Bumper stickers. Fish symbols. Sloganeering bracelets. T-Shirts that adapt popular brand names with Christian words. I’ve seen a shirt where the clothing company “Abercrombie & Fitch” becomes “A Breadcrumb and Fish,” referring to the feeding of the 5000. These are the sorts of things that many people use to demonstrate their Christianity. Yet some polls indicate that a great number of self-professed born again Christians do not live differently than non-Christians. I don’t think bumper stickers and bracelets are wrong in and of themselves, but we must admit to ourselves that these are shallow ways to show Christ to people. It’s a sort of “non-committal commitment.” It allows us to soothe our consciences that we are publicly Christian without having to really invest in the lives of other people or say something considered offensive.
But what about things that seem less shallow? How about carrying your Bible to school or work? Or praying over your meal? What about a five minute morning devotion? Surely these are excellent ways to demonstrate you commitment to Christ! Well, though they are commendable on some level, they too fall short of demonstrating one’s Christianity and providing assurance for you personally. It would be easy for a non-Christian to do this, don’t you think? We could probably envision a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness doing these things.
Introducing 1 John and Establishing Context
Since we are running out of options, here, let’s go ahead and turn to the Bible for the true answer to how we demonstrate our Christianity to ourselves and others. Let’s turn to the book of 1 John. It’s my hope that we will be able to cover the book in its entirety tonight. I may have bitten off more than I can chew, but I really like the idea of preaching on a book of the Bible as a whole. When we do that we get a better picture of what the author, be he Paul, John, or whomever, intended to communicate in his writings. I think sometimes we read the Bible as though the verses aren’t connected to each other, and that’s a problem. It is very important to understand the context of a passage before we can fully understand what the human writer and God Himself wanted to say.
Something else I like to do for messages like this one is establish the historical context in which the book was written. What event or events motivated the writer, other than the urging of the Holy Spirit? For instance, we know the book of Philemon was written because Paul had met Onesimus, a slave of Philemon’s, and led him to Christ. Onesimus had wronged Philemon and Paul wanted to make amends. But what motivated John to write his letter? I’ll try to keep my historical remarks brief and then get on to the Word itself.
It is pretty well established that John was writing his first epistle at least partially in response to some false teaching, as well as the conduct of the teachers, who were once part of the church, and were spreading the aforementioned falsehood. These teachers, later called “Gnostics,” believed that anything physical was evil. The spirit, they thought, is good, but anything physical, like a human body, is evil. It doesn’t take long, if you claim to be a Christian, to run into trouble if you believe a physical body is evil. Jesus Himself had a body. For these Gnostic teachers it would be impossible for God to actually have a body, so they denied that He did. Some of them believed that it just seemed as though Jesus had a body.
Not only did they have problems with Jesus’ human body, they had trouble with what to do with their own bodies. “If the body is evil,” some of them thought, “then it doesn’t matter what I do with it!” Some Gnostics took advantage of the opportunity to indulge in their own sins, and John directly attacked the Gnostics on both of these fronts. Without further ado, let’s dive into 1 John.
How Do I Know I Am a Christian?
One major problem that arose from the error of the false teachers is that some people began doubting their salvation. For one thing, these false teachers had strange view of salvation, and since these were people who may have had a great deal of influence and charisma, it caused doubts to creep into the minds of the Christians to whom John was writing. He wanted to reassure them that they could know for certain whether they were truly saved or not. As 5:13 states, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” In fact these teachers who had left the church were demonstrating that they were not saved. John uses their actions as a “how to demonstrate that you’re a non-Christian” so we could know the sorts of actions that should provide assurance for a Christian. John chooses three areas to put his readers’ minds at ease. First, according to John, the Christian must hold to the basic doctrines of the faith. As we said, these false teachers did not believe that Christ came in the flesh. Second, the Christian should love his brothers and sisters in Christ. Finally, we must be obedient to the commands of Christ. Let me stress that John is not saying that these things are prerequisites for salvation, or that you must do these things to keep your salvation. The Bible is clear that we are not saved by works, nor is it our job to “keep our salvation” through our actions. God takes care of that. Incidentally, all three of these ideas are woven into the fabric of 1 John. They don’t appear in just one place, they appear and reappear as John writes, so we’ll be bouncing around in the text a bit.
Upholding the Basic Doctrines of the Faith
As we’ve already pointed out, John was battling against the idea that Christ did not actually have a human body. Dispensing with traditional greetings, he wastes no time in attacking that idea in 1:1-2. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- 2the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--” John was leaving no doubts in the minds of the readers of this letter; he was there with Jesus, and Jesus really had a physical body. Later, in 4:2-3 John has chilling words about these false teachers.: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”
Some of you may be wondering, “what does it matter if Jesus had a physical body or not?” As it turns out, if Jesus was not human like us, then He could not have died for our sins. As Hebrews 2:17-18 states, “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” What this is saying is that it was necessary for Christ to become like us, that is, human, so that He could reconcile us to God. So the denial of Christ’s humanity was no small matter. It means everything to our salvation.
Now let’s take this in a bit of a more general direction. Some people don’t want to bother with doctrine at all. Why not just, “love God,“ they ask. “Doctrine divides,” they say. They think that as Christians we should be unified, and we should, as John will point out. However, it is also vital to note that 1 John, which I think of as one of the most love and unity oriented books of the New Testament, actually encouraged division over essential doctrines. Why? Because when people reject the basic doctrines of Christianity they reveal that they were never a part of the family of God to begin with. Read 1 John 2:22-23: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” These false teachers denied Christ by trying to strip Him of His humanity. In the process, they lost the father as well.
I don’t mean to indicate that every little disagreement merits a heresy trial. For instance, if we have two hypothetical men, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Jackson, and they disagree over whether pastors should receive a salary from the Church or not, that they should declare each other heretics and never speak to one another again. That would be extreme because the doctrine is not central to the faith. Unfortunately, however, that sort of thing happens in far too many churches. So doctrine, we see, is quite useful in dividing the true Church from the false professors.
Christian Unity and Love
As we read on in 1 John, we begin to discover other things about these false teachers. For instance, their love for this false teaching had caused them to leave the Church. Ultimately, as we saw, their departure was a good thing. I’m going to take a chance and state the obvious here: It is never a good idea to have influential people teaching falsehoods in your Church, especially about the nature of Christ Himself. However, simply focusing on kicking the bad guys out does not reveal the sort of Christian character that can aid in giving us assurance of our own salvation. We can mentally assent to any doctrinal statement without having a truly regenerate heart. Have you ever run across someone who delights in finding reasons to run people out of a church? Such a person is dangerously out of balance in his or her spiritual life. Were I this person I would examine myself closely and carefully to make certain of my salvation, because John indicates a lack of love for Christian brothers and sisters is something to be taken seriously.
John states over and over that love for our family in Christ is an essential component of the Christian life. Chapter 2:9-11 reads, “Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.”
If we carry hatred in our hearts for Christian people, John indicates that the reality of our salvation is in doubt. But by the same token, if we love our fellow Christians, we can be sure of our salvation. This is a beautiful truth. Look at 3:10: “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” It is manifest that we are God’s children when we love our brothers and sisters in Christ.
We’ve spent a decent amount of time talking about the love we should have for our fellow Christians, but we need to address what this love should look like. Should we follow the world’s perception of love and just let everyone fulfill their own desires? John reveals how we are to demonstrate our love in 3:16-19: “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him;”
These verses can surprise a lot of people. “This is how we show Christian love?” they think. It seems incredibly unspiritual at first glance. Providing for physical needs? Of course John would encourage things like prayer for those in need, but giving to a brother who needs it is, I think, putting your money where your mouth is. Anyone can mouth words to someone, but it takes a real Christian, someone like Barnabas, to give away goods. Do you want to show your Christian brother you love him? Mow his lawn. Buy his dinner. Pay a bill he is late on, as long as that is not a habitual problem. These acts need to grow out of a compassion in your heart that only God can provide. I know, I’ve experienced it. God can put a love in your heart even for that guy who gets on your last nerve.
Our hearts should be moved by stories of our brothers and sisters in need. I think sometimes American Christians, because of the plenty we experience here, forget about the need of Christians around the world. Let me encourage you to forgo buying that latest gadget or beautiful skirt. Search your heart and see if you can find something better to do with that money. I’m not saying don’t buy anything nice for yourself, but if we’re honest we will admit that we have plenty. Open your heart to the needs of your fellow Christians.
The flip side of that is that sometimes we get too prideful to ask for help. Christian, if you are in some sort of difficult situation, don’t try to go it alone. We are called to bear each others’ burdens. Let go of your individualistic pride and give your brother the opportunity to serve you. Not only can this be a confirmation of what John said about Christian love and assurance, but it can also commend Christ to people quite well. We are to be known for our love for each other.
Obedience to the Commands of Christ
John has now provided two ways in which a person can gain assurance of their salvation. Do you believe in sound doctrine? Do you love your brothers and sisters in Christ? If you said yes on both accounts, that should provide a great degree of assurance in your own heart. There is, however, one final way which John indicates can be an avenue of assurance. Read 2:3-5: “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:”
How many people do you know that tell you, “Oh, I’m a Christian. I prayed some prayer when I was seven,” or, “I went forward at a revival,” or something else of that nature, but when you take a look at their life they live no differently than they did before their conversion? I’ve seen a lot of that. According to John, that sort of thing should cause us to stop and think. Are such people truly saved? Ultimately we don’t know anyone else’s heart, so we can’t say for certain, but John’s words should be a wakeup call for everyone.
A life characterized by sin is good evidence against someone’s salvation. Listen to what John says to that effect in 3:4-6: “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.” When reading these verses we have to be careful because it can sound like a Christian will never sin if we don’t take investigate further. I can hear someone say, “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not? Are you saying that a Christian will never sin?” Of course not, because that would contradict statements John himself made, such as this one in 1:8- “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” What, then, does John mean? In the original languages the word “sinneth” means “a lifestyle of sin.” It is someone who lives continuously in sin.
To be sure of our own salvation, and to demonstrate our salvation to others, we must be obedient to the commands of Christ. Since this is the case, it is only natural that we should go on to discover these commandments. Fortunately, John offers us some help. In 3:24 John says “And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.”
Conclusion and Application
How beautiful! John gives us three things; three seemingly separate areas in which we should be able to gain assurance of our salvation. But then he comes and shows us that these three things, doctrine, love for the brethren, and obedience, are really one.
I believe in the power of the Word of God. Whenever we dig into the Bible and ask God to change us to His standard, to make His character our character, these three things will grow in our lives and we will know that, to quote 5:13 again, “that ye have eternal life.” I want you to be encouraged, Christian. In your darkest moments reflect on your life. Is it characterized by sin? No? Be assured. Do you love your brothers and sisters in Christ? Yes? Be assured. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, both God and man, as your savior? Yes? Then above all else, be assured. Jesus has prepared a place for you in heaven.
Some of you may be thinking, “I don’t have all of these things. Are you saying I’m not a Christian?” That is not something I can know for certain, but I do know what John has said in this epistle, and you should examine your life to make certain of your salvation. This is too important to let pride or stubbornness stand in the way.
Still others of you may say, “I’m not a Christian at all, and I don’t claim to be. What does 1 John say to me?” Well, friend, you still need to take that first step. You need to believe the truth about Jesus. He is the Son of God, and He is truly man. He died to deliver His people from their sins, and this salvation is offered to you tonight.
If you take anything home with you tonight, take this phrase, which I think captures the essence of 1 John. It is our obedience to Christ in loving our brothers, and our love of true doctrine, that will demonstrate our Christianity. To God be the glory.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Tonight's the Night
Tonight I deliver my first sermon. I think I'll post it here on the blog after I deliver it, plus I'll give my impression of how things went. If you read this, pray for me tonight. I only want to say what God wants me to say.
Monday, July 25, 2005
May God Put His Words in My Mouth
I am two semesters away from FINALLY having a college degree. Whew. It feels good to be able to say that. I graduated from high school in 1996, and I must say it has been a long and winding road, if I may quote The Beatles). I think I've had a total of one semester off since '96, but of course I haven't been going to school full time for a while now (marriage, two kids, and a full-time job preclude such things). By June of next year I will be a college graduate, but in the mean time, I'm getting geared up for classes at Tri-State Bible College (see ministry links in the sidebar).
As a prerequisite for graduation at Tri-State all students in a four year program, which includes me, must complete seven semesters of work in "Christian Service" program. I currently have six, and will be doing the last this semester. Until you've reached senior status you have a great degree of lattitude in what your Christian service might be. Once you're a senior, however, the administrators like you to take service opportunities that will prepare you for the ministries you will undertake after graduation. I, along with my advisor (college president Dr. Clifford Marquardt), thought that teaching at the church I attend (Living Hope Bible Church; see ministry links again) would be a good idea, so that's what I'll be doing for the most part. I've done that a number of times before and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, Dr. Marquardt also wanted me to take some speaking opportunities around the area to gain preaching experience. I agreed and that was that.
I suppose I must not have expected a speaking opportunity to come up in such short order. My wife took a phone call from Mr. Leroy Fulford, head of the Christian Service Program, asking me to get in touch with him. When I called, I learned that Dr. Marquardt had indeed secured a speaking engagement for me, and that the date will be July 31. That's next Sunday. Here's the thing: I've never preached before except for a five minute mini-sermon I did when I was a teenager, and now I have a week to prepare for a full length sermon. I'm kinda nervous.
The text I have chosen is the entire book of 1 John. One reason is that I've taught on the Epistles of John at Church, so I have some familarity with the text. Also, I'd like to do an overview of the whole book because sometimes we take an atomistic view of Scripture because we study just a few verses at a time. Not to mention the fact that knowing the general message of a book helps in interpreting the text. It's probably a bit too much to bite off in a week, but I'm going to give it a shot.
Anyway, pray for me, and pray for the people of Kenwood Missionary Baptist Church in Ashland, KY. They don't know what they're in for...
As a prerequisite for graduation at Tri-State all students in a four year program, which includes me, must complete seven semesters of work in "Christian Service" program. I currently have six, and will be doing the last this semester. Until you've reached senior status you have a great degree of lattitude in what your Christian service might be. Once you're a senior, however, the administrators like you to take service opportunities that will prepare you for the ministries you will undertake after graduation. I, along with my advisor (college president Dr. Clifford Marquardt), thought that teaching at the church I attend (Living Hope Bible Church; see ministry links again) would be a good idea, so that's what I'll be doing for the most part. I've done that a number of times before and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, Dr. Marquardt also wanted me to take some speaking opportunities around the area to gain preaching experience. I agreed and that was that.
I suppose I must not have expected a speaking opportunity to come up in such short order. My wife took a phone call from Mr. Leroy Fulford, head of the Christian Service Program, asking me to get in touch with him. When I called, I learned that Dr. Marquardt had indeed secured a speaking engagement for me, and that the date will be July 31. That's next Sunday. Here's the thing: I've never preached before except for a five minute mini-sermon I did when I was a teenager, and now I have a week to prepare for a full length sermon. I'm kinda nervous.
The text I have chosen is the entire book of 1 John. One reason is that I've taught on the Epistles of John at Church, so I have some familarity with the text. Also, I'd like to do an overview of the whole book because sometimes we take an atomistic view of Scripture because we study just a few verses at a time. Not to mention the fact that knowing the general message of a book helps in interpreting the text. It's probably a bit too much to bite off in a week, but I'm going to give it a shot.
Anyway, pray for me, and pray for the people of Kenwood Missionary Baptist Church in Ashland, KY. They don't know what they're in for...
Thursday, July 21, 2005
God the Clever?
A charge that Calvinists often level at Arminians is that their system robs God of His sovereignty because of the role man is allowed to play in salvation. Arminians will sometimes retort, "hey, which God is more sovereign, the one who simply decrees everything or the one who works with the free actions of men and achieves His will anyway?" It seems to me that this is playing fast and loose with the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the exercise of supreme authority. It makes no sense to say that anyone is more sovereign because they allow other beings to exercise authority and achieve their ends anyway.
Sometimes the response is altered thusly: "Which God is more powerful, the one who decrees everything or the one who works with the free actions of me and achieves His will anyway?" This does avoid any sort of strange redefinition of sovereignty, but neither does it help the Arminian's cause. The reason being that it does not reveal anything about the amount of power a being might have. If God chose to do one thing, does that mean the other was outside of His power? No, obviously enough. This doesn't conclusively tell much about God's power other than the fact that He can do what He chose to do.
I think the best one could say is that a God who works with free willed beings has found a more clever way to achieve His ends, but that hardly inspires worship. I don't recall any Psalms praising God for such cleverness. No, the focus is on His sovereignty and power. I think that we can now see that, since the Arminian rejoinder to the accusation of diminishing the sovereignty of God fails, the accusation itself stands. The Calvinist view best preserves the sovereignty of God as it is revealed in the Bible.
Sometimes the response is altered thusly: "Which God is more powerful, the one who decrees everything or the one who works with the free actions of me and achieves His will anyway?" This does avoid any sort of strange redefinition of sovereignty, but neither does it help the Arminian's cause. The reason being that it does not reveal anything about the amount of power a being might have. If God chose to do one thing, does that mean the other was outside of His power? No, obviously enough. This doesn't conclusively tell much about God's power other than the fact that He can do what He chose to do.
I think the best one could say is that a God who works with free willed beings has found a more clever way to achieve His ends, but that hardly inspires worship. I don't recall any Psalms praising God for such cleverness. No, the focus is on His sovereignty and power. I think that we can now see that, since the Arminian rejoinder to the accusation of diminishing the sovereignty of God fails, the accusation itself stands. The Calvinist view best preserves the sovereignty of God as it is revealed in the Bible.
Monday, July 11, 2005
More New Links!!
I've picked up a few more blog links from reading Phil Johnson's "Blogspotting" posts. First up is Kerry Gilliard, with THINK! I'm Wrestlin' With Words and Ideaz.... Also, I've linked Theological Meditations. Of particular interest is Tony's post titled "Radio Interview on Hyper-Calvinism."
PyroManiac has become a terrific source for great new material to read. The collective blogosphere owes you one, Phil!
edit: I just found Steve Camp's blog. I'm-a-linkin' it.
PyroManiac has become a terrific source for great new material to read. The collective blogosphere owes you one, Phil!
edit: I just found Steve Camp's blog. I'm-a-linkin' it.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
I AM Obi-Wan
Heck yeah. I took the Star Wars quiz. I AM Obi-Wan, baby. By far the coolest character in Eps. I, II, and III. Now...I'm going to Indiana. HT: Johnny Dee at Fides Quaerens Intellectum.
Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Hey Bloggers! Take this Survey!!
MIT is doing a survey about bloggers, and they want YOU! I did it, and I know everyone wants to be like me, so take part! It doesn't take long, so just jump in and be a part of something potentially useless!! Three cheers for sociology!
Monday, June 27, 2005
The Next Great Evangelist?
Billy Graham has been the reigning king of evangelists longer than many of us have been alive. He recently appeared on Larry King Live, and as I understand it he said that may have been his last television interview before he passes away. He also just held his last crusade in Flushing Meadows Corona Park, so the evangelistic "torch" will now be passing to the next generation. Beliefnet.com is currently holding a poll to determine just who will be Graham's successor as preeminent evangelist.
Of course, Franklin Graham is currently tops on the list. After all, he is Billy's son and he is officially taking Billy's place in the organization. Not only that, but Franklin has done some noteworthy things in his own right. I have some respect for Franklin Graham. Currently coming in second is T.D. Jakes. Now, I have some issues with Jakes. First, there's the modalistic view of God that he holds. Basically, he doesn't hold to the orthodox formulation of the trinity. This does not mean that he is not a Christian, it just means that he holds to an error that has been rejected in the church for nearly 2000 years. Holding a false belief about the nature of God can have unforseen negative consequences. Jakes apparently subscribes to the "try Jesus, you'll like Him!" approach to evangelism. Here is how he responded when asked why he is a Christian rather than a Buddhist or something else:
But what if someone says that atheism works for them? What would Jakes tell them? This approach to evangelism does not do justice to the gospel. The Gospel is the message of Christ crucified, resurrected, and reconciling people to God. It doesn't have much to do with what "works" when you face the trials of life. Now, I do think that Christ carries His children through their trials, but that is not THE reason to become a Christian. BUT, I would happily vote for Jakes over the man who inexplicably holds third place.
Coming in third is Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church. By now most people know who Osteen is through his best-selling book Your Best Life Now. Frankly, I'm astounded he's on the list, let alone getting votes. Why would I take Jakes over Osteen? Because at least Jakes seems to care about the Gospel. Osteen is more concerned with people living a nice life. His message is something like "God wants you to have good health, a nice job and a good family life." Sin? I don't think that gets much airtime at Lakewood. That's negative, and Osteen doesn't want his people going home feeling low. The kicker is, folks, without sin, there is no gospel. As I've heard Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason say, there is no reason for the Good News unless we know the Bad News first. If you don't talk about sin, you are not an evangelist. Period.
The only remaining evangelist in double figures (12%) at the time of this writing is Luis Palau. This man has my vote. He was asked what his favorite prayer is in a beliefnet interview, and this is what he said:
While I could nitpick on a few issues, I think by and large Palau has it right. There is sin, and there is the need for Jesus to overcome the sin. Earlier in the interview he also indicated that he believes Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is not a given with popular "evangelists" this days. I also know Palau is a man of integrity. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a brother-in-law who does some work for the Luis Palau Evangelstic Association. I like what I have heard from him about Mr. Palau. He is a true, genuine minister of the Gospel.
The current results of this poll are a sad commentary on the state of evangelicalism today. This is because most people who claim to be Christians don't know what the Gospel is! How could they vote for the quality of an evangelist when they don't even know what the message he carries should sound like? If someone doesn't know what a guitar sounds like, it is useless to tell them that "such and such a person is a good player." You must have knowledge of the true standard before you can know who is good at explaining that standard.
Consider this my plea for an education in basic theology for all Christians. We have a responsibility to get to know God and His message as they are revealed in the Bible. If we do that while keeping a heart that burns passionately for God, the list of candidates for "the next great evangelist" might be a mile long (by God's might). Then feel good churches "try Jesus you'll like Him" evangelism will be dumped on the ash heap of history, where they belong.
Of course, Franklin Graham is currently tops on the list. After all, he is Billy's son and he is officially taking Billy's place in the organization. Not only that, but Franklin has done some noteworthy things in his own right. I have some respect for Franklin Graham. Currently coming in second is T.D. Jakes. Now, I have some issues with Jakes. First, there's the modalistic view of God that he holds. Basically, he doesn't hold to the orthodox formulation of the trinity. This does not mean that he is not a Christian, it just means that he holds to an error that has been rejected in the church for nearly 2000 years. Holding a false belief about the nature of God can have unforseen negative consequences. Jakes apparently subscribes to the "try Jesus, you'll like Him!" approach to evangelism. Here is how he responded when asked why he is a Christian rather than a Buddhist or something else:
I’m a Christian because my faith works for me. It meets me at the point of my personal needs; it gives me a foundation to stand on when all the world seems crazy. The fact that Christ died for me and rose from the dead and continues to live and influence my behavior is significant to me, and it’s been effective.
But what if someone says that atheism works for them? What would Jakes tell them? This approach to evangelism does not do justice to the gospel. The Gospel is the message of Christ crucified, resurrected, and reconciling people to God. It doesn't have much to do with what "works" when you face the trials of life. Now, I do think that Christ carries His children through their trials, but that is not THE reason to become a Christian. BUT, I would happily vote for Jakes over the man who inexplicably holds third place.
Coming in third is Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church. By now most people know who Osteen is through his best-selling book Your Best Life Now. Frankly, I'm astounded he's on the list, let alone getting votes. Why would I take Jakes over Osteen? Because at least Jakes seems to care about the Gospel. Osteen is more concerned with people living a nice life. His message is something like "God wants you to have good health, a nice job and a good family life." Sin? I don't think that gets much airtime at Lakewood. That's negative, and Osteen doesn't want his people going home feeling low. The kicker is, folks, without sin, there is no gospel. As I've heard Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason say, there is no reason for the Good News unless we know the Bad News first. If you don't talk about sin, you are not an evangelist. Period.
The only remaining evangelist in double figures (12%) at the time of this writing is Luis Palau. This man has my vote. He was asked what his favorite prayer is in a beliefnet interview, and this is what he said:
O God my father, I believe that you created me, that you love me, that you even like me, O God, and even though I don’t deserve it, because I sinned against you, I have broken your moral laws, I believe that you sent your son, Jesus Christ, and that he died on a cross to take away all my guilt, to wash me spiritually, and Lord Jesus I believe that you rose from the dead, that you hear my prayer, and right now I open my heart to you. Please come into my life, Lord Jesus, make me your child, give me the assurance of eternal life, fill me with your holy spirit, and I will serve you, and I’ll obey you until I see you face to face in heaven. Thank you, Father, I am yours forever because Christ lives in me. In his name I think you, Amen.
While I could nitpick on a few issues, I think by and large Palau has it right. There is sin, and there is the need for Jesus to overcome the sin. Earlier in the interview he also indicated that he believes Jesus is the only way to heaven, which is not a given with popular "evangelists" this days. I also know Palau is a man of integrity. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a brother-in-law who does some work for the Luis Palau Evangelstic Association. I like what I have heard from him about Mr. Palau. He is a true, genuine minister of the Gospel.
The current results of this poll are a sad commentary on the state of evangelicalism today. This is because most people who claim to be Christians don't know what the Gospel is! How could they vote for the quality of an evangelist when they don't even know what the message he carries should sound like? If someone doesn't know what a guitar sounds like, it is useless to tell them that "such and such a person is a good player." You must have knowledge of the true standard before you can know who is good at explaining that standard.
Consider this my plea for an education in basic theology for all Christians. We have a responsibility to get to know God and His message as they are revealed in the Bible. If we do that while keeping a heart that burns passionately for God, the list of candidates for "the next great evangelist" might be a mile long (by God's might). Then feel good churches "try Jesus you'll like Him" evangelism will be dumped on the ash heap of history, where they belong.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Theology in Tension?
I had to do it! I had to take the theological worldview test. I must say, I was fairly pleased with the result.
I thought that it was strange, though, that my two highest scores were "Reformed Evangelical" and "Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan." Those aren't two strains of thought that normally go together. I don't really know how to explain that. It could be that there were some questions that I misinterpreted or something. I have a feeling that there were some questions that used phrases I would be more familiar with had I been raised in a different denomination, but since I wasn't I interpreted them in my own way. Or it could have been the way I answered questions like the one about spirituality being more important than dogmatics. There wasn't a good way to answer that.
It's not surprising that I scored high in "Fundamentalist." I am very dogmatic about the truth of the Scriptures. I was also surprised by how highly "Neo-Orthodox" ranked. I did say that I thought Barth was an important theologian, but that was mainly because he was/is popular. He's someone you need to learn if you're going to study theology seriously. I don't agree with him on many issues, but he still qualifies as "important" or "influential." I don't consider myself particularly "Emergent" or "Postmodern." In fact, I actively shun the title "postmodern", but I do think the Emergent guys have some criticisms of the evangelical church that are spot on. With the Charismatic thing, I am not a cessationist, so that's probably why I scored so high in that.
I do believe in the importance of social action, so maybe that's why my "liberal" score was so high. I don't know why I even scored anything in "Roman Catholic". When you say the Pope is not the head of the Church that should automatically take you to zero, I think.
You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
I thought that it was strange, though, that my two highest scores were "Reformed Evangelical" and "Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan." Those aren't two strains of thought that normally go together. I don't really know how to explain that. It could be that there were some questions that I misinterpreted or something. I have a feeling that there were some questions that used phrases I would be more familiar with had I been raised in a different denomination, but since I wasn't I interpreted them in my own way. Or it could have been the way I answered questions like the one about spirituality being more important than dogmatics. There wasn't a good way to answer that.
It's not surprising that I scored high in "Fundamentalist." I am very dogmatic about the truth of the Scriptures. I was also surprised by how highly "Neo-Orthodox" ranked. I did say that I thought Barth was an important theologian, but that was mainly because he was/is popular. He's someone you need to learn if you're going to study theology seriously. I don't agree with him on many issues, but he still qualifies as "important" or "influential." I don't consider myself particularly "Emergent" or "Postmodern." In fact, I actively shun the title "postmodern", but I do think the Emergent guys have some criticisms of the evangelical church that are spot on. With the Charismatic thing, I am not a cessationist, so that's probably why I scored so high in that.
I do believe in the importance of social action, so maybe that's why my "liberal" score was so high. I don't know why I even scored anything in "Roman Catholic". When you say the Pope is not the head of the Church that should automatically take you to zero, I think.
Friday, June 17, 2005
New Blog, New Links
Hey, everybody, I have a bit of blog-oriented news. I just started a two man blog with Olen of White Poet Warlord. It's called "Insightfully Shallow" and we agree that the title suits us both well. I have it linked on the right. We will be discussing anything that comes to mind. Right now we're doing top 12 movie picks, but other areas of pop culture, as well as politics and religion, will get "screen time."
Also, I added a couple of blogs to the roll. Phil Johnson's "PyroManiac" is burning up the blogosphere, so I thought I'd jump aboard. The second, called "Foedus Gratiae," is run by a guy named of Tom. I came across his blog via Derek Webb's "Webboard." Check 'em out!
Also, I added a couple of blogs to the roll. Phil Johnson's "PyroManiac" is burning up the blogosphere, so I thought I'd jump aboard. The second, called "Foedus Gratiae," is run by a guy named of Tom. I came across his blog via Derek Webb's "Webboard." Check 'em out!
Monday, June 13, 2005
Calvinism and the Internet Beat Down
Calvinism is taking an internet-style beating. I was introduced to this phenomenon when I read Phil Johnson's post titled "Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism". The subtitle is "Bashing Calvinism is the latest fad in blogdom. My turn." While Johnson doesn't bash (or abandon) Calvinism itself, he does point out a few erstwhile Calvinists who have (he seems to think Michael Spencer has, but Spencer says that's not really the case in his "Calvinism Q & A").
Why have so many people been abandoning Calvinism? Before answering that I want to give a short history of my experience with these doctrines. I grew up with a kind of "Calminian" theology. The Baptist Church I attended for most of my life didn't speak a great deal on this topic directly, though the pastor (who was also my grandfather) had dealings with hyper-calvinists in his youth. He has explained to me that there were people in the church he attended who would not associate with non-Christians because those who weren't of the elect were "beneath them." That, among other considerations, lead him to reject Calvinism, even though he was being groomed to take over his hyper-calvinist uncle's spot as pastor. His formerly close relationship with his uncle was badly strained, and I don't think it ever recovered.
Back to the topic at hand. I had no particular view of soteriology other than the fact that we are saved by grace through faith. That is to say, I knew what the verses says, but I had not attempted to look into the various systematized views. While attending college I made friends with a couple of Calvinists who were involved in student leadership of Campus Crusade for Christ at Marshall University (weird, eh?). Through various conversations, Bible studies and books I became convinced that Calvinism was true.
I was a happy Calvinist until I began to dabble a little bit more in philosophy and apologetics. It was then that I came across thinkers like William Lane Craig and made a Molinist friend two. I put Calvinism on the shelf and began looking into Molinism as an option that allowed a more natural interpretation of passages on both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I liked Molinism and decided that if I thought the two kinds of passages were equally balanced I would go that route, which I pretty much did. I definitely considered myself to be a Molinist, though I would always give the caveat that I needed to do more research.
A couple of years passed before I really started looking into Calvinism again. As I searched the scripture I became more and more convinced that it was not "a tie" as I had once supposed. The language of sovereignty in Scripture convinced me of the truth of the doctrines of grace all over again.
Let's finally get to the point of this story, shall we? I believe Calvinism is true because of the Bible. I don't believe it because I like John Piper, Mark Dever, or Calvin himself. I sure don't believe it because some anonymous blogger or message board denizen does. So, if one or all of these fallible men (or women) turn out to be vitriolic jerks, what reason do I then have to reject Calvinism? In fact, none.
If your Calvinist hero disappoints you, causing you to abandon the doctrine, why did you believe in the first place? We should all check our motivations. We are not primarily loyal to men, but to God and His truth as it expressed in the Bible. Men are not perfect. I love Mark Dever's preaching, but I will be no less committed to the doctrines we agree on if he stumbles in sin or is cruel to people.
If, after becoming a Calvinist, you are suddenly less charitable and less interested in evangelism, who is to blame? Certainly not Calvinism. In fact, the fault is on us as individuals if we allow any doctrine to distract us from tasks we are to undertake as Christians. What is important is if the Bible tells us that Calvinism is true. If it is, then no personal disappointment, no loss of evangelistic zeal, that can justify rejecting it. If it is not, then there is no sense of awe or experience of humility at the feet of God that can justify accepting. Such feelings would be false and therefore not of the true God.
There is only one real way to accept or reject Calvinism, brothers and sisters. I beg you, search the Scriptures and be convinced accordingly.
Why have so many people been abandoning Calvinism? Before answering that I want to give a short history of my experience with these doctrines. I grew up with a kind of "Calminian" theology. The Baptist Church I attended for most of my life didn't speak a great deal on this topic directly, though the pastor (who was also my grandfather) had dealings with hyper-calvinists in his youth. He has explained to me that there were people in the church he attended who would not associate with non-Christians because those who weren't of the elect were "beneath them." That, among other considerations, lead him to reject Calvinism, even though he was being groomed to take over his hyper-calvinist uncle's spot as pastor. His formerly close relationship with his uncle was badly strained, and I don't think it ever recovered.
Back to the topic at hand. I had no particular view of soteriology other than the fact that we are saved by grace through faith. That is to say, I knew what the verses says, but I had not attempted to look into the various systematized views. While attending college I made friends with a couple of Calvinists who were involved in student leadership of Campus Crusade for Christ at Marshall University (weird, eh?). Through various conversations, Bible studies and books I became convinced that Calvinism was true.
I was a happy Calvinist until I began to dabble a little bit more in philosophy and apologetics. It was then that I came across thinkers like William Lane Craig and made a Molinist friend two. I put Calvinism on the shelf and began looking into Molinism as an option that allowed a more natural interpretation of passages on both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I liked Molinism and decided that if I thought the two kinds of passages were equally balanced I would go that route, which I pretty much did. I definitely considered myself to be a Molinist, though I would always give the caveat that I needed to do more research.
A couple of years passed before I really started looking into Calvinism again. As I searched the scripture I became more and more convinced that it was not "a tie" as I had once supposed. The language of sovereignty in Scripture convinced me of the truth of the doctrines of grace all over again.
Let's finally get to the point of this story, shall we? I believe Calvinism is true because of the Bible. I don't believe it because I like John Piper, Mark Dever, or Calvin himself. I sure don't believe it because some anonymous blogger or message board denizen does. So, if one or all of these fallible men (or women) turn out to be vitriolic jerks, what reason do I then have to reject Calvinism? In fact, none.
If your Calvinist hero disappoints you, causing you to abandon the doctrine, why did you believe in the first place? We should all check our motivations. We are not primarily loyal to men, but to God and His truth as it expressed in the Bible. Men are not perfect. I love Mark Dever's preaching, but I will be no less committed to the doctrines we agree on if he stumbles in sin or is cruel to people.
If, after becoming a Calvinist, you are suddenly less charitable and less interested in evangelism, who is to blame? Certainly not Calvinism. In fact, the fault is on us as individuals if we allow any doctrine to distract us from tasks we are to undertake as Christians. What is important is if the Bible tells us that Calvinism is true. If it is, then no personal disappointment, no loss of evangelistic zeal, that can justify rejecting it. If it is not, then there is no sense of awe or experience of humility at the feet of God that can justify accepting. Such feelings would be false and therefore not of the true God.
There is only one real way to accept or reject Calvinism, brothers and sisters. I beg you, search the Scriptures and be convinced accordingly.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Return of the Laz-i
Yeah, so I'm stretching the Star Wars theme of my last few posts with that title (pronounced "laze-eye"). But, oh well. My pseudo-feud with Olen of White Poet Warlord is over anyway. I just figured it was about time that I post again, and since I procrastinated for a week or so I thought hilighting the "lazy" portion of my blog title was appropriate.
I've been teaching on the book of Hosea in my church for the last twelve weeks or so. I've come to admire everyone's stamina there! Anyway, if you haven't read Hosea it's a truly amazing book. If you want to become acquainted with the holiness of God and the necessity of punishment for sin, read the minor prophets. Hosea is full of such things. At the same time, however, there are some beautiful images of redemption that run through the book, such as the metaphor between Hosea and his wife and God and Israel. Truly beautiful.
I think a lot of people are scared of reading the minor prophets. They're probably one of the most neglected groups of books in the church today (no statistics, that's just a guess). Let me encourage you to dig into them. My two favorites are Hosea and Malachi, but let me warn you, you will be convicted of the sin in your life. But, isn't that what we should want? Shouldn't we want to be more acquainted with the holiness of God? That would certainly facilitate becoming more like Him, don't you think?
I've been teaching on the book of Hosea in my church for the last twelve weeks or so. I've come to admire everyone's stamina there! Anyway, if you haven't read Hosea it's a truly amazing book. If you want to become acquainted with the holiness of God and the necessity of punishment for sin, read the minor prophets. Hosea is full of such things. At the same time, however, there are some beautiful images of redemption that run through the book, such as the metaphor between Hosea and his wife and God and Israel. Truly beautiful.
I think a lot of people are scared of reading the minor prophets. They're probably one of the most neglected groups of books in the church today (no statistics, that's just a guess). Let me encourage you to dig into them. My two favorites are Hosea and Malachi, but let me warn you, you will be convicted of the sin in your life. But, isn't that what we should want? Shouldn't we want to be more acquainted with the holiness of God? That would certainly facilitate becoming more like Him, don't you think?
Friday, May 27, 2005
The Chump Strikes Back
In an unprecedented display of malice the Chump has launched a revisionist history campaign against the forces of good in these three posts. Let's review: Who has been the most consistent blogger? Me. Who was absent for months at a time? The Chump. And then, after a flurry of posts over a few short days, who accused whom of being "absent?" Once again, the Chump. I did not fire the first salvo in this war. That (dis)honor belongs to my opponent. The Jedi do not start wars.
I am currently on the defensive, but soon I will pen the final chapter of this conflict, restoring peace and order to the blogosphere.
PS: to Olen: I've been trying to come up with a good Sith Lord name for you. How Does "Darth Meatbag" strike you?
I am currently on the defensive, but soon I will pen the final chapter of this conflict, restoring peace and order to the blogosphere.
PS: to Olen: I've been trying to come up with a good Sith Lord name for you. How Does "Darth Meatbag" strike you?
A New Dope
The Chump has increased in power because of his flurry of activity. He thinks he has become a greater blogger than me because of his post count since Revenge of the Sith came out. Little does he know that my supposed defeat was not a defeat at all.
The Chump recently referred to me as "Dopey-Wan Kenobi." Little does he know that this Dope is on the verge of a blogging rebellion that will topple the Chump's tenuous Empire. Order will be restored. Rest assured, my friends, the galaxy will soon be at peace again.
The Chump recently referred to me as "Dopey-Wan Kenobi." Little does he know that this Dope is on the verge of a blogging rebellion that will topple the Chump's tenuous Empire. Order will be restored. Rest assured, my friends, the galaxy will soon be at peace again.
Revenge of the Chump
During one of the most anticipated events on the cultural calendar (the debut of Revenge of the Sith) the entire blogosphere rejoiced. Those who love the movie got to post rave reviews and those who didn't got to complain like the whiners they are. All was well in the galaxy. Then, as quietly as he disappeared, the Chump stepped back onto the scene.
His first few posts were of a high quality. Really good blogging. But that was just to lull me into a false sense of security. I was happy to have my friend back, blogging side by side once again. Little did I realize that in the meantime he had turned to the dark side.
In my happiness to have Olen, who I now refer to only as "the Chump," return I did not realize that his posting powers had made him arrogant. His post count rose high, as did his ego. This, I believe, is the flaw that lead to his downfall. In his pride, his unmitigated hubris, he lashed out at me, his closest blogosphere friend.
Read this post. Only when I read this post did I realize that, like Anakin Skywalker, the Chump had turned to the dark side. I was caught off guard, but he did not strike me down. Not at my post? HA! I may have had an off month in May, but I've been fairly consistent in posting once a week.
You're arrogance is your weakness, Chump.
His first few posts were of a high quality. Really good blogging. But that was just to lull me into a false sense of security. I was happy to have my friend back, blogging side by side once again. Little did I realize that in the meantime he had turned to the dark side.
In my happiness to have Olen, who I now refer to only as "the Chump," return I did not realize that his posting powers had made him arrogant. His post count rose high, as did his ego. This, I believe, is the flaw that lead to his downfall. In his pride, his unmitigated hubris, he lashed out at me, his closest blogosphere friend.
Read this post. Only when I read this post did I realize that, like Anakin Skywalker, the Chump had turned to the dark side. I was caught off guard, but he did not strike me down. Not at my post? HA! I may have had an off month in May, but I've been fairly consistent in posting once a week.
You're arrogance is your weakness, Chump.
Attack on the Chump
So the previously identified Chump disappears again after he congratulates me on my "arbitrary choice award" in February. Still not suspecting the influence of the dark side, I was pleased with his return to blogging. However, months crept by and the Chump faded from sight again. Truly shadowy, this master of the dark side. Had I known then what I know now, I would have prepared for the worst.
Knowing I can reach the Chump via the Force (aka Yahoo Instant Messenger) I began harrassing him about his second disappearance. "You have a lot to contribute," I would say. "You're funny! People like that!" But no amount of cajoling would stir the Chump from his shadows. He would strike only when the time was right...
Knowing I can reach the Chump via the Force (aka Yahoo Instant Messenger) I began harrassing him about his second disappearance. "You have a lot to contribute," I would say. "You're funny! People like that!" But no amount of cajoling would stir the Chump from his shadows. He would strike only when the time was right...
The Phantom Chump
So I know this guy. Last year we both decide, hey, let's both start blogs. So we do, and all is right in the galaxy. We're both cruising along pretty as you please, then the guy just stops blogging. That's right. Zero activity. He disappears. Apparently this post took a lot out of him because it was the last one he made for a long time.
Five months later, the Phantom Chump (aka the White Poet Warlord, aka Olen) comes out of hiding for a brief post congratulating me on an award. I was thankful. Little did I know that this was just a ruse. He was setting things up for a masterful attack. More to come.
Five months later, the Phantom Chump (aka the White Poet Warlord, aka Olen) comes out of hiding for a brief post congratulating me on an award. I was thankful. Little did I know that this was just a ruse. He was setting things up for a masterful attack. More to come.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
I Have Seen it, and it was Good!
So I went to the midnight show last night. Episode III will not disappoint. *Warning: There may be spoilers ahead* The thing that surprised me the most was how sad I was to see the Jedi die. I guess I had developed a sort of fondness for Ki Adi Mundi, Plo Koon, Saesee Tinn, and Mace Windu. Not Kit Fisto, though. I thought he looked stupid in Episode II and never understood why he got some sort of mini-following. Good riddance to that guy.
Of course, I'll need to see it again to fully appreciate all of the light saber duels. Another surprising thing was how close Palpatine came to being defeated...twice. Mace almost had him until Anakin screwed that up, and Yoda could've taken him out in the Senate chamber if he could have held on to that ledge and climbed back up. Back to Mace and Palpatine, though. I suppose he was playing possum for Anakin's sake there. Still, Mace had him on the ropes.
One final comment (for now): Did anyone else think Anakin on the operating table was a pretty gruesome sight? Nasty stuff. I'll probably blog on Star Wars some more later.
Of course, I'll need to see it again to fully appreciate all of the light saber duels. Another surprising thing was how close Palpatine came to being defeated...twice. Mace almost had him until Anakin screwed that up, and Yoda could've taken him out in the Senate chamber if he could have held on to that ledge and climbed back up. Back to Mace and Palpatine, though. I suppose he was playing possum for Anakin's sake there. Still, Mace had him on the ropes.
One final comment (for now): Did anyone else think Anakin on the operating table was a pretty gruesome sight? Nasty stuff. I'll probably blog on Star Wars some more later.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Time Draweth Nigh
These are the days we Star Wars folk have dreamed of. Revenge of the Sith is soon to be released and it is getting (for the most part) positive press. Of course, there's the bit of political axe-grinding that Lucas apparently does in this movie, but not even that is going to harsh my Star Wars buzz. As you know, I have my tickets, and when the drums start beating at 12:01 am Thursday, I'll be there. This is it. I'm very much looking forward to this darker movie. It will be a little sad to see some of the characters I've enjoyed in the last two movies die, but that's the nature of the beast. I have a morbid curiosity as to how the various Jedi are going to die. I'm sure a bunch will be taken out at once in an explosion or something, and many more will be executed off screen, but I seem to remember Samuel L. Jackson requesting that he die on screen. Perhaps his duel with the emperor? I wonder how Ki Adi Mundi will die? Maybe Anakin? Only those who've seent he movie know for sure. By this time Thursday, I'll know too. It's almost time.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
My Friends Woulda Killed Me!
I dodged a bullet yesterday. I was assigned the duty of buying the Star Wars tickets for our local midnight showing (yeah, yeah, I'm a geek). So Monday I call one of the local theaters. The girl says, "I'm sorry, we have it on three screens here and they're all sold out." My stomach dropped. I had seen Episodes 1 and 2 in at midnight shows and the prospect of missing Episode 3's was mildly depressing. Add to that the fact that I was supposed to buy tickets for my brother Aaron and our friend Randy. I was sure they were going to kill me. Fortunately, the movie girl wasn't finished.
"We might get it on a fourth screen," she said, "but we won't know for a few days." So I pester the movie folks for a few days, and yesterday they say they got the fourth screen, but I needed to hurry and buy the tickets. So I zoom across town, and along the way I find out I actually need to buy two more tickets for some of our other friends. That means another stop at the ATM. So a few wreckless driving moments later I get to the theater and procure five tickets for me and my friends. Mission accomplished. And my friends need not be the wiser...er...unless they read my blog...
"We might get it on a fourth screen," she said, "but we won't know for a few days." So I pester the movie folks for a few days, and yesterday they say they got the fourth screen, but I needed to hurry and buy the tickets. So I zoom across town, and along the way I find out I actually need to buy two more tickets for some of our other friends. That means another stop at the ATM. So a few wreckless driving moments later I get to the theater and procure five tickets for me and my friends. Mission accomplished. And my friends need not be the wiser...er...unless they read my blog...
Thursday, May 05, 2005
One Post in all of April!??!?!
I can't believe it! I just realized I only posted once in the entire month of April! I'm very disappointed in myself. I think I'll give myself a time out when I get home. Anyway, I have a few things I want to post on in coming days, so I should actually post more than once this month.
One thing that has made me (superficially) happy: the arrival of dark chocolate M&Ms. YUM. It is evident to me that M&Ms have now evolved to their highest form. That brings me to this question: Who the heck decided milk chocolate was so great?!?!? Of course, I'm the type who would buy a bag of Hershey's Miniatures just for the Special Dark candy bars.
Since we're talking dark chocolate here, do you remember dark chocolate Hershey's Kisses? I was so excited when they came out, but I must say I was bitterly disappointed. I like my dark chocolate to put up a bit of resistance to the bite and then break, but the Kisses were just mushy. They were missing a vital part of the dark chocolate experience. Texture is very important to me in my food.
Well, I'm glad that I could share this deep and scintillating conversation with all you readers out there! See you soon.
One thing that has made me (superficially) happy: the arrival of dark chocolate M&Ms. YUM. It is evident to me that M&Ms have now evolved to their highest form. That brings me to this question: Who the heck decided milk chocolate was so great?!?!? Of course, I'm the type who would buy a bag of Hershey's Miniatures just for the Special Dark candy bars.
Since we're talking dark chocolate here, do you remember dark chocolate Hershey's Kisses? I was so excited when they came out, but I must say I was bitterly disappointed. I like my dark chocolate to put up a bit of resistance to the bite and then break, but the Kisses were just mushy. They were missing a vital part of the dark chocolate experience. Texture is very important to me in my food.
Well, I'm glad that I could share this deep and scintillating conversation with all you readers out there! See you soon.
Friday, April 15, 2005
What's in a (Church's) Name?
As some of you may know, I attend a church in Huntington, WV called Living Hope Bible Church. Recently I was driving through a neighboring town in Ohio when I saw a new church called something like "Living Hope Christian Center." At first I was upset that they had used "Living Hope," but I realized that I was just being petty about our name. The folks who started this church had likely never even heard of us, as we're a pretty young, small church ourselves, so it is unlikely that they were copying our name. Plus, I suspect the two churches would not travel in the same theological circles. Regardless, what is important is that people are brought into the Kingdom of Christ through our respective ministries.
I did, however, continue to ponder the names of the various churches that have cropped up in my region over the last decade or so. New Life Victory Center. Spirit of Victory. Celebration Center. Living Hope Christian Center. End Time Assembly. What do all of these names have in common? None of them contain the word "church" (disclaimer: New Life Victory Center changed to New Life Church a while back). Why have so many Christians eschewed the word "church"?
One answer I might get from a large number of Christians is "Who cares?" Why does it matter exactly what we call our assemblies? Simply put, it matters because we are the Church. We are not "the Centers" or "the Assemblers." We are the Church. I understand the impulse to get away from traditional names that seem boring to people and to come up with something fresh and exciting, but ladies and gentlemen, we should be PROUD to be called the Church. This marks us as Christ's body! We are members of His Kingdom.
When we name our churches these exotic names we are telling the community that the "church" is the building where Christians gather. It is our assembly hall. This is another product of the overly individualized form of Christianity we practice today in America and in other parts of the West. I do not "go to" Living Hope Bible Church. I am a part of the body that is Living Hope Bible Church. When we call Churches "centers" and "assemblies" we play into a false concept of the nature of the Church and our relationship to it.
I did, however, continue to ponder the names of the various churches that have cropped up in my region over the last decade or so. New Life Victory Center. Spirit of Victory. Celebration Center. Living Hope Christian Center. End Time Assembly. What do all of these names have in common? None of them contain the word "church" (disclaimer: New Life Victory Center changed to New Life Church a while back). Why have so many Christians eschewed the word "church"?
One answer I might get from a large number of Christians is "Who cares?" Why does it matter exactly what we call our assemblies? Simply put, it matters because we are the Church. We are not "the Centers" or "the Assemblers." We are the Church. I understand the impulse to get away from traditional names that seem boring to people and to come up with something fresh and exciting, but ladies and gentlemen, we should be PROUD to be called the Church. This marks us as Christ's body! We are members of His Kingdom.
When we name our churches these exotic names we are telling the community that the "church" is the building where Christians gather. It is our assembly hall. This is another product of the overly individualized form of Christianity we practice today in America and in other parts of the West. I do not "go to" Living Hope Bible Church. I am a part of the body that is Living Hope Bible Church. When we call Churches "centers" and "assemblies" we play into a false concept of the nature of the Church and our relationship to it.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Terri Schiavo, December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005
Terri Schiavo has died of forced starvation and dehydration. She was 41.
Crying Out for Certainty
This whole situation with Terri Schiavo continues to frustrate me. I am firmly allied with those who believe Terri should live (and that she certainly shouldn't be starved and dehydrated) but I just wish I could be talk to all the parties myself, you know? I so desperately want certainty, but it seems to me that there is at least a shadow of a doubt over Terri's condition. That being said, I don't think "a shadow of a doubt" justifies killing anyone in such a case.
Proponents of Terri's death say, "the courts have decided these things over and over" which sounds important until you realize that the "facts" of the case were decided in the original trial and were not open for dispute in any of the appeals. Michael Schiavo had a very good attorney who is well versed in "right to die" issues. The Schindlers had a young attorney working on out of sympathy. It was not until after the trial ended that (at some point) the Schindlers got a better attorney.
Some neurologists claim that Terri is in a PVS, but a leading neurologist, Dr. William Hammesfahr, disagrees. His report on Terri is published on Newsmax.com. I'm always skeptical of things I just read off of the internet, so I did a quick search on him and he seems to be a real doctor who works in the field of neurology. If you read the report he is convinced that Terri is not in a PVS and is responsive. However, Hammesfahr has been disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine for false advertizing about his treatment of stroke victims. I read through a bit of the complaint and trial transcript myself, and some neurologists seem to think Hammesfahr's treatments work as advertized, and some don't. The claim that he is a Nobel Prize nominee is apparently false. This doesn't mean that what Dr. Hammesfahr says about Terri is false, but I really wish his record was a bit cleaner. It would be easy to portray him as a doctor who wants notoriety for his controversial method so he claims he can help Terri. For the record, the Schindlers asked him to examine Terri, he did not volunteer himself as I understand it.
People I trust who would know about this sort of thing and are pro-life have seen her CT and say that her brain is really "mush." Where does that leave me? Ugh. I'm confused. Any way you slice it, though, I don't advocate starving and dehydrating Terri.
Proponents of Terri's death say, "the courts have decided these things over and over" which sounds important until you realize that the "facts" of the case were decided in the original trial and were not open for dispute in any of the appeals. Michael Schiavo had a very good attorney who is well versed in "right to die" issues. The Schindlers had a young attorney working on out of sympathy. It was not until after the trial ended that (at some point) the Schindlers got a better attorney.
Some neurologists claim that Terri is in a PVS, but a leading neurologist, Dr. William Hammesfahr, disagrees. His report on Terri is published on Newsmax.com. I'm always skeptical of things I just read off of the internet, so I did a quick search on him and he seems to be a real doctor who works in the field of neurology. If you read the report he is convinced that Terri is not in a PVS and is responsive. However, Hammesfahr has been disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine for false advertizing about his treatment of stroke victims. I read through a bit of the complaint and trial transcript myself, and some neurologists seem to think Hammesfahr's treatments work as advertized, and some don't. The claim that he is a Nobel Prize nominee is apparently false. This doesn't mean that what Dr. Hammesfahr says about Terri is false, but I really wish his record was a bit cleaner. It would be easy to portray him as a doctor who wants notoriety for his controversial method so he claims he can help Terri. For the record, the Schindlers asked him to examine Terri, he did not volunteer himself as I understand it.
People I trust who would know about this sort of thing and are pro-life have seen her CT and say that her brain is really "mush." Where does that leave me? Ugh. I'm confused. Any way you slice it, though, I don't advocate starving and dehydrating Terri.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
New (Old) Music
Those of you who have read this blog for a while know that I occasionally post on the music I'm listening to. In the past I've advocated the musical stylings of Elliott Smith, Death Cab for Cutie, and Snow Patrol. I'm still a fan of all of the above, by the way, but the music I've been getting into lately is...well...something of a departure from that style. I'm going to add three to the list of "Lazy Logician Approved" artists:
1. Giovanni da Palestrina
2. Don Carlo Gesualdo
3. Hildegarde von Bingen
Yeah, that's right. Medieval composers (you'll have to forgive me if I use incorrect terminology about this kind of music as I'm new to the scene). I guess I'll blame my interest in this music on Hollywood because I've been enjoying this stuff in movies I've been watching (did [em]Constantine[/em] have some?). The intricate sounds these composers crafted using only the human voice put a number of orchestral pieces to shame. I've nearly been brought to tears several times.
These pieces do such a great job of communicating the transcendent nature of God (well, not so much Gesualdo). You can really get swept away by the beauty of the harmonies, or in Hildegarde's case, the stark unison. I think "haunting" is a good way to describe it.
So, for those of you desirous to expand your musical horizons, don't ignore these early classical composers. This is truly beautiful music.
1. Giovanni da Palestrina
2. Don Carlo Gesualdo
3. Hildegarde von Bingen
Yeah, that's right. Medieval composers (you'll have to forgive me if I use incorrect terminology about this kind of music as I'm new to the scene). I guess I'll blame my interest in this music on Hollywood because I've been enjoying this stuff in movies I've been watching (did [em]Constantine[/em] have some?). The intricate sounds these composers crafted using only the human voice put a number of orchestral pieces to shame. I've nearly been brought to tears several times.
These pieces do such a great job of communicating the transcendent nature of God (well, not so much Gesualdo). You can really get swept away by the beauty of the harmonies, or in Hildegarde's case, the stark unison. I think "haunting" is a good way to describe it.
So, for those of you desirous to expand your musical horizons, don't ignore these early classical composers. This is truly beautiful music.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Will George Get it Right?
If you haven't done so yet, go to StarWars.com and watch the latest trailer for Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. WOW. I realize I'm tipping everyone off to my fundamental geekhood (if it wasn't evident already), but that trailer has me ready to go stand in line. If this movie is as good as the trailers look, will Lucas be absolved of his "sins" in the eyes of Star Wars fans (note: I liked episodes I and II, so I don't have much of a beef with him)?
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Stranded With Philosophers
Johnny-Dee has a good post over at Fides Quaerens Intellectum. It's a play off of the old "stranded on a desert island game. This time the question is what philosophers you would take with you. It wasn't original with John but, like him, I have no idea who did it first. Anyway, here's my list:
1. John Searle: I disagree with a lot of Searle's opinions, but he's got an interesting perspective, and after hearing him on Philosophy Talk I found out he is pretty funny (or at least he was on that show).
2. Alvin Plantinga: I've got to agree with John on this one. Here's another philosopher with a sense of humor, plus he could balance Searle's atheism.
3. Ludwig Wittgenstein: I know, I know, he wouldn't be all that exciting as a party guest, but what can I say? I love the whole "flawed genius" thing. I find it fascinating (I guess that's why I love Good Will Hunting and A Beautiful Mind).
4. David Hume: By all accounts a philosopher who knew how to party. He could counteract Wittgenstein's introversion.
5. Jonathan Edwards: A personal hero of mine. An absolutely brilliant mind and a giant of the Christian faith. A lot of people have the idea he was just a hellfire and brimstone guy, but that wasn't true. He was a great thinker. He and Hume could have some interesting conversations.
So there's my list. I see potential for interesting interaction. I smell a TV series...
1. John Searle: I disagree with a lot of Searle's opinions, but he's got an interesting perspective, and after hearing him on Philosophy Talk I found out he is pretty funny (or at least he was on that show).
2. Alvin Plantinga: I've got to agree with John on this one. Here's another philosopher with a sense of humor, plus he could balance Searle's atheism.
3. Ludwig Wittgenstein: I know, I know, he wouldn't be all that exciting as a party guest, but what can I say? I love the whole "flawed genius" thing. I find it fascinating (I guess that's why I love Good Will Hunting and A Beautiful Mind).
4. David Hume: By all accounts a philosopher who knew how to party. He could counteract Wittgenstein's introversion.
5. Jonathan Edwards: A personal hero of mine. An absolutely brilliant mind and a giant of the Christian faith. A lot of people have the idea he was just a hellfire and brimstone guy, but that wasn't true. He was a great thinker. He and Hume could have some interesting conversations.
So there's my list. I see potential for interesting interaction. I smell a TV series...
Sunday, March 06, 2005
It Itches, I'm Tellin' Ya...
Certain Doubts has an interesting post on Keith Lehrer's Pain/Itch Example. The idea is that it's supposed to show we can be "mistaken even about the contents of our own minds." The example, taken from Jonathan Kvanvig's post at Certain Doubts, goes like this:
Like several respondents I was left unimpressed (see Jonah Shupbach's good criticism here. Why should I think that this machine the doctor (or whomever) built is in a better position to judge my internal states than I am? Even if the machine can tell the difference between the two sensations why does that mean that I am in pain?
Beyond that, it seems to me that Lehrer has made some unwarranted assumptions in formulating this example. In situations like this I prefer to tread lightly because this example was formulated by an intelligent man; so I offer the caveat that I might be missing something. At any rate, Lehrer designed the example to show how we might be mistaken about the contents of our own minds. He first needs to prove, I think that such a thing is possible in such a clear case when our mind is not clouded in some way (perhaps he does in some other article which I have not read, but I tend to doubt it). He assumes it is, and I think this is not warranted. If the example is intended as proof that it is possible then it is circular because it assumes the possibility at the outset of the example (this is why I doubt it was meant as such a proof).
I can build a similar example on why 2+2 acutally equals 5 rather than 4, but I wouldn't expect people to believe that either. Imagine you are in a math class and your professor put a giant red 'X' next to your answer of '4' to the problem '2+2=?'. You challenge her on this and she says, "Actually it is 5. Humans only think it's 4 because of a trick of the brain. We ran it through a sophisticated Math program invented by researches from MIT and the answer came out to be '5'. We repeated the calculations numerous times and have come to the conclusion that the way the 'folk' add two and two is slightly off." So off you go to check on this math program. You purchase it and have some software experts analyze it and they assure you it's perfect. So you conclude that 2+2 does equal '5'.
Of course, just because I build an example of how 2+2 could equal five doesn't mean that it's possible that it could happen. I would have to prove its possibility before I even tried to move on to how it could be done. Similarly, for Lehrer's example to work you would have to assume the possibility of our being wrong about our mental states from the outset. Any comments?
You go to the doctor complaining of an itch. He listens to your complaint, observes the location of the itch, writes down how the problem started, and the details about physical symptoms including duration and intensity of the experience. Then he tells you that he thinks he knows what the problem is. He tells you that it’s not really an itch, but a pain. People have confused these two in the past, but we now have a well-confirmed theory that distinguishes the two in a slightly different way than “the folk” do. The theory has led to two technologies. One is a machine for distinguishing the two underlying states, and the other is medicine for treating the two conditions. Your doctor tells you that one of the medicines will solve the problem if you’re experiencing a pain, but not the itch; and the other medicine will have the alternative results. You insist that you’re experiencing an itch, but he uses the machine and shows you the results: you’re in pain, it says. If you still insist, he’ll give you the itch medicine. You do, and he does; you return two weeks later, still suffering, and ask for the pain medicine. You take it and get well. So you say, “I guess I was wrong. It was a pain, not an itch, after all!”
Like several respondents I was left unimpressed (see Jonah Shupbach's good criticism here. Why should I think that this machine the doctor (or whomever) built is in a better position to judge my internal states than I am? Even if the machine can tell the difference between the two sensations why does that mean that I am in pain?
Beyond that, it seems to me that Lehrer has made some unwarranted assumptions in formulating this example. In situations like this I prefer to tread lightly because this example was formulated by an intelligent man; so I offer the caveat that I might be missing something. At any rate, Lehrer designed the example to show how we might be mistaken about the contents of our own minds. He first needs to prove, I think that such a thing is possible in such a clear case when our mind is not clouded in some way (perhaps he does in some other article which I have not read, but I tend to doubt it). He assumes it is, and I think this is not warranted. If the example is intended as proof that it is possible then it is circular because it assumes the possibility at the outset of the example (this is why I doubt it was meant as such a proof).
I can build a similar example on why 2+2 acutally equals 5 rather than 4, but I wouldn't expect people to believe that either. Imagine you are in a math class and your professor put a giant red 'X' next to your answer of '4' to the problem '2+2=?'. You challenge her on this and she says, "Actually it is 5. Humans only think it's 4 because of a trick of the brain. We ran it through a sophisticated Math program invented by researches from MIT and the answer came out to be '5'. We repeated the calculations numerous times and have come to the conclusion that the way the 'folk' add two and two is slightly off." So off you go to check on this math program. You purchase it and have some software experts analyze it and they assure you it's perfect. So you conclude that 2+2 does equal '5'.
Of course, just because I build an example of how 2+2 could equal five doesn't mean that it's possible that it could happen. I would have to prove its possibility before I even tried to move on to how it could be done. Similarly, for Lehrer's example to work you would have to assume the possibility of our being wrong about our mental states from the outset. Any comments?
Friday, March 04, 2005
Brain Freeze
I've been having a hard time coming up with good blog fodder lately. I think one reason is that I want everything to be too good. I mean, a blog is an on-line journal, right? Who in the world says it's supposed to be full of lucid, fully-formed thoughts? I think I read Maverick Philosopher too much. He always seems to have something insightful to say, but then again, he's been studying philosophy and other things for a lot longer than I have.
I do want to post more on philosophy as well. I just have to come up with some worthwhile things to think and talk about. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to keep reading and talk about that.
Alright, I'm done whining now.
I do want to post more on philosophy as well. I just have to come up with some worthwhile things to think and talk about. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to keep reading and talk about that.
Alright, I'm done whining now.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
The Bayes Haze Revisited
So I've read some internet articles and picked up a book to help me with probability. It turns out that Bayes Theorem isn't that hard after all (hooray!!). First I just needed to get over the whole "distaste for math" thing I had. It's not that I'm bad at math, it's just not my best subject so I tend to turn up my nose at the sight of numbers. The other problem is just learning what all the letters and symbols stand for. Voila! Probabilty "ain't that big a deal." I'm not ready to rumble with the experts by any stretch, but it seems the journey will be a lot easier than I thought it was going to be.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A Husband's Responsibility
Most people are probably tired of hearing about how our culture misconstrues love, but I think it's the case. Here you have the whole "falling in/falling out" model propagated by Hollywood and in the rain-forest devouring phenomenon known as the romance novel. We are told that an inability to choose who we love is a brute fact for all humanity. "The heart wants what it wants," as Woody Allen said.
Our absorption of this idea has made it a strange and seemingly futile thing to "work on" a relationship. Generally whenever I hear a couple say they need to work on their relationship I hear an accompanying death knell. Even many couples who stay together do so because they have that rare ability to sustain the feelings that most people use up in the early stages.
If it is the case that "the heart wants what it wants" and "working on a relationship" is futile, then what do we say to people like Michael Schiavo? This is a man who has abandoned his wife (Terri; see below for more on her) when she needs him the most. But he is no longer in love with Terri, is he? No, he is not, otherwise he would not have fathered children with another woman, with whom he still lives. If this is the nature of love, Michael should get a free pass.
The fact of the matter is, however, Michael should not get a free pass. Most people who are honest with themselves find Michael's course of action repugnant. This calls into question the nature of love. I think the very marriage vows many of us take are a better picture of the nature of love. We are to care for each other. We are not free to do whatever we wish when the other is in a coma or severely brain damaged. We have pledged ourselves to this other person and have no right to sever that bond (unless it is mutually agreed upon). The heart is fickle. Honor is not. Husbands, love your wives. Don't just tell them of the warm feelings you have. Honor them by taking care of them in their hour of need. Do not betray your vows.
Our absorption of this idea has made it a strange and seemingly futile thing to "work on" a relationship. Generally whenever I hear a couple say they need to work on their relationship I hear an accompanying death knell. Even many couples who stay together do so because they have that rare ability to sustain the feelings that most people use up in the early stages.
If it is the case that "the heart wants what it wants" and "working on a relationship" is futile, then what do we say to people like Michael Schiavo? This is a man who has abandoned his wife (Terri; see below for more on her) when she needs him the most. But he is no longer in love with Terri, is he? No, he is not, otherwise he would not have fathered children with another woman, with whom he still lives. If this is the nature of love, Michael should get a free pass.
The fact of the matter is, however, Michael should not get a free pass. Most people who are honest with themselves find Michael's course of action repugnant. This calls into question the nature of love. I think the very marriage vows many of us take are a better picture of the nature of love. We are to care for each other. We are not free to do whatever we wish when the other is in a coma or severely brain damaged. We have pledged ourselves to this other person and have no right to sever that bond (unless it is mutually agreed upon). The heart is fickle. Honor is not. Husbands, love your wives. Don't just tell them of the warm feelings you have. Honor them by taking care of them in their hour of need. Do not betray your vows.
Friday, February 18, 2005
What Can a Vegetable Do?
Did you know that vegetables can smile? Did you know that they can recognize their mothers' voice? How about this: Did you know they can follow a balloon across the room with their eyes? And laugh or cry? According to the state of Florida a vegetable can do any one of these things because they maintain that Terry Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. Here are Terri's father's words:
Hat tip to Daily Inklings
By now you have probably heard about a young woman who is threatened with starvation in Florida.
That young woman is my daughter, Terri. In 1990, through circumstances which are shrouded in mystery (and may involve a criminal act by Terri's estranged husband), my daughter was left severely brain-damaged.
But before I go any further, I must put an end to the lies and misinformation that are circulating around the country through the media concerning my daughter's condition.
Contrary to anything you may have heard, Terri is NOT brain dead; Terri is NOT in a coma; she is NOT in a "persistent vegetative state;" nor is she on ANY life-support system.
Terri laughs, Terri cries, she moves, and she makes child-like attempts at speech with her mother and me. Sometimes she will say "Mom" or "Dad" or "yeah" when we ask her a question. When I kiss her hello or goodbye, she looks at me and "puckers up" her lips.
This may not seem like much to you, but it means everything to Terri's mother and me. It tells us she is still here, she still knows us, and with therapy and time she can have some level of recovery.
I know that there are some hard hearted people who believe that due to my daughters condition, she is better off dead. Words cannot describe the pain and anger such sentiments cause us. This is our daughter, our little girl, and even in her disabled condition, she still has the right to life and the right to be loved and cared for by her family.
Why, you may ask, is Terry in danger of death by starvation?
It is a long and outrageous story, but I'll give it to you as briefly as I can.
After the "incident" that left Terry in this condition, her husband Michael Schiavo sued various members of the medical community for money, saying that they did not treat or diagnose her properly at an early stage, and that he needed this money to provide for Terri's therapy and rehabilitation and care.
After lengthy court battles, he finally won upwards of $1.7 million under the guise of caring for our daughter, and then to our horror, he immediately began spending the money on himself and his Playboy lifestyle.
Terri's estranged husband Michael Schiavo has been living with another woman for years, and has two children by her. He is determined to see Terri dead. Why? We believe it's because he gets to keep whatever money is left... and he may have even darker motives than that.
To add insult to all of this injury toward my daughter, Michael Schiavo is still her "legal husband" and therefore is her "guardian." And since they are not legally divorced, he controls whatever health care she will and will not get. We are not even allowed to know if she is getting aspirin.
In 1993 my family initiated litigation against Michael Schiavo solely for the purpose of acquiring medical, physical and neurological assistance for our daughter Terri. The litigation escalated in 1998 when Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to stop Terri from receiving food and water, thereby starving her to death.
In filing this legal action, he retained the services of a high profile euthanasia attorney and the financial backing of powerful euthanasia organizations. He also used Terri's medical rehabilitation money to underwrite much of the legal expenses associated with his effort to starve our daughter to death.
We know that he has spent nearly $500,000 of Terri's money in attorney's fees for just one attorney trying to obtain a court order to have Terri starved to death. The very money that was supposed to be used for Terri's rehabilitation is being used to have her killed.
We very quickly discovered it was impossible for us to compete with the abundance of financial and legal resources the pro-death organizations were providing Micheal Schiavo in their effort to kill Terri. They are pouring time and effort into her starvation because they want to use this case to further the agenda of legalized euthanasia.
Hat tip to Daily Inklings
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Fight to Save Terri
You may notice that I've put the "Blogs for Terri" blogroll in my sidebar. For those who don't know, Terri Schiavo is a woman who suffered some severe brain damage but is not in a persistent vegetative state. Her husband Michael won a malpractice suit and the money was supposed to be used to get Terri the best care possible. He did no do this and now that this financial well is going dry he has been fighting to get her feeding tube removed so she will starve to death. Nevermind the fact that doctors have said that with physical therapy she wouldn't even need to use the feeding tube anymore.
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that Michael's efforts to kill his wife should be allowed. The hope is that Blogs for Terri can somehow contribute to the fight for her survival. Human life is precious. Count me in.
Get further information on Blogs for Terri here.
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that Michael's efforts to kill his wife should be allowed. The hope is that Blogs for Terri can somehow contribute to the fight for her survival. Human life is precious. Count me in.
Get further information on Blogs for Terri here.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Superman's Muscles
A lot of people think of Superman as the ultimate superhero. He does, after all, seem to have it everything. You know, invulnerability, flight, heat vision, super super strength, the works. Accordingly, the guys who have played him in the movies have been these big, muscle-bound types. When you think about it, though, if Superman was real he'd probably be really skinny. I mean, here you have this guy who can lift a freight train one-handed, so it would probably be pretty hard to find a set of weights that could offer enough resistance to build up his muscles. Of course, then he'd look a lot less impressive in his tights.
So instead of someone like Brandon Routh or that Smallville kid in the next Superman movie, picture this: The camera moves rapidly across an empty field and up into the air, then beyond the atmosphere and into space where a figure in blue tights and a red cape flies into view. It's SUPERMAN! Starring: Adrien Brody as the Man of Steel!
Yeah. That's how it should be.
So instead of someone like Brandon Routh or that Smallville kid in the next Superman movie, picture this: The camera moves rapidly across an empty field and up into the air, then beyond the atmosphere and into space where a figure in blue tights and a red cape flies into view. It's SUPERMAN! Starring: Adrien Brody as the Man of Steel!
Yeah. That's how it should be.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
I "Won" an Award!!!!
Bible Archive has given me the much coveted (I'm sure) "Salon du Refuse Arbitrary Choice Award!"
*Sniff* I'd like to thank all the people who made this award possible. Me mostly, but also Rey for randomly selecting me. And Johnny Dee for inspiring me to start my blog. All my hard work is starting to pay off...
See the rest of the winners here.
*Sniff* I'd like to thank all the people who made this award possible. Me mostly, but also Rey for randomly selecting me. And Johnny Dee for inspiring me to start my blog. All my hard work is starting to pay off...
See the rest of the winners here.
The Bayes Haze
My goal, after spending entirely too long as an undergrad, is to go to a Masters program in philosophy. Since I have two years left before I can go I decided to educate myself in philosophy (it is not my undergrad major). One thing that is difficult for me to get a handle on is Bayes Theorem. I just have to make my mind start thinking in that way. I've never read much on it, but I have started with the entry from the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's hard going for a guy who doesn't have any training in that sort of thing, but I will do it. My goal right now, though, is to get beyond reading that stuff like a kindergartener reads. Then, who knows? Maybe I'll master it someday.
Did anyone else have trouble with it when they first encountered it or is it just me?
Did anyone else have trouble with it when they first encountered it or is it just me?
Friday, February 04, 2005
They are Evil
I have been silent on the Iraqi elections thus far, mainly because there are a lot of people out there better qualified to talk about it than me. However, when I read Charles Krauthammer's column this morning I could not keep from commenting on one thing. A lot of people continue to defend the terrorists in Iraq as "insurgents" or whatever name is the poplular one this week. To those of you who continue to doubt the evil of these terrorists I present you with this fact:
This is an act of true evil. If you can't recognize that for what it is, then you are beyond hope.
As if to make a point even more definitively, it was not the suicide bombers but the voters they killed at the polls who were buried as martyrs. The remains of one suicide bomber were spat upon. Another suicide bomber, reported Iraq's interior minister, was a child with Down syndrome. There are no words for the depths of such depravity, sending an innocent to murder innocents, dressing this poor child in explosives and then leading him to his slaughter
This is an act of true evil. If you can't recognize that for what it is, then you are beyond hope.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
God, Logic, and Dooeyweerd
I've been meaning to blog on an interesting perspective on the nature of God I came across recently. Some of you may have heard of this before, so I will ask you to bear with me. In an e-mail exchange I discussed the Dooeyweerdian position on the nature of God with a fellow Christian. I will give a short explanation of what the Dooeyweerdian position is, but here are two links that will likely do it better:
Can God Do the Illogical? Part 1
Can God Do the Illogical? Part 2
The idea is that, contrary to what most Christians think, things like the laws of logic (or love, faithfulness, etc.) are not grounded in God's nature. Rather they are created by God and He abides by them in order to accomodate Himself to us. I think this concept of God is wrong.
Why do I reject Dooeyweerd's concept of God? Because, it seems to me, it either self-destructs or resorts to "epicycles" in order to survive. In my first wrangle with a Dooeyweerdian I suggested that if God created logic then He could take us all right up to judgment day and then say, "OK, Christians, you guys are going to Hell." When confronted with Biblical statements about His promises to Christians He might say, "I'm not bound by logic. When I made those statements I meant the opposite."
The response from the Dooeyweerdian is that God will not violate the word He has given us. In accomodating Himself to us He decided that He would follow a certain set of rules. But what if God has actually chosen deception as His rule for our universe? Perhaps God is being as deceptive as possible with us. Maybe the Bible is an elaborate lie and when we are all judged God sends all relatively honest people to Hell.
Someone might object, "that would violate God's love!" In this hypothetical reality God's love would also be part of the deception (I must admit I am a bit confused by Dooeyweerdians because sometimes it seems as though they think God could choose things like deception as virtues and sometimes it doesn't. If I'm being unfair I trust someone will come along and correct me). If the Dooeyweerdian says God won't choose deception because He desires to accomodate Himself to us, he will have to say that this desire is a part of God's nature outside of creation, which should be unacceptable to him if God indeed has none of these properties inherently. The reason for this is that this desire would have to precede creation to have any impact on God's choice. If it procedes creation where could it come from but the nature of God? In this way the Dooeyweerdian position seems to self-destruct.
I have also read that Dooeyweerdians do allow for God's created attributes to be based in some way on His nature, but that His nature is unknowable so we can't tell. Here I get the feeling we're going through epicycles. This seems like a move to save the phenomenon when it is simpler and at least as harmonious with Scripture to hold the more common position. So I reject the Dooeyweerdian position on the grounds that it either self-destructs or that it must resort to epicycles to save itself.
Can God Do the Illogical? Part 1
Can God Do the Illogical? Part 2
The idea is that, contrary to what most Christians think, things like the laws of logic (or love, faithfulness, etc.) are not grounded in God's nature. Rather they are created by God and He abides by them in order to accomodate Himself to us. I think this concept of God is wrong.
Why do I reject Dooeyweerd's concept of God? Because, it seems to me, it either self-destructs or resorts to "epicycles" in order to survive. In my first wrangle with a Dooeyweerdian I suggested that if God created logic then He could take us all right up to judgment day and then say, "OK, Christians, you guys are going to Hell." When confronted with Biblical statements about His promises to Christians He might say, "I'm not bound by logic. When I made those statements I meant the opposite."
The response from the Dooeyweerdian is that God will not violate the word He has given us. In accomodating Himself to us He decided that He would follow a certain set of rules. But what if God has actually chosen deception as His rule for our universe? Perhaps God is being as deceptive as possible with us. Maybe the Bible is an elaborate lie and when we are all judged God sends all relatively honest people to Hell.
Someone might object, "that would violate God's love!" In this hypothetical reality God's love would also be part of the deception (I must admit I am a bit confused by Dooeyweerdians because sometimes it seems as though they think God could choose things like deception as virtues and sometimes it doesn't. If I'm being unfair I trust someone will come along and correct me). If the Dooeyweerdian says God won't choose deception because He desires to accomodate Himself to us, he will have to say that this desire is a part of God's nature outside of creation, which should be unacceptable to him if God indeed has none of these properties inherently. The reason for this is that this desire would have to precede creation to have any impact on God's choice. If it procedes creation where could it come from but the nature of God? In this way the Dooeyweerdian position seems to self-destruct.
I have also read that Dooeyweerdians do allow for God's created attributes to be based in some way on His nature, but that His nature is unknowable so we can't tell. Here I get the feeling we're going through epicycles. This seems like a move to save the phenomenon when it is simpler and at least as harmonious with Scripture to hold the more common position. So I reject the Dooeyweerdian position on the grounds that it either self-destructs or that it must resort to epicycles to save itself.
Friday, January 28, 2005
A Fantastic New Blog
I'm really impressed with the lineup they've gathered over at The Conservative Philosopher. That's going to become an every day visit for me! Check it out!
Thursday, January 27, 2005
A Good Story Recommendation
Brandon at Siris is posting the text of "The Lotus," which is a short story of his. I was take with it immediately, so I thought I'd link the first installment. I may link the other two whenever he posts them. I highly recommend it.
Monday, January 24, 2005
A Haiku Mourning the Steelers AFC Championship Loss
My Steelers have lost
Cruel gambler's fallacy!
I thought they were due
Cruel gambler's fallacy!
I thought they were due
Friday, January 21, 2005
On The King James Only Controversy
Recently I wrote a review of Dr. James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy for a class at Tri-State Bible College (see "ministry links"). White does a good job of putting the arguments of the King James Only crowd to bed. For those of you not familiar with the movement, the basic idea is that the King James is the true word of God, and some even hold that the translators were inspired so even if they made "mistakes" it was really the Holy Spirit restoring the original text (disclaimer: only a minority of KJV Only folks believe this). I don't know how prevalent this belief is elsewhere, but where I live it has a relatively strong presence, so the book is pertinent. If you want to familiarize yourself with this issue, then I highly recommend this book. My full review for my class follows.
Defending the Word of God is one of the most important tasks a Christian can undertake in today’s world. We are faced with attacks from within and without that purport to give us the “truth about the Bible.” Atheists tell us that the Bible is nothing more than the work of men. Cultists tell us it is good, but we need their literature to interpret it for us. Even some who call themselves Christians hedge on the inerrancy of the word, but I suppose it makes sense that the Bible should be one of Satan’s primary targets. It is, after all, one of God’s most powerful weapons (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12).
This all-important desire to defend the Word of God is, I think, the impetus behind the “King James Only” movement. While the motivation is pure, the movement itself is riddled with logical holes, lacking in Biblical foundation, and its proponents often lack the Christian love we should have for one another.
In his book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations, Dr. James R. White subjects the KJV Only movement to a withering critique in a thorough, rational, and winsome style. He first writes a short history of Bible translation from Jerome to today. Interestingly, Jerome received criticism from no less than Augustine himself for undertaking a new translation of the Scriptures, though not for the same reasons as the worst parts of the KJV Only movement. Fast forward a few centuries and White shows us that Desiderius Erasmus, the father of the Textus Receptus from which the King James was translated, was heavily criticized for departing from none other than Jerome’s Vulgate. I’m sure Jerome would have understood Erasmus’ frustration.
White then assesses the arguments given by the ‘heavy hitters’ of the KJV Only movement (Peter Ruckman, D.A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, etc.). They assert that modern translations have changed the Bible in order to dilute important theological truths such as the deity of Christ. White points out that their arguments are circular in that they see any departure from the translation of the King James as a deletion (or addition in some rare cases) to the very Word of God. They assume from the outset that the King James Version is the standard by which all translations should be judged, sometimes raising it to inspired status. Peter Ruckman, for instance, advocates throwing out Greek lexicons if they contain definitions different from the King James.
The King James Only Controversy does quite a good job at explaining why certain passages have been translated differently or omitted altogether. White shows that there is no “New Age conspiracy” as Gail Riplinger would have us believe. He also denounces the character assassination of godly men attempted by members of this movement without doing the same to the KJV only crowd, so he is to be applauded for that. Also much appreciated is his concise explanation of Granville Sharp’s Rule, which I had heard referenced but never understood until reading the late chapters of The King James Only Controversy.
As for myself, I fully agree with White’s assessment of the KJV Only controversy. The position is foolish and inconsistent. It unwittingly gives shelter to those critics of Christianity who believe that the only way one can remain a Christian is to completely reject critical thinking. Then the rest of us have to deal with the damage caused. I look forward to the day when it goes the way of “the Vulgate Only controversy.
Defending the Word of God is one of the most important tasks a Christian can undertake in today’s world. We are faced with attacks from within and without that purport to give us the “truth about the Bible.” Atheists tell us that the Bible is nothing more than the work of men. Cultists tell us it is good, but we need their literature to interpret it for us. Even some who call themselves Christians hedge on the inerrancy of the word, but I suppose it makes sense that the Bible should be one of Satan’s primary targets. It is, after all, one of God’s most powerful weapons (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12).
This all-important desire to defend the Word of God is, I think, the impetus behind the “King James Only” movement. While the motivation is pure, the movement itself is riddled with logical holes, lacking in Biblical foundation, and its proponents often lack the Christian love we should have for one another.
In his book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations, Dr. James R. White subjects the KJV Only movement to a withering critique in a thorough, rational, and winsome style. He first writes a short history of Bible translation from Jerome to today. Interestingly, Jerome received criticism from no less than Augustine himself for undertaking a new translation of the Scriptures, though not for the same reasons as the worst parts of the KJV Only movement. Fast forward a few centuries and White shows us that Desiderius Erasmus, the father of the Textus Receptus from which the King James was translated, was heavily criticized for departing from none other than Jerome’s Vulgate. I’m sure Jerome would have understood Erasmus’ frustration.
White then assesses the arguments given by the ‘heavy hitters’ of the KJV Only movement (Peter Ruckman, D.A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, etc.). They assert that modern translations have changed the Bible in order to dilute important theological truths such as the deity of Christ. White points out that their arguments are circular in that they see any departure from the translation of the King James as a deletion (or addition in some rare cases) to the very Word of God. They assume from the outset that the King James Version is the standard by which all translations should be judged, sometimes raising it to inspired status. Peter Ruckman, for instance, advocates throwing out Greek lexicons if they contain definitions different from the King James.
The King James Only Controversy does quite a good job at explaining why certain passages have been translated differently or omitted altogether. White shows that there is no “New Age conspiracy” as Gail Riplinger would have us believe. He also denounces the character assassination of godly men attempted by members of this movement without doing the same to the KJV only crowd, so he is to be applauded for that. Also much appreciated is his concise explanation of Granville Sharp’s Rule, which I had heard referenced but never understood until reading the late chapters of The King James Only Controversy.
As for myself, I fully agree with White’s assessment of the KJV Only controversy. The position is foolish and inconsistent. It unwittingly gives shelter to those critics of Christianity who believe that the only way one can remain a Christian is to completely reject critical thinking. Then the rest of us have to deal with the damage caused. I look forward to the day when it goes the way of “the Vulgate Only controversy.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
On the Inspirational Book Section
Recently I was taking a stroll through a big-name Christian Book store. This is something I rarely do (mainly because I can only stand the presence of books by T.D. Jakes or Juanita Bynum for so long), but I was desperate to find a copy of Nancy Pearcy's Total Truth. I did find Total Truth, and much to my surprise, I found a number of important Christian works on another shelf (collected sermons of Jonathan Edwards, Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis and others). As you can imagine, I was thrilled. I bought five books and made sure to compliment the manager on their new "Christian Classics" section. I hope it grows to more that a couple of chest-high bookcases.
This set me to thinking. I usually buy my books in Borders at the local mall (and had indeed tried to find Total Truth there first). I'm sure many of you have noticed this, but many Christian books are listed in the "inspirational book" section in places like Borders. I've always detested the label "inspirational." What does that even mean? Very often it means "mushy-headed feel good books." I'm sorry, but I flatly refuse to be inspired by any book that has "Chicken Soup" in the title.
There are two terrible possibilities about Christian books in inspirational book sections. One, a more tough minded reader might be prejudiced against a good book when it is placed in that section. I know this is the case with me. I tend dismiss out of hand any book that is jammed in that catch all of a section. The second and more terrifying option is that the aforementioned Christian book may actually belong beside the various "Chicken Soups."
That our books can be funnelled into the same category as "Chicken Soup" is a sure sign that we Christians are not using our "noodles."
ps: Let this post-script serve as an apology for the horrible pun above!
This set me to thinking. I usually buy my books in Borders at the local mall (and had indeed tried to find Total Truth there first). I'm sure many of you have noticed this, but many Christian books are listed in the "inspirational book" section in places like Borders. I've always detested the label "inspirational." What does that even mean? Very often it means "mushy-headed feel good books." I'm sorry, but I flatly refuse to be inspired by any book that has "Chicken Soup" in the title.
There are two terrible possibilities about Christian books in inspirational book sections. One, a more tough minded reader might be prejudiced against a good book when it is placed in that section. I know this is the case with me. I tend dismiss out of hand any book that is jammed in that catch all of a section. The second and more terrifying option is that the aforementioned Christian book may actually belong beside the various "Chicken Soups."
That our books can be funnelled into the same category as "Chicken Soup" is a sure sign that we Christians are not using our "noodles."
ps: Let this post-script serve as an apology for the horrible pun above!
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Learning How to Read
I'm officially excited. Very soon I will begin reading Mortimer Adler's classic How to Read a Book. A number of people I respect have said that it was very useful and/or influential for them. I'm looking forward to it because my current reading habits leave something to be desired. I retain things fairly well but not because I work at it or have a good method. It's just always been a minor talent of mine.
I tend to read in what I consider to be an American consumerist kind of way. I read like someone in a hurry eats a Big Mac. In other words, I cram as much into as little space as possible. Obviously this does not maximize my ability to understand the content of the book. Hopefully How to Read a Book will help me learn a method that can slow me down and read in a way that is conducive to mastering the material.
Now excuse me while I finish the last 50 pages of Scientific Creationism...
I tend to read in what I consider to be an American consumerist kind of way. I read like someone in a hurry eats a Big Mac. In other words, I cram as much into as little space as possible. Obviously this does not maximize my ability to understand the content of the book. Hopefully How to Read a Book will help me learn a method that can slow me down and read in a way that is conducive to mastering the material.
Now excuse me while I finish the last 50 pages of Scientific Creationism...
Thursday, December 23, 2004
The Huntington Apologetics Team
Hey, I just wanted to make a quick post about the new blog I'm participating in. It's called the Huntington Apologetics Team (the HAT) and we are going to post answers to some basic apologetic questions and current issues in Christianity. We'll probably start slow, but I hope everyone will stop by.
The HAT is the official apologetics team of Living Hope Bible Church in Huntington, WV. We want to do our part in restoring a vibrant life of the mind to God's Church. Check it out!
The HAT is the official apologetics team of Living Hope Bible Church in Huntington, WV. We want to do our part in restoring a vibrant life of the mind to God's Church. Check it out!
Friday, December 17, 2004
Sports, War and ESPN Radio
During the noon hour yesterday I was driving about town, on a dual mission to pick up some medicine for my wife and lull my older son to sleep in the SUV. As is sometimes the case, I was listening to ESPN radio. Around that time of day Colin Cowherd is on. Usually Cowherd isn't funny enough for me to give an extended listen, but I suppose I was feeling "sports-talky" because I didn't change the station or pop in a CD.
Cowherd was having an argument with his listeners over the nature of pro atheletes. In his opinion pro atheletes are entertainers and so if we hold them to a different standard of behavior than we hold actors or rock stars we are being hypocritical. I agree that pro atheletes are nothing more than entertainers, but the topic got me thinking: why do we hold pro atheletes to the aforementioned different standard? My conclusion has to do with the different "traditions" actors, rock stars, and atheletes fall into.
Actors and rock stars fall into an artistic tradition. In this tradition pushing the envelope is a part of the package. Rock and roll especially was weaned on rebellion. Acting has been a haven for the odd and/or immoral for centuries. We expect actors and rock stars to follow in this tradition. For many this is one of the main factors for becoming an actor/rock star.
On the other hand, sports fall into a militaristic tradition. Think about it: How many war metaphors are used in describing athletic achievement? Atheletes are considered heroes in the vein of ancient warriors. Warfare now is far removed from us in America (thankfully) and even when we see broadcasts of battles all we see are rolling tanks, flying planes and firing rockets. We never see and rarely hear of the heroics of warriors in battle. Additionally, war is thankfully more rare than it was in the ancient past. It also relies less on the physical abilities of individual combatants. In order to replace these combatants in the popular mind, we choose our atheletes. I suppose it's because the physical "battle" that sports entail.
We hold Kobe Bryant to a higher standard because deep down we want him to be Hector, running out in defense of Troy. Brett Favre with his 200 straight starts under center is the invincible Achilles (if his career ends with an ankle injury don't blame me). Culturally we seem to need these heroes, and we need them to be legendary.
Am I arguing that we should look to atheletes to be examples for our children? Not necessarily. We should evaluate atheletes the same way we would examine any other potential hero. We would probably be better off if we could just get past the need to hero-worship others, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Every culture needs myth, and the world of sport is one of our most fertile and accessible gardens.
Cowherd was having an argument with his listeners over the nature of pro atheletes. In his opinion pro atheletes are entertainers and so if we hold them to a different standard of behavior than we hold actors or rock stars we are being hypocritical. I agree that pro atheletes are nothing more than entertainers, but the topic got me thinking: why do we hold pro atheletes to the aforementioned different standard? My conclusion has to do with the different "traditions" actors, rock stars, and atheletes fall into.
Actors and rock stars fall into an artistic tradition. In this tradition pushing the envelope is a part of the package. Rock and roll especially was weaned on rebellion. Acting has been a haven for the odd and/or immoral for centuries. We expect actors and rock stars to follow in this tradition. For many this is one of the main factors for becoming an actor/rock star.
On the other hand, sports fall into a militaristic tradition. Think about it: How many war metaphors are used in describing athletic achievement? Atheletes are considered heroes in the vein of ancient warriors. Warfare now is far removed from us in America (thankfully) and even when we see broadcasts of battles all we see are rolling tanks, flying planes and firing rockets. We never see and rarely hear of the heroics of warriors in battle. Additionally, war is thankfully more rare than it was in the ancient past. It also relies less on the physical abilities of individual combatants. In order to replace these combatants in the popular mind, we choose our atheletes. I suppose it's because the physical "battle" that sports entail.
We hold Kobe Bryant to a higher standard because deep down we want him to be Hector, running out in defense of Troy. Brett Favre with his 200 straight starts under center is the invincible Achilles (if his career ends with an ankle injury don't blame me). Culturally we seem to need these heroes, and we need them to be legendary.
Am I arguing that we should look to atheletes to be examples for our children? Not necessarily. We should evaluate atheletes the same way we would examine any other potential hero. We would probably be better off if we could just get past the need to hero-worship others, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Every culture needs myth, and the world of sport is one of our most fertile and accessible gardens.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
A Confused Kind of Christian
Somebody told me there was a revolution on in Christianity. Being that I'm a product of that famous revolution that happened 'round about 1776 I decided to see if this new revolution was worth joining. I managed to get my hands on a copy of Brian D. McLaren's book A New Kind of Christian, which is apparently the first in a series of books that advocates a shift from 'Modern Christianity' to 'Postmodern Christianity' (this shift is the aforementioned revolution). I read the book relatively slowly, taking notes and trying to see what McLaren had in mind. After reading ANKoC I must say that his vision is not exactly clear (I've been told he is more clear in his subsequent books). I'll explain as we go on.
The book opens with a frustrated pastor who befriends a high school science teacher named 'Neo.' Neo is the postmodern Christian hero of the book, and he introduces the pastor to new way of ministering. Supposedly the Modern Era epistemology that includes pigeon-holing, dissecting God in the name of theology, and reading the Bible as an answer key in the back of text book is out of touch with where the culture is going and if we are going to continue to minister we need to take the postmodern turn.
I find it interesting that almost all of the problems McLaren pointed out I have pointed out to others in the past (and McLaren would certainly put me in the modernist camp). I agree that we do pigeon-hole things and try to make difficult things too black and white. I agree that in the pursuit of theology we often lose emotional connection with God (though I wonder what McLaren would say about me, since my most intense emotional experiences in recent years have come in my theology classes). Again, I agree that the Bible is not to be read as a cheap and easy answer book. What I never heard McLaren state is a compelling reason to go postmodern. The closest thing I read was that this is where our culture was heading, which reminds me less of the early church and more of those who kowtowed to the logical positivists in the early 20th Century. I suspect that postmodernism is going to meet a fate similar to that of logical positivism. Neither are tenable.
McLaren also has the tendency to waver back and forth between epistemologies, grabbing Modern concepts whenever it suits him. His idea of theology involves asking questions like "if God is like this, what would the universe be like?" Funny, it seems to me that many of my 'modern' compatriots are asking this question and that others have been asking it for centuries! This very question is the sort of question that gave rise to science! It seems that McLaren comes perilously close to 'dissecting God' who supposedly can't be studied (p. 161).
As I read I kept waiting for a 'postmodern bombshell' that could readily identify where McLaren was coming from, but I never got it. I never read phrases like "reality is a construct of our language" although he did come close on page 162 when he was talking about his 'dream seminary.' "We'd help students construct their own models of reality..." he said, but added "...their model isn't reality." But McLaren, through Neo, never says if he believes we can get at reality at all.
There were some good things in the book, such as Neo's recommendation that the Church become more involved in the community and that people should stop 'head-hunting' in evangelism. I particularly liked the comment about how viewing someone as a project takes the friendship out of 'friendship evangelism'. We can adapt culturally to those who have a postmodern bent, but embracing it would be just as much a mistake as fully embracing modernism. It's maddening that McLaren seems so happy to dive head first into this new epistemology while criticizing those who dove headfirst into the last one.
The sad fact of the matter is that postmodernism as a philosophy is a dying paradigm. It will certainly have its adherents for the next half-century or so, but ultimately it will not survive because God has built rationality into us. Finding truth is far too important to humans, even postmodern ones like Neo.
The book opens with a frustrated pastor who befriends a high school science teacher named 'Neo.' Neo is the postmodern Christian hero of the book, and he introduces the pastor to new way of ministering. Supposedly the Modern Era epistemology that includes pigeon-holing, dissecting God in the name of theology, and reading the Bible as an answer key in the back of text book is out of touch with where the culture is going and if we are going to continue to minister we need to take the postmodern turn.
I find it interesting that almost all of the problems McLaren pointed out I have pointed out to others in the past (and McLaren would certainly put me in the modernist camp). I agree that we do pigeon-hole things and try to make difficult things too black and white. I agree that in the pursuit of theology we often lose emotional connection with God (though I wonder what McLaren would say about me, since my most intense emotional experiences in recent years have come in my theology classes). Again, I agree that the Bible is not to be read as a cheap and easy answer book. What I never heard McLaren state is a compelling reason to go postmodern. The closest thing I read was that this is where our culture was heading, which reminds me less of the early church and more of those who kowtowed to the logical positivists in the early 20th Century. I suspect that postmodernism is going to meet a fate similar to that of logical positivism. Neither are tenable.
McLaren also has the tendency to waver back and forth between epistemologies, grabbing Modern concepts whenever it suits him. His idea of theology involves asking questions like "if God is like this, what would the universe be like?" Funny, it seems to me that many of my 'modern' compatriots are asking this question and that others have been asking it for centuries! This very question is the sort of question that gave rise to science! It seems that McLaren comes perilously close to 'dissecting God' who supposedly can't be studied (p. 161).
As I read I kept waiting for a 'postmodern bombshell' that could readily identify where McLaren was coming from, but I never got it. I never read phrases like "reality is a construct of our language" although he did come close on page 162 when he was talking about his 'dream seminary.' "We'd help students construct their own models of reality..." he said, but added "...their model isn't reality." But McLaren, through Neo, never says if he believes we can get at reality at all.
There were some good things in the book, such as Neo's recommendation that the Church become more involved in the community and that people should stop 'head-hunting' in evangelism. I particularly liked the comment about how viewing someone as a project takes the friendship out of 'friendship evangelism'. We can adapt culturally to those who have a postmodern bent, but embracing it would be just as much a mistake as fully embracing modernism. It's maddening that McLaren seems so happy to dive head first into this new epistemology while criticizing those who dove headfirst into the last one.
The sad fact of the matter is that postmodernism as a philosophy is a dying paradigm. It will certainly have its adherents for the next half-century or so, but ultimately it will not survive because God has built rationality into us. Finding truth is far too important to humans, even postmodern ones like Neo.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Does God Care What Shirt You Wear?
The following is a short book report written for my Pastoral Theology class.
Every day Christians from all over the world wonder, “What is God’s will for my life?” The pursuit for the will of God can be maddening at times, and downright depressing at others. This is why many Christian leaders have undertaken the task of clearly laying out the way to understand God’s leading. Gary Friesen’s Decision Making and the Will of God is just such a book, but, like a good novel, it has a twist.
In the beginning of the book Friesen uses a character, Pastor Bill Thompson, to present what he calls the ‘traditional view’ of discovering God’s will. According to Friesen the so-called traditional view presents to us God’s threefold will: the sovereign will, the moral will, and the individual will. The sovereign will includes everything that God has unilaterally decreed to come to pass. God’s moral will is presented in the Bible. “Moral will” means everything that is accordance with God’s character. For instance, it is God’s moral will that we read His word, but He does not override our wills to make us do so. The individual will of God is God’s specific will for each individual. Again, He does not force every individual into his perfect will (that would make it His sovereign will).
Finding God’s individual will is what frustrates many Christians. Through Pastor Thompson, Friesen explains how to find said individual will via the traditional view. There are supposedly seven signs that lead the Christian to God’s individual will. First is the Bible, then an inner witness, personal desires, circumstances, mature counsel, common sense, and special guidance. Special guidance, however, was more for men like the Apostles and Prophets. We don’t hear from God in the same way today.
The traditional view has the advantage of “feeling right” to a great many Christians today, but Friesen holds that the traditional view is hopelessly flawed. This is the ‘twist’ of Decision Making and the Will of God. For him the traditional view is a non-starter. He demonstrates that the scriptural evidence marshaled in its support is usually interpreted wrongly.
Another major problem, according to Friesen, is that there is no such thing as an ‘individual will’ for every Christian. Rather, there is much room for freedom within God’s moral will. This means that all those Christians who hold the traditional view are basically chasing rainbows that will only move further and further away as they grasp at them. This is indeed a frustrating state.
Friesen goes on to demonstrate the untrustworthy nature of the guideposts used to find God’s individual will. Many people play fast and loose with Biblical texts as they apply them to their own situations without consideration for what the author originally meant. The internal witness is easily twisted to fit with one’s own desires regardless of God’s will. Circumstances, mature counsel and common sense are given so many qualifications they are rendered nearly useless in decision-making. Another key criticism is the abandonment of the traditional view in the little decisions of every day life. According to Friesen if proponents of the traditional view want to be consistent they should seek God’s will for what shirt they should wear that day.
On Friesen’s view (the ‘wisdom view’) all God wants us to do is to make decisions that fit within the framework of His moral will. Not only does this relieve a great deal of stress, but it also provides great motivation for Bible study. How can we know the moral will of God if we have not read the book in which He reveals that will? Our task as Christians is to make sure we are making the most wise, godly decision as is possible.
Tradition is a powerful thing. Humans often resist giving up tradition because it has the sense of propriety and rightness, since our parents and grandparents believed it. That is why it is so remarkable when someone can come along and fully dismantle a tradition, which is what Friesen has done in my opinion.
Friesen first removes the scriptural foundation for the traditional view and then provides a strong base for the wisdom view. A close reading of Scripture reveals that the “still small voice” heard by Elijah was still an audible voice, not some ambiguous inner prompting. There is nowhere in Scripture that such a prompting can be shown to exist.
I am now fully convinced that the traditional view of God’s individual will for our lives is a false paradigm. Instead we are to live by the precepts outlined in Scripture. I fear that many Christians, in trying to comply with the traditional view, have put themselves in the bondage of superstition. Though we may not ever be rich, or we may suffer from some terrible disease we can be sure that if we follow the moral principles He has given, God will take good care of us.
Every day Christians from all over the world wonder, “What is God’s will for my life?” The pursuit for the will of God can be maddening at times, and downright depressing at others. This is why many Christian leaders have undertaken the task of clearly laying out the way to understand God’s leading. Gary Friesen’s Decision Making and the Will of God is just such a book, but, like a good novel, it has a twist.
In the beginning of the book Friesen uses a character, Pastor Bill Thompson, to present what he calls the ‘traditional view’ of discovering God’s will. According to Friesen the so-called traditional view presents to us God’s threefold will: the sovereign will, the moral will, and the individual will. The sovereign will includes everything that God has unilaterally decreed to come to pass. God’s moral will is presented in the Bible. “Moral will” means everything that is accordance with God’s character. For instance, it is God’s moral will that we read His word, but He does not override our wills to make us do so. The individual will of God is God’s specific will for each individual. Again, He does not force every individual into his perfect will (that would make it His sovereign will).
Finding God’s individual will is what frustrates many Christians. Through Pastor Thompson, Friesen explains how to find said individual will via the traditional view. There are supposedly seven signs that lead the Christian to God’s individual will. First is the Bible, then an inner witness, personal desires, circumstances, mature counsel, common sense, and special guidance. Special guidance, however, was more for men like the Apostles and Prophets. We don’t hear from God in the same way today.
The traditional view has the advantage of “feeling right” to a great many Christians today, but Friesen holds that the traditional view is hopelessly flawed. This is the ‘twist’ of Decision Making and the Will of God. For him the traditional view is a non-starter. He demonstrates that the scriptural evidence marshaled in its support is usually interpreted wrongly.
Another major problem, according to Friesen, is that there is no such thing as an ‘individual will’ for every Christian. Rather, there is much room for freedom within God’s moral will. This means that all those Christians who hold the traditional view are basically chasing rainbows that will only move further and further away as they grasp at them. This is indeed a frustrating state.
Friesen goes on to demonstrate the untrustworthy nature of the guideposts used to find God’s individual will. Many people play fast and loose with Biblical texts as they apply them to their own situations without consideration for what the author originally meant. The internal witness is easily twisted to fit with one’s own desires regardless of God’s will. Circumstances, mature counsel and common sense are given so many qualifications they are rendered nearly useless in decision-making. Another key criticism is the abandonment of the traditional view in the little decisions of every day life. According to Friesen if proponents of the traditional view want to be consistent they should seek God’s will for what shirt they should wear that day.
On Friesen’s view (the ‘wisdom view’) all God wants us to do is to make decisions that fit within the framework of His moral will. Not only does this relieve a great deal of stress, but it also provides great motivation for Bible study. How can we know the moral will of God if we have not read the book in which He reveals that will? Our task as Christians is to make sure we are making the most wise, godly decision as is possible.
Tradition is a powerful thing. Humans often resist giving up tradition because it has the sense of propriety and rightness, since our parents and grandparents believed it. That is why it is so remarkable when someone can come along and fully dismantle a tradition, which is what Friesen has done in my opinion.
Friesen first removes the scriptural foundation for the traditional view and then provides a strong base for the wisdom view. A close reading of Scripture reveals that the “still small voice” heard by Elijah was still an audible voice, not some ambiguous inner prompting. There is nowhere in Scripture that such a prompting can be shown to exist.
I am now fully convinced that the traditional view of God’s individual will for our lives is a false paradigm. Instead we are to live by the precepts outlined in Scripture. I fear that many Christians, in trying to comply with the traditional view, have put themselves in the bondage of superstition. Though we may not ever be rich, or we may suffer from some terrible disease we can be sure that if we follow the moral principles He has given, God will take good care of us.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Top 10 Melancholy Songs of ALL TIME!!!
I've been mulling this post over for a few days. I'm a big fan of melancholy music, and in the spirit of all of the countdown shows that have permeated the airwaves lately I thought I'd compile a list of the top ten melancholy songs of all time. Of course, by all time I mean this century and the last, and mostly the second half of the last, and by top ten I mean my favorites. I haven't settled on a definitive list yet and am soliciting contributions from my fellow melancholics. Here are my candidates so far in no particular order.
1. Walk Away Renee- The Left Banke
2. Everybody's Talkin'- Harry Nilsson
3. Adia- Sarah McClachlan
4. Twilight- Elliot Smith
5. What'll I Do?- Written by Irving Berlin
6. Oh Girl- Chi-Lites
7. Linger- The Cranberries
8. And now the pick everyone's sure to hate, You Were Meant for Me- Jewel
As you can see the list is far from complete, and who knows which of these will make the final top 10? Post some suggestions and we'll see what we come up with. I've already had suggested: Silent Lucidity by Queensryche, Cat's in the Cradle by Harry Chapin Carpenter Montgomery and Gentry, Candle In the Wind (1987 Live Version - Not the Butchered Princess Di rewrite), Look Away - Chicago.
1. Walk Away Renee- The Left Banke
2. Everybody's Talkin'- Harry Nilsson
3. Adia- Sarah McClachlan
4. Twilight- Elliot Smith
5. What'll I Do?- Written by Irving Berlin
6. Oh Girl- Chi-Lites
7. Linger- The Cranberries
8. And now the pick everyone's sure to hate, You Were Meant for Me- Jewel
As you can see the list is far from complete, and who knows which of these will make the final top 10? Post some suggestions and we'll see what we come up with. I've already had suggested: Silent Lucidity by Queensryche, Cat's in the Cradle by Harry Chapin Carpenter Montgomery and Gentry, Candle In the Wind (1987 Live Version - Not the Butchered Princess Di rewrite), Look Away - Chicago.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Instapundit, Abortion and Duty to Rescue
Instapundit made an interesting post yesterday regarding abortion. He was responding to Jonah Goldberg's observations about the treatment of Abortion on TV (in dramas and sitcoms, not news shows). The basic idea of Goldberg's piece was that the characters who consider abortions never have them and then their babies are suddenly transformed by the power of that choice into full-fledged human beings from the lumps of cells they once were. This is where Instapundit comes in.
Using the 'duty to rescue' scenario as a guide, he comes up with a formula as to how he can support abortion rights and still advocate punishment for mothers who take drugs or drink while pregnant. He sums up his idea thusly: "decide not to have the abortion, and assume the duty to avoid dangerous behavior." Legally, one thing that has been pointed out to me is that the parent/child relationship imposes a new set of duties on the parties. I have a duty to rescue my son if he is drowning, so the analogy to the 'duty to rescue' scenario is flawed.
Another interesting question has to do with the legal status of the fetus itself. If at the time of the action by the mother (let's say she uses crack) the fetus does not have legal status as a person how can she be held responsible for harm done to that fetus at any point? She can be punished for using illegal drugs, but how can the law punish her for harming a person that was not even a person (legally) at the time of the act? I'm no expert, but I think the law regarding the personhood of the fetus is a bit of a mixed bag. Some laws favor personhood, some laws (i.e. abortion laws) reject it. Perhaps the pro-life community should put more of a focus on this aspect of the abortion debate.
Using the 'duty to rescue' scenario as a guide, he comes up with a formula as to how he can support abortion rights and still advocate punishment for mothers who take drugs or drink while pregnant. He sums up his idea thusly: "decide not to have the abortion, and assume the duty to avoid dangerous behavior." Legally, one thing that has been pointed out to me is that the parent/child relationship imposes a new set of duties on the parties. I have a duty to rescue my son if he is drowning, so the analogy to the 'duty to rescue' scenario is flawed.
Another interesting question has to do with the legal status of the fetus itself. If at the time of the action by the mother (let's say she uses crack) the fetus does not have legal status as a person how can she be held responsible for harm done to that fetus at any point? She can be punished for using illegal drugs, but how can the law punish her for harming a person that was not even a person (legally) at the time of the act? I'm no expert, but I think the law regarding the personhood of the fetus is a bit of a mixed bag. Some laws favor personhood, some laws (i.e. abortion laws) reject it. Perhaps the pro-life community should put more of a focus on this aspect of the abortion debate.
Explaining my Absence
It's been a long time since I posted and fewer people have been coming for visits so I thought I'd explain myself. Election day was doubly good for me with the George W. Bush victory and the birth of my second son, Leo. He was 10 lbs. 4 Oz. and 21 1/2 inches long. Both mother and baby are doing quite well. I'm really surprised at how quickly my wife has rebounded. It's a real blessing. Anyway, after a few weeks off I'm back and I hope to start blogging a bit more. I should have one coming on some interesting things Instapundit says on the topic of abortion.
By the way, I've also been working on a novel for National Novel writing month, aka Nanowrimo. Once it's finished, it's guaranteed to be an Oprah Winfrey book of the month. I'll make millions I tell you! MILLIONS!!!
By the way, I've also been working on a novel for National Novel writing month, aka Nanowrimo. Once it's finished, it's guaranteed to be an Oprah Winfrey book of the month. I'll make millions I tell you! MILLIONS!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)