?
A thought provoking article showed up in the local paper recently concerning the growing trend of people leaving the traditional church experience for their own, home-grown and individual churching. The article is titled “The Road Less Traveled” and discusses what is sometimes called the “Alt Church.” It may be described in this way:
Some Christians are forsaking familiar churches and cobbling together their own mix-and-match path to God. They worship on mountaintops and laptops, in business suits and tank tops. Most often, they worship in small, tightly knit groups and can be found across Colorado Springs any day of the week.
These Christians would say they’re not so much “unchurched” as “alternativechurched.” They don’t think they need trained clergy or large congregations to find the face of God: All they need is desire and faith. George Barna, evangelical Christianity’s most respected researcher, says these alt-churched Christians will change Christianity forever — and force some churches out of business.
My knee-jerk reaction when this kind of issue is raised is to categorize the personalized Christian as someone who is simply lazy and too disgruntled to be happy anywhere but inside their own head. But the stats and information conveyed through the article put a different perspective on it for me. Here are a few excerpts:
Others are radically spiritual. Barna’s research organization, the California-based Barna Group, suggests that many of these alt-churched Christians pray more, give more money to charity and know their Bible better than their church-attending counterparts.
And again:
“These are what we would classify as the most spiritually minded and spiritually passionate people around,” said Thom Black, Barna’s partner.
So this is not your “Creaster” crowd suddenly becoming statistically significant. They appear to be sincere and spiritually active Christians who have simply decided to detach themselves from the body of Christ to one degree or another. And lest you think this is a dwindling trend, Barna has done some pretty extensive research, is publishing a book on the subject, and has some interesting things to project.
Barna suggests this group, which he calls “revolutionaries,” will experience staggering growth. Although about 70 percent of American Christians saw the church as their “primary means of spiritual experience and expression” in 2000, Barna estimates that number will drop to as low as 30 percent by 2025. Another 30 to 35 percent will find a spiritual home in smaller faith-based communities such as house churches; still another 30 to 35 percent will get spiritual nourishment from Christian books, movies and concerts.
One prescient pastor was quoted:
“When the home-schooling movement was gathering steam, I used to joke that the next step toward Christian isolationism was to home church ourselves,” said Ed Rowell of Tri-Lakes Chapel. “I’m not joking anymore.”
I like that thought in this context-a worry about “Christian isolationism.” Most of us evangelicals hail from an ecclesiastical tradition in which the primary reaction to dislike of our surroundings is to circle the wagons-we cut ourselves off from the culture at large.
The same pastor went on to say:
“Evangelism has so stressed the individual aspect of salvation that we have become neglectful of the communal aspect of what the Bible calls sanctification, or spiritual maturity,” Rowell said. “We’ve changed from a ‘we’ theology to a ‘me’ theology. Being a follower of Christ is personal, but it is not private.”
I am going to write up some thoughts on this, but I would love your input. Are you an Alt Churcher? Do you have the drive to disassociate yourself from the church community? If so, what considerations brought you to this point?
Some Christians are forsaking familiar churches and cobbling together their own mix-and-match path to God. They worship on mountaintops and laptops, in business suits and tank tops. Most often, they worship in small, tightly knit groups and can be found across Colorado Springs any day of the week.
These Christians would say they’re not so much “unchurched” as “alternativechurched.” They don’t think they need trained clergy or large congregations to find the face of God: All they need is desire and faith. George Barna, evangelical Christianity’s most respected researcher, says these alt-churched Christians will change Christianity forever — and force some churches out of business.
My knee-jerk reaction when this kind of issue is raised is to categorize the personalized Christian as someone who is simply lazy and too disgruntled to be happy anywhere but inside their own head. But the stats and information conveyed through the article put a different perspective on it for me. Here are a few excerpts:
Others are radically spiritual. Barna’s research organization, the California-based Barna Group, suggests that many of these alt-churched Christians pray more, give more money to charity and know their Bible better than their church-attending counterparts.
And again:
“These are what we would classify as the most spiritually minded and spiritually passionate people around,” said Thom Black, Barna’s partner.
So this is not your “Creaster” crowd suddenly becoming statistically significant. They appear to be sincere and spiritually active Christians who have simply decided to detach themselves from the body of Christ to one degree or another. And lest you think this is a dwindling trend, Barna has done some pretty extensive research, is publishing a book on the subject, and has some interesting things to project.
Barna suggests this group, which he calls “revolutionaries,” will experience staggering growth. Although about 70 percent of American Christians saw the church as their “primary means of spiritual experience and expression” in 2000, Barna estimates that number will drop to as low as 30 percent by 2025. Another 30 to 35 percent will find a spiritual home in smaller faith-based communities such as house churches; still another 30 to 35 percent will get spiritual nourishment from Christian books, movies and concerts.
One prescient pastor was quoted:
“When the home-schooling movement was gathering steam, I used to joke that the next step toward Christian isolationism was to home church ourselves,” said Ed Rowell of Tri-Lakes Chapel. “I’m not joking anymore.”
I like that thought in this context-a worry about “Christian isolationism.” Most of us evangelicals hail from an ecclesiastical tradition in which the primary reaction to dislike of our surroundings is to circle the wagons-we cut ourselves off from the culture at large.
The same pastor went on to say:
“Evangelism has so stressed the individual aspect of salvation that we have become neglectful of the communal aspect of what the Bible calls sanctification, or spiritual maturity,” Rowell said. “We’ve changed from a ‘we’ theology to a ‘me’ theology. Being a follower of Christ is personal, but it is not private.”
I am going to write up some thoughts on this, but I would love your input. Are you an Alt Churcher? Do you have the drive to disassociate yourself from the church community? If so, what considerations brought you to this point?
Stand To Reason Weblog-On Emergent
STR WEBLOG
There are a couple of good posts and concerns on the STR weblog about the emergent church movement. I like the fact that they have used their position in Christian apologetics to engage Emergent and open honest dialogue (see their radio archives, for instance).
There are a couple of good posts and concerns on the STR weblog about the emergent church movement. I like the fact that they have used their position in Christian apologetics to engage Emergent and open honest dialogue (see their radio archives, for instance).
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Does Our Tone In Public Debate Matter?
This is a great short column by the astute Marvin Olasky concerning the phenomena recently dubbed, “South Park Conservatism.” (I think it requires a free registration.) The essay contends that though there may be plenty of conservatives who fit the bill and who use sarcastic, sardonic, and even crass and offensive humor to get their point across, there is a different standard for the Christian-conservative or liberal. In response to a point Ann Coulter made at a college speech about not caring what people thought about her he writes:
And yet, while it doesn't matter what people think about us, it does matter what people think about Christ. Sophisticates showed contempt toward Paul's words in Athens (Acts 17), but some listened. What if, instead of arguing logically, he had ranted?
And a little later:
How would Paul act in today's culture? How, for that matter, would 18th-century members of the religious right like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry? I suspect they would still be firm but courteous, displaying bravery without bombast.
I know it is obvious we live in a short-minded and sound-byte culture in which most pundits and advocates cannot be heard above the din without becoming more radical or outrageous, but Christians have a different standard to uphold.
As Kierkegaard once said, we have an “audience of one.” Maybe we should keep that at the forefront of our conversations when we address cultural and political issues from a Christian point of view. How would that change the way “evangelical representatives” sounded on cable news shows or on paid advertising during an election season? How would that change our tone when we write books, blogs, or letters to the editor?
Our job, if we are to be specific, is to witness to the truth. The work of the Holy Spirit is to open the hearts and minds of people-we do not carry that burden.
And yet, while it doesn't matter what people think about us, it does matter what people think about Christ. Sophisticates showed contempt toward Paul's words in Athens (Acts 17), but some listened. What if, instead of arguing logically, he had ranted?
And a little later:
How would Paul act in today's culture? How, for that matter, would 18th-century members of the religious right like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry? I suspect they would still be firm but courteous, displaying bravery without bombast.
I know it is obvious we live in a short-minded and sound-byte culture in which most pundits and advocates cannot be heard above the din without becoming more radical or outrageous, but Christians have a different standard to uphold.
As Kierkegaard once said, we have an “audience of one.” Maybe we should keep that at the forefront of our conversations when we address cultural and political issues from a Christian point of view. How would that change the way “evangelical representatives” sounded on cable news shows or on paid advertising during an election season? How would that change our tone when we write books, blogs, or letters to the editor?
Our job, if we are to be specific, is to witness to the truth. The work of the Holy Spirit is to open the hearts and minds of people-we do not carry that burden.
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Da Vinci Code-Will the Movie Match Up With History?
It appears some Catholic groups are lodging an “official” complaint to the makers of The Da Vinci Code movie. And even more interesting, it may be the case that they are listening.
If you have been aware of this issue at all, you know that there are many competent rebuttals of Dan Brown’s historical fallacies. His history is an issue, really, only because he asserts at the beginning of the book that all the history he cites is true. It is amazing the power that one little phrase in an introduction can have. People are willing to question centuries of settled and known history about the Church and Christ because a fictional author with a vendetta says otherwise.
Anyway, if you are looking for more resources on the history referenced in The Da Vinci Code, this mp3 of a lecture done by Dr. Craig Blomberg is as useful as it gets.
If you have been aware of this issue at all, you know that there are many competent rebuttals of Dan Brown’s historical fallacies. His history is an issue, really, only because he asserts at the beginning of the book that all the history he cites is true. It is amazing the power that one little phrase in an introduction can have. People are willing to question centuries of settled and known history about the Church and Christ because a fictional author with a vendetta says otherwise.
Anyway, if you are looking for more resources on the history referenced in The Da Vinci Code, this mp3 of a lecture done by Dr. Craig Blomberg is as useful as it gets.
The Role of the Holy Spirit/The Role of Reason
To tackle this issue is to tackle one of the perennial questions that has faced the Church for ages, and I make no claim of “answering” it in this little post. But I do think I would like to throw a couple of ideas out there resulting from some of the comments and back and forth on the last couple of posts.
First, when working out the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, and more specifically, the life of the mind, I think it is useful to ask, “How does the Holy Spirit work?” I think there are two basic answers: through the gifts and abilities of God’s people and miraculously. If that, or something like it, is true then it is incumbent upon me, a believer striving to be faithful, to use my gifts and abilities as best as I possibly can.
Now I believe every human has been created with the capacity to reason-it is part of being an image bearer of God. If I fail to work that mental muscle to the best of my ability, it is not all that different from being gifted as an evangelist and refusing to evangelize. Therefore, I should strive to think as well as I possibly can.
This point of view cuts against the grain of what is usually thought of as the work of the Holy Spirit. Typically people believe that the H.S.’s work is excluded to the realm of the miraculous. What I am arguing for is a both/and kind of view. The H.S. works miraculously and through the lives and actions of believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ. In this case there need not be any conflict between the two.
The point is often raised that there are sometimes sharp and irreconcilable differences between people when they “use reason.” And thus, it is said, we cannot rely on reason but only on faith. One of the things I think that objection misses is that there are sharp and irreconcilable differences between people who believe on “faith alone.” What then? Equally sincere and religious people hold to certain things on faith in Jesus Christ, but they often conflict with each other. We are left with the same problem, and thus it is not a very good argument against “using reason.”
Disagreement between equally intelligent and faithful people is an interesting issue all by itself, but note that disagreement does not by fiat mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Because people disagree does not make postmodern relativism true; disagreement does not negate the usefulness of the process of reasoning; and disagreement over issues of faith does not mean there is not one true Faith out there.
So what do we do when people disagree? The nutshell answer is, "think some more."
Thinking through issues or “using reason” to the best of our abilities is something we could use more of in this world and not less. It is a tool God has graciously given His creation so they can understand Him and His world better-it is a tool that can and should be used to great practical, pastoral and theological advantage.
First, when working out the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, and more specifically, the life of the mind, I think it is useful to ask, “How does the Holy Spirit work?” I think there are two basic answers: through the gifts and abilities of God’s people and miraculously. If that, or something like it, is true then it is incumbent upon me, a believer striving to be faithful, to use my gifts and abilities as best as I possibly can.
Now I believe every human has been created with the capacity to reason-it is part of being an image bearer of God. If I fail to work that mental muscle to the best of my ability, it is not all that different from being gifted as an evangelist and refusing to evangelize. Therefore, I should strive to think as well as I possibly can.
This point of view cuts against the grain of what is usually thought of as the work of the Holy Spirit. Typically people believe that the H.S.’s work is excluded to the realm of the miraculous. What I am arguing for is a both/and kind of view. The H.S. works miraculously and through the lives and actions of believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ. In this case there need not be any conflict between the two.
The point is often raised that there are sometimes sharp and irreconcilable differences between people when they “use reason.” And thus, it is said, we cannot rely on reason but only on faith. One of the things I think that objection misses is that there are sharp and irreconcilable differences between people who believe on “faith alone.” What then? Equally sincere and religious people hold to certain things on faith in Jesus Christ, but they often conflict with each other. We are left with the same problem, and thus it is not a very good argument against “using reason.”
Disagreement between equally intelligent and faithful people is an interesting issue all by itself, but note that disagreement does not by fiat mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Because people disagree does not make postmodern relativism true; disagreement does not negate the usefulness of the process of reasoning; and disagreement over issues of faith does not mean there is not one true Faith out there.
So what do we do when people disagree? The nutshell answer is, "think some more."
Thinking through issues or “using reason” to the best of our abilities is something we could use more of in this world and not less. It is a tool God has graciously given His creation so they can understand Him and His world better-it is a tool that can and should be used to great practical, pastoral and theological advantage.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Metanarratives, Postmodernism and Christianity
Ever have one of those moments in which you think something like, “Wow-so 2+2=4!” It is one of those moments of epiphany in which you wonder how you never saw that before. I had one of those reading an article in the latest Philosophia Christi by Brendan Sweetman entitled, “Lyotard, Postmodernism, and Religion.”
His fundamental point was quite straightforward and one that I am a little embarrassed at not putting together myself a long time ago. But I guess this is why we read things written by people much smarter than we! The question is whether there is a place for religion, specifically Christianity, within a Postmodern philosophical construct. Sweetman’s answer is, “no.” The reason, the argument of his paper, constituted my own private epiphany:
1.Postmodernism in its most fundamental and essential form is incredulity toward metanarratives.
2.Christianity is a metanarrative.
3.Therefore, there is no place for Christianity within a Postmodern philosophical construct.
I have to say I agree, and that I have always agreed. When evangelicals play with Postmodernism they are literally adopting philosophical tenants that are contradictory with their own Christianity. The two schools of thought cannot be assented to at the same time taking the central claims of each seriously and without equivocation.
There are two ways of getting around the above argument. First, deny the first premise. I think that fails in large part because it is the founding principle of postmodern thought and has influenced all its developments since Lyotard. Anything that now passes as postmodern-pragmatism, language-games, ethically significant cultures, deconstruction-all stem from the basic premise, “incredulity toward metanarrative.”
The second, and probably more popular route would be to deny the second premise. The best way to deny that Christianity is a metanarrative might be (as the article points out) to create a strong bifurcation between faith and reason, assert that Christianity is only a matter of faith, and that metanarratives are exclusively matters of reason. But this denial misconstrues the Biblical notion of faith, turns it into something it was never intended to be (ONLY “blind faith”), and fails to take seriously the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical claims of the Christian faith.
Christianity is clearly a metanarrative-a narrative for the ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)