God & Humility

One of this week's readings is Philippians 3:4–14, the classic "hymn" extolling the humility of Jesus Christ. Paul calls his readers to emulate this attitude.

But the view that many people have of God seems to be in direct conflict with the attitude of Jesus Christ.

Here's a sampling:

• God created the world exclusively to proclaim his own glory.
  
  
• Since God is sovereign--as well as infinitely passionate for His own glory--He will not let His passion to be glorified fail.
  
  
• "God glorifies himself in the eternal damnation of the ungodly men" (Jonathan Edwards).
  [More: "God glorifies himself in all that he doth; but he glorifies himself principally in his eternal disposal of his intelligent creatures: some are appointed to everlasting life, and others left to everlasting death."
  "When [the saints in heaven] shall see the smoke of their [the damned] torment, and the raging of the flames of their burning, and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the meantime are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how will they rejoice!"]
  
  
• "Everything [God] does is motivated by His desire to be glorified…. He governs the world precisely to the end that He might be admired, marveled at, exalted and praised" (John Piper).
  
  
• God "causes" suffering and evil in the world so as to maximize his glory.
  
  
• "God's ultimate purpose in Scripture is to glorify Himself."
  
  
• "It is all about the Glory of God. It is about what gives God the most Glory. If it pleases God to save me, then that is the pleasure of God, if it pleases God to leave me in my sin then that is also the pleasure of God, so whether He has elected me to slavation (sic) or perdition is irrelavant (sic)."
  
  
• God "will not tolerate forever those who do not give Him glory" (John Piper).
  

I would argue that this idea, that God's primary concern is for his own glory, dishonors God. It makes God out to be petty and self-centered.

I know the arguments. For God, "self-exaltation is the highest virtue." Because God is "that which is most worthy of love," he "either loves Himself supremely, or He over-loves something lesser than Himself, which is the very definition of idolatry."

But these arguments ring hollow. They involve redefining terms and using them with revolving meanings. They involve circular reasoning.

"Some theologians claim that all God's desires culminate in a single desire: to assert and to maintain God's own glory. On its own, the idea of a glory-seeking God seems to say that God, far from being only a giver, is the ultimate receiver."

Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge, p. 39

Yes, God is concerned that we recognize his glory. But it is not so that he can bask in our praise. God wants us to know his true nature, because only then will we realize how much we need him.

But most of all, he wants us to know him.

So what do you think? Do you think God's ultimate concern is for his own glory? Do you think that we dishonor God with this kind of talk? Do you think it is a distortion of Scripture?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Law & Order: Specious Views Unit

Tuesday night, I was working on my computer with Law and Order: SVU running in the background. I am well used to the political and moral "soapboxing" by the writers of that franchise. (I have met one of them, and she is the same in person.)

But last night's episode, entitled "Sin," committed even more egregious transgressions.

The story was about an "evangelical" pastor who was openly opposed to the homosexual lifestyle and had (gasp) 10 children. As Detective Stabler quipped, "Even Catholics don't do that anymore." The promotional copy reads: "They seem like a loving family from the outside, but things are not what they seem."

Reverend Jeb Curtis (played by Tim Daly) is the pastor of the wealthy New Souls Church.

• The congregation has $50,000 lying around to put up for the pastor's bond.
  
• The pastor is paying $2400 per month in rent for the male prostitute. And this money comes from his discretionary account.
  
• Yet the auditorium of the church appears to hold only about 250 people. (They must be excellent givers.)
  

The young people of the church are depicted as vapid, mindless androids that "think AIDS is funny."

Dr. Huang, the police psychiatrist, said of Pastor Curtis thinking that he had been using the services of the male prostitute, "He repressed his natural sexual desires and channeled them into having as many children as possible. But the problem with repressed desires is they eventually explode." He also speculated that the Curtises were a part of the "Replenish Movement" since they had so many children. He told Detective Stabler, as if he were describing the inner thoughts of a psychopath, that these people "believe the Bible is the literal word of God."

Detective Benson reacts to attempts to "cure" homosexual inclinations with the same disgust that she reserves for child prostitution.

The wife of Reverend Curtis (played by Kathy Baker) jettisons her faith and her sanity attempting to murder her husband, the "only man I've ever kissed."

The Roman Catholic faith of Detective Stabler is shown in a good light, presumably because he doesn't take it too seriously.

The murderer turns out to be the administrative assistant at the church.

The producers tie this all up in a neat bundle, in effect, taking back all the accusations made against the people of the church:

• The father embraces the son acknowledges his homosexuality.
  
• The father admits that he was wrong to attempt to change the way "God made" his son.
  
• The pastor and his wife are reconciled.
  
• The pastor is completely cleared of murder and sexual misconduct.
  

But the image of the people of the church stands, a group without a single redeeming quality. They make no contribution to the community. Rather, they are a threat because of their narrow-minded views and mindless devotion to religious fundamentalism.

I have several reactions to this:

• The writers and producers of Law & Order have no idea what Christianity is really about.
  
  
• They see "evangelical" Christianity as a threat to society.
  
  
• Why did they think it was a good idea to do three shows in the Law & Order franchise with the same basic theme?
  
  
• The church has been its own worst enemy, providing the background material for nonsense like this.
  
  
• If Christianity is what is portrayed in this episode, then it is no wonder that people want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with it.
  
  
• It's time for the church to demonstrate what it means to be serious disciple of Jesus Christ.
  

So what do you think? Do you have other observations about the show?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

It’s My Party

We have the idea that our spiritual lives are a private matter, between us and God. Our society talks about victimless crimes. And we tend to think that some sins have no victims other than the one who sins. But the reality is that all sin has wide-ranging consequences.

When a person sins, someone else is inevitably hurt. Sin always has social consequences, whether great or small, depending on the person sinning. One cannot sin ever so secretly without influencing the quality of one's relations with others, particularly those within his or her inner circle.

Arthur Glasser, Announcing the Kingdom, p. 55.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Wright on Sacraments

Today I attended the Albert Cardinal Meyer Lecture Series by N. T. Wright at Mundelein Seminary.

First, I must say that the hospitality of the people at the seminary was remarkable. The lectures were offered free of charge to the general public. And they even provided lunch. These people were so friendly and generous that I felt honored to be on their campus.

The lectures focused on sacramental theology.

Wright was wearing his purple clerical shirt with his characteristic cross hanging from a chain around his neck, and read his notes from a laptop on the lectern.

He began by addressing the longstanding rift between Protestants and Catholics. He talked about the "cultural suspicions and alienation" between the two groups. He said that Protestants think that Catholics are caught up in idolatry and works righteousness. Even though the Catholics say it is not true, the Protestants don't believe them.

He said that Anglicans take fire from both sides. But possibly "this Anglican" can offer some words that will form a basis for the two groups to move closer together. He decried the emphasis on tradition, whether based on "papal pronouncements or protestant confessions," at the expense of the authority of the Scripture.

The key, he argued, to understanding the sacraments is eschatology, the movement from creation to the new creation. Everything must be understood in light of what God is doing in bringing the Kingdom to completion. He has called his people to be "the people of God for the world not the people of God away from the world." We must resist the dualist missiology of "saving souls for heaven" over and against building the kingdom here and now.

God's work can be understood in three dimensions:

1. Space
   
2. Time
   
3. Matter
   

"When God made space, time and matter, he made something good." Understanding these three dimensions can give us a richer theology of the sacraments.

Space

Heaven and earth overlap in many ways. The temple in Jerusalem was one such place. Jesus was the ultimate overlapping of heaven and earth. He was the "walking sacrament."

Jesus did not give his disciples "a theory of the atonement to be held in the head, but a meal."

We must make explicit the connection between Jesus' sacrifice and the observance of the Passover.

"When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the place wasn't big enough for both him and the temple."

The Eucharist is "a place where the bright cloud of God's presence engulfs us" as occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Time

Eternal life is not a timeless existence. It is life of the age to come. "Time itself is part of the good creation." "God is very keen on time. He made plenty of it and likes it."

We have assumed that time is part of the problem, but it is, in fact, a great gift. God will remake and redeem time as a part of the new heavens and the new earth.

Jesus always seemed to be working on a different time scale.

The images of the coming age that are given to us in Scripture are "signposts point into a fog." They are not photographic images of what is to happen.

"Baptism is an encoded narrative" including creation, the exodus, the entrance into the Promised Land, the baptism of John and the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We don't come to the Eucharist to be justified by faith. We come because we are justified by faith.

Matter

The miracles should not be understood as Jesus transcending matter. They should be understood, rather, as "Jesus doing things that manifested the new creation."

We should not frame our understanding of the Eucharist in terms of a dated ontology and epistemology.

Sacraments

We should not think of the sacraments as "theological meteorites" that have randomly fallen to earth. Rather, we should think of them as "outcropping of rock" that give us a hint at what is underneath it all.

These are just a few of my notes from these lectures. I've tried to be as accurate as possible.

Let me know what you think.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Update: Here’s Helen Mildenhall’s much more detailed notes.

Missional Reading List

Today I got an e-mail from my District Superintendent about a regional meeting that he attended. He and five other District Superintendents met with one of our General Superintendents. (We don't have bishops for historical reasons. The three General Superintendents are peers and together are the highest executives of our denomination.)

Anyway, my DS mentions that the regional group read Velvet Elvis to help them understand "the new emerging generation and their thoughts about the church."

Now I don't want to insult anyone, but my forehead has a bruise from where I was pounding it on my desk.

I think it is a mistake to reduce the current movement to a generational thing. This is not the Baby Bombers redux. Besides, "emerging" is not the real movement. (More about this later.)

Is Velvet Elvis really a good book? Ben Witherington has a few reservations.

Why would church leaders need to be given a book to read to get current on what is happening in the church? Isn't that an important part of their job? Unfortunately, we've turned this job into an administrative and managerial position.

I think Rob Bell might be disturbed to hear his book characterized as an expression of young people's thoughts about the church. His purpose was, I believe, to get everyone to rethink what it means to be the church in today's world. This is something completely different.

Is Rob Bell the right spokesman for this movement? I suspect that there are many other authors who are more thoughtful and better informed theologically.

I'm afraid that this is an exercise maintaining distance. "What makes these emerging types tick? What kind of music do they like? How can we attract them to our churches?"

Emerging is not the future. I must admit that I got caught up in the freshness and energy of the emerging conversation/movement. But I soon realized that the things that really attracted me were those that it had in common with the missional movement.

Missional transcends any specific cultural expression. It is not about candles, blue jeans or coffee houses. It is about an incarnational expression of the Gospel in whatever culture it finds itself in.

Missional is not about being trendy. It is about understanding what it means to be the church and paying the price to do that.

So here's my reading list for anyone who wants to understand the missional movement.

• The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, by Lesslie Newbigin
  
• Open Secret, by Lesslie Newbigin
  
• Free of Charge, by Miroslav Volf
  
• Exiles, by Michael Frost
  
• The Shaping of Things to Come, by Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch
  
• The Missional Leader, by Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk
  
• The Present Future, by Reggie McNeal
  
• Breaking the Missional Code, by Ed Stetzer & David Putman
  
• Embracing Grace, by Scot McKnight
  
• Ministry in the Image of God, by Stephen Seamands
  
• A Passion for God's Story, by Philip Greenslade
  
• Kingdom Come, by Allen Mitsuo Wakabayashi
  
• The Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch
  

In my opinion, all these are better books than Velvet Elvis. And they certainly are more important.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Job & Gift Theory

Gift theory seems to have a great deal of explanatory power. It makes explicit much of the unspoken assumptions and expectations we have when giving and receiving gifts.

It also accurately describes the confusion many people have in their dealings with God. They can't imagine that God's love, mercy and forgiveness could be real gifts. And they certainly don't understand that their worship and service are worthless unless they are offered as true gifts.

Wing-Chi Ki has applied this to the Old Testament book of Job. Her essay, Gift Theory and the book of Job, appeared in volume 67, number 4, of the journal Theological Studies. (You may be able to read the full article here.)

Here's my summary of her article:

• God operates as a giver of true gifts.
  
  
• He offers Job as an example of one who offers his love and worship as a free gift.
  
  
• Satan takes a more cynical position. He claims that Job serves God out of self interest.
  
  
• This is not only an attack on Job's devotion but also an attack on God's integrity.
  
  
• God allows Satan to remove all the "benefits" Job receives by serving God (short of his health).
  
  
• When Job remains devoted in the face of tragedy, Satan charges that Job's good health is benefit enough to render God's gifts little more than bribes.
  
  
• Job loses even his health.
  
  
• His friends show up to offer encouragement, but they cannot remain silent in the face of Job's stubbornness.
  
  
• They argue (from three slightly different perspectives) that God's blessings are directly tied to a person's righteousness.
  
  
• They try to convince Job to ask for forgiveness for whatever sins he must have committed.
  
  
• Job refuses to submit to the "market economy" view of his relationship with God.
  
  
• Job loves God for himself, but he is dismayed by the treatment he is receiving from God.
  
  
• God speaks to Job out of the whirlwind and silences his complaints.
  
  
• He delineates many of the "hidden" gifts he has given to mankind.
  
  
• He criticizes Job's friends and vindicates Job.
  
  
• God then restores his "gift economy."
  

Wing-Chi Ki does a much better job of explaining her analysis. (But she also takes 27 pages to do it.)

So what do you think? Does this perspective seem more satisfying? More "true"?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Gift Mode

Last week, I was watching and reading Miroslav Volf to find material about reconciliation that I could use for Sunday's sermon. In one of the articles, He mentioned Natalie Zemon Davis and her book, The Gift in 16th Century France. She says that people can operate in one of three modes: coercion mode, sales mode, or gift mode.

This intrigued me. So I did some research into gift theory.

This field was established in 1925 by Marcel Mauss. "Gifts are thought to be voluntary and altruistic, Mauss argues that they are obligatory and selfish" (Irven DeVore, Harvard Anthropologist). Gifts can even be used to manipulate and control others. Some economies appear to operate on the basis of obligatory gifts.

This raises the question of whether there can be such a thing as a true gift, a "free gift."

Jacques Derrida argues that four criteria must be met for there to be a "free gift":

• There is no reciprocity. The receiver of the gift does not return a gift to the giver.
  
• The recipient does not realize that he has received a gift. This way there can be no sense of debt caused by the gift.
  
• The giver must forget that he gave the gift. Otherwise, he would be able to benefit from the gift by thinking well of himself.
  
• The thing itself cannot appear as a "gift." As soon as the thing given is seen as a boon, it imposes a sense of obligation.

Clearly, Derrida believes that a real gift is impossible. Others (Russell Belk) have suggested more realistic criteria for true gifts:

• The gift must involve sacrifice by the giver. The giver gives of himself. A gift that cost nothing is not a true gift. King David said, "I will not sacrifice burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing" (2 Samuel 24:24). This is behind the moral discomfort of "re-gifting."
  
• The gift must be given for the pleasure of the receiver. If the "gift" is given for some selfish purpose, it is not a gift. Husbands should take note, giving your wife something that you want is worse than no gift at all.
  
• The gift must not be a basic necessity. While a box of chocolates would make a suitable gift for most people, a bag of potatoes would be inappropriate. Another mistake husbands often make.
  
• The gift must be uniquely appropriate to the person. This is why giving money seems so "cold."
  
• The perfect gift surprises and delights the recipient. If the gift is expected, it ceases to be a gift.

Marshall Sahlins said rather cynically, "If friends make gifts, gifts make friends" (page 10)

Sometimes when people appear to be giving a gift, they are really operating in manipulation mode or transaction mode. A true gift is free of any obligation. But it is not just the giving end where there can be a problem.

The recipient of a gift can turn a true gift into a "transaction."

For most people, religion is a combination of transaction mode and manipulation mode.

In some forms of religion the worshipper uses the rites and ceremonies to manipulate the diety. Christians sometimes fall into this error. They think that if they are good that God owes them a good life. They try to put God into their debt.

Others have a higher view of the process. They don't stoop to manipulating God. They simply expect "what is fair." For them religion operates according to quid pro quo.

Now most Christians "know" that grace is the "unmerited favor of God." They "know" that salvation is a gift. They "know" that nothing can be done to earn God's love.

Problem is, they don't live that way.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Web 2.0 & Wiki-Sermon

Great ideas are not as rare as you might think. Most people are filled with them.

But a great idea that is never implemented is worthless. And a great idea that is implemented weakly is of little value.

I had a reasonably good idea of harnessing the power of Web 2.0 to enhance the development of sermons based on the lectionary readings.

(There are several different ideas about what is at the heart of Web 2.0. I believe that the key component is that the users are also the developers. I think Wikipedia is an excellent example of the power of Web 2.0.)

But here's the problem. My implementation of this idea has been clunky, at best.

So let's use the Web 2.0 paradigm to refine (or completely redo) the way this concept is implemented. In other words, let's work together to decide how to make this work for all of us.

Let me explain some of my thinking behind Wiki-Sermon.

• I am not trying to replace exegetical commentaries. There are many resources already available to help in understanding the basic meaning of the text.
  
  
• I am not looking for a shortcut to getting at the "meaning" of a text. The Bible is not a mathematical formula to be computed so that we can arrive at the "correct answer." Much of the value of exegesis is in struggling with the text itself. It is no more possible to understand the meaning of a passage without some hard work than it is to learn a foreign language without focused concentration.
  
  
• I am looking for a way that each person's unique experience can contribute to the collective understanding of the text. The Bible speaks to us as people, not computers.
  
  
• I am not trying to trick people into doing my work for me. If this is a one-sided project (where the readers do all the work and I reap all the benefit), then it will never work. Everyone must benefit.
  
  
• I am looking for creative ways to connect the message of the text with the culture we live in. It is of little value to keep repeating the same tired clichés. Even profound truth can become boring through familiarity.
  
  
• I am looking for resources that can be used to "preach to the imagination:" stories, books, movies, songs, art, etc.
  
  
• I want this to enhance the preaching experience for listeners. My idea is that someone who participates in the development process will find listening to a message from the lectionary readings much more engaging. A good analogy is classic music. Those who appreciate the nuances of a Bach composition will find a concert more enjoyable. Those who understand what's going on in jazz have a much richer experience than casual listeners.
  
  
• I want to change the dynamic of preaching from conveying information to creating an opportunity for people to know God more intimately. Christians generally have plenty of information. They don't need to know more facts. They need to know God better.
  
  
• I want build in a "feedback loop" before the sermon is given. It is good to find out what people think and feel after hearing a sermon. (Communication is not a precise process.) But it is even better to get "feedback" in advance.
  
  
• I want to change the sermon from the product of an individual to a product of a community. The sermon is too important to leave its development to a single person.
  
  

So I need your help.

• Do you see value in this idea?
  
• Do you agree with my assumptions?
  
• Do you want to add a few of your own?
  
• Do you have some ideas how the process and result might be more useful for you?
  
• What suggestions do you have for how to implement the idea?
  

Thanks for taking the time to think about this.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Numb3rs

Peter Donelly at TED on statistics.

What are the average number of coin flips before you will get the sequence "heads-tails-tails" versus the sequence "heads-tails-heads"? Even odds, right? Wrong. Listen and find out why. It makes perfect sense once you hear it.

If there is a test for a disease that is 99% accurate, what are the chances that a person receiving a positive test has the disease? As you might guess it is not 99%. It depends on how common the disease is in the general population.

These are illustrations of how statistics can be used to mislead people.

"Humans are not good at reasoning with uncertainty."

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Why is Office 2007 slow?

Public Service Announcement

I installed Office 2007 a few weeks ago. It has been extremely slow—ridiculously slow. Both Outlook and Word would take several minutes to load. Outlook would take over my computer whenever it received e-mail. Word would take several seconds to give me back control every time I switched documents.

I searched for some help at Microsoft.com. But I couldn't find any mention of the problem.

Then I used Google. (What did we do before Google?) I found a forum (ironically, Microsoft TechNet Forums) where someone was complaining about the sluggishness of the beta release of Outlook 2007. I followed the thread and found people talking about the retail release also being slow.

Bottom line:
The slow behavior seems to be caused by add-ins.

It seems mostly to be caused by the Make PDF add-in. That's my initial observation. Turning off the add-ins has dramatically improved the performance of both Word 2007 and Outlook 2007.

Here's how: You must be logged in as Administrator.

• In Outlook, go to Tools–>Trust Center.
  
• Click on Add-ins in the left panel.
  
• At the bottom of the window click on the Go button (Manage: COM Add-ins).
  
• Uncheck any add-ins you don't need or you think might be causing a problem.
  
• Click on OK.
  
• I exited and restarted Outlook at this point. I don't know if it's necessary.
  

For Word 2007

• Click on the Logo button (upper left corner).
  
• Click on the Word Options in the bottom right.
  
• Select Add-ins in the left panel.
  
• Do the same steps as in Outlook.
  

After making these changes, Word 2007 and Outlook 2007 started working the way they should.

If you found this page by searching for your own solution, I hope it was helpful. I will update this as I find out more.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Slow Down!

Watch this video of a recent TED presentation by Carl Honore, author of In Praise of Slowness.

He says that it is time for us to get in touch with our "inner tortoise." We need to rebel against the "roadrunner culture." And he is not alone. There is an International Slow Movement which started in Italy. Its two main branches are Slow Food and Slow Cities. There is also an emphasis on slow sex.

Adults are not the only ones suffering from this frenetic pace. Our children are also overwhelmed with organized activities and homework.

And so this movement is trying to bring some peace and sanity to modern life.

Mahatma Gandhi said, "There is more to life than increasing its speed."

Steven Wright joked, "I think God is going to come down and pull civilization over for speeding."

But for Christians, the pace of life is about more than productivity or even happiness. It is a spiritual issue. The slow movement was started several thousand years ago by God himself.

The purpose of the Sabbath was to allow, even to force, people to slow down.

God knew Parkinson's Law (Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.) long before people studied such things. That is one reason that he did not allow any work to be done on the Sabbath. (Not even servants or animals could work.) The Sabbath was also a constant reminder that the people depended upon God for their security and prosperity.

I am not an advocate of returning to Sabbatarianism. But I do think that we have a serious problem with stress and busyness.

One antidote to busyness is solitude:

Solitude well practiced will break the power of busyness, haste, isolation, and loneliness. You will see that the world is not on your shoulders after all. You will find yourself, and God will find you in new ways. Joy and peace will begin to bubble up within you and arrive from things and events around you.

Dallas Willard, The Great Omission, p. 36

We need to realize that a chaotic life is not only bad for our physical, emotional and spiritual health. But it is also an expression of distrust of God. This is part of what Jesus was talking about when he said to seek first the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33).

So what do you think? How serious is this problem? What are some disciplines you use for slowing down?

Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be."

Wiki Comes to Church

I was reading Tom Peter's blog and ran across a link to Wikinomics. I asked myself, "How can this be applied to the church?" Then I thought about some of the things that David Fitch had said about interpretation being done in the context of a community.

Why not use a "wiki" approach to sermon development?

So I decided to do just that. I started a new blog Wiki-Sermon where I will post the upcoming lectionary readings. Readers can make observations and suggest possibilities for the shape of the sermon.

I am especially interested in any pop cultural connections to the themes of the Scriptures. If there is a link with a book or a movie, that would be especially helpful. Readers can add their own comments or respond to comments by someone else.

This is not just a research tool for me to use in preparing the sermon. I want to use this to shape the direction of the sermon.

My intention is that this will be specifically for use by the Wesleyan Community Church. But since we are using the standard lectionary readings (with a few adjustments here and there), the information can also be used by others following the lectionary.

The benefit of this depends completely upon the degree of participation. If this sounds interesting, why not join in and see how it develops?

I can't promise to use everything that is submitted. But I will use all the comments as background for the sermon I finally prepare.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Sola Scriptura Fiction

Truth never stands free of a particular tradition.

In other words, there is no such thing as "just the facts." There is always a context within which the "facts" must be understood. This is even true with something as "objective" as science.

"Clearly the scientific tradition as a whole, and the many concepts, classifications of data, and theoretical models which are the working tools of science form as a whole a tradition within which scientists have to dwell in order to do their work. Without such an enduring tradition, science would collapse. At any moment in history several parts of the tradition may be under critical review and alternatives may be proposed; but this critical review would be impossible without the a-critical acceptance of the tradition as a whole. The progress of science depends, therefore, on the authority of this tradition."
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

If this is true for something like science, how much more must it be true for theology?

There is no such thing as a tradition-free truth. The idea that many people have of sola scriptura is dependent upon the tradition of the Enlightenment. It requires a whole series of assumptions that stand outside the text. These assumptions come from a tradition, but it is not the Christian tradition. It is a tradition is that is in large part in conflict with the Christian tradition.

Some Protestants ridicule the Roman Catholic Church for its reliance upon tradition. But Christianity depends upon tradition.

Of course, the Christian tradition should not stand above the text. Nor should that tradition be etched in stone. But the tradition is important, even essential.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Truth Without Risk?

"If God is real why doesn't he give us proof of his existence?"

Behind this question are several assumptions. One of those assumptions is addressed by Lesslie Newbigin in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society:

We have on the one hand the ideal, or shall I call it the illusion, of a kind of objectivity which is not possible, of a kind of knowledge of what we call the "facts" which involves no personal commitment, no risk of being wrong, something which we have merely to accept without question; and on the other hand a range of beliefs which are purely subjective, which are, as we say, "true for me," are "what I feel," but which are a matter of personal and private choice.

People who ask this question are looking for "proof" that will take away the element of faith and the element of risk. Newbigin makes clear that this option is not only not available when it comes to religion, but neither it is available in something as "objective" as science.

All acknowledgement of "truth" requires a personal risk.

• Galileo took a risk when he decided that the earth moved around the sun.
  
• Einstein took a risk when he said that light travels at a constant velocity.
  
• Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis took a risk when he said that hand washing could prevent childbed fever.
  
• Columbus took a risk when he said that he could get to China by sailing west. (He was wrong about the size of the earth, but his gamble lead to the discovery of the western hemisphere by Europe.)
  

While God doesn't give us proof of his existence, he does give us evidence (maybe hints is an even better word). It is up to us whether we will acknowledge that truth or reject it. Either choice entails a risk.

Something radically new has been given, something which cannot be derived from rational reflection on the experiences available to all people. It is a new fact, to be received in faith as a gift of grace. And what is thus given claims to be the truth, not just a possible opinion. It is the rock which must either become the foundation of all knowing and doing, or else the stone on which one stumbles and falls to disaster. Those who, through no wit or wisdom or godliness of their own, have been entrusted with this message can in no way demonstrate its truth on the basis of some other alleged certainties: they can only live by it and announce it. It is something given, dogma, calling for the assent of faith.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

So what do you think? Does this view render traditional apologetics useless?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Fish out of Water

For fish, water seems a rather natural place to live. In fact, they are unaware of many of the qualities of their environment (if, that is, they are aware of anything at all). If you take a fish out of water, it becomes aware very quickly that it is in a new environment.

For humans, our culture is like water is to fish.

It seems normal, even essential to life. And we are often unaware of many of its qualities until we are placed in a different culture.

Dallas Willard describes culture as "what one thinks of as 'natural' and as requiring no explanation or even thought" (Renovation of the Heart, p. 97).

At the beginning of this year, I spent five weeks in Sicily teaching English. This was my second extended stay in our Sister City and my 11th visit to Italy. Altogether, I've lived in Italy almost six months (three months with the same family).

I've always been interested in cultural differences. That's one reason that I like to travel. And being in a different culture for an extended time, gives me a better understanding of the distinctives of my own culture.

During this last trip, I started to develop a deeper understanding of Sicilian culture and Italian culture. Some of the things I discovered may surprise you.

Italian culture is more materialistic than American culture. This is the land of the Renaissance, and the emphasis on beauty and appearance is deeply ingrained. Italians must have the latest designer fashions. They are always evaluating each other by their clothes. This translates into a preoccupation with "stuff."

Italian culture is more concerned with appearance than American culture is. Everything is about la bella figura. Women would never think about going out, even to the market, without full makeup and proper attire. Men never wear shorts, except at the beach, no matter how hot it gets. Drivers don't like to wear seatbelts because they ruin the laid-back impression they want to make.

Italian kids are more spoiled than American kids. There is a constant contest among Italian parents to see who can shower his child with more expensive toys and clothes. Mothers wait on their children like servants.

Italian culture is more celebrity driven than American culture. It's no accident that paparazzi is an Italian word.

Italians are more concerned with social status than Americans are. A college degree provides entrée into circles that others cannot enter no matter how successful they might become. There is a reason that the Italian language still has a formal "you." (The English version disappeared some time ago.)

Italians are more obsessed with sex than Americans. Many Americans think that Europeans are blasé about sex and nudity. They have topless beaches after all. Don't confuse more relaxed rules about nudity with a more relaxed attitude about sexuality. As hard as it may be to believe, advertisers use sex more blatantly in Italy than in America to sell all sorts of products. Paris Hilton has a seductive TV commercial for a mobile phone service. The satellite channel FX is racier than its American counterpart; at night it shows programs that are only available in American on adult pay-per-view. One of the popular Italian fashion brands uses a logo than depicts sexual intercourse. (And this logo is worn to school by young children.)

It might seem that the obvious conclusion is that American culture is not as bad as the doomsayers think.

But I have a little different reaction.

I found these extremes jarring. They made me even more aware of tendencies in American culture that trouble me.

However, I find the culture-war mindset unhelpful. It does little to change basic assumptions. This approach only makes decadent values look more appealing.

Nor do I think that things are worse now than they've ever been. There have been many depraved cultures in the history of mankind. And there are places in the world today that are more rotten than American culture in just about any component one might choose.

However, Christianity is not just a private matter. It has much to say about social evil. The proclamation "Jesus is Lord" has implications for how life is lived in the public square. The question is not whether Christians should speak out against sin that has become institutionalized in culture. The question is how can we do this effectively. (Another issue is that we must make sure that we address all social evil, not just the ones that we don't participate in.)

Let's take the twisted view of sex as an example.

Much of what Christians say about sex makes it sound as if we think the whole things is a bad idea. When the church warns people about the dangers of promiscuous sex, it only makes it sound more attractive. The words decadent, sinful and tempting are used in advertisements to make products more appealing.

We need to hear more of the message that sex is good. The Christian message is that God made human beings as sexual creatures. He designed those parts to fit together. In fact, he intended for it to be enjoyable.

But the more powerful a tool is, the more care must be exercised in its use.

We also need more warnings like this. Gene McConnell lists nine lies of pornography.

• Women are less than human
  
• Women are a "sport"
  
• Women are property
  
• A woman's value depends on the attractiveness of her body
  
• Women like rape
  
• Women should be degraded
  
• Little kids should have sex
  
• Illegal sex is fun
  
• Prostitution is glamorous
  

The bottom line of pornography is that

Pornography makes a profit from the ruined lives of young women and entraps men who will spend lots of time AND money succumbing to their product.

The first part of that statement is rather widely accepted. But the second part is rarely acknowledged. Women are not the only ones being exploited by pornography and other sexually explicit material.

Sex is used to manipulate people.

And it works. This is the main reason that sex is used in advertising. Sex sells. But it never delivers what it promises. Wearing that aftershave will not cause women to tackle you in the supermarket.

Sex is used to hijack our attention.

A hint of nudity and the promise of more will keep most men's attention for several minutes. We're afraid to look away for fear that we'll miss something. But this is no more than a tease. Many print ads are designed to look like a shocking display of nudity. But on closer inspection it's a boy rather than a girl. Or the "cleavage" turns out to an elbow or some other innocuous body part.

Television shows flirt with showing more and more nudity. But they can't deliver, because broadcast TV can only show so much.

Cable ups the stakes. Nudity is allowed, but there are still some limits. The limits are pushed, but men are left wanting more.

And so there is pay-per-view. Men pay big bucks for the ultimate in sexual titillation. But it is still just a tease. Surgically and digitally altered women are presented as "the woman next door." They tap in to men's deep fantasies and desires. But the "high" lasts only a short time after the show ends, leaving the viewer more cutoff from the real world, more desperate for true intimacy and more in debt.

Men may not see the harm being done to women by the "sexualization" of our culture (or may not care). But they should take a look at the way that sex is used to manipulate them, to steal their time and money, and to decrease their chances of finding true intimacy.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Tomb Hoax

This morning I was working out with a friend at the local gym. The news channel had an interview with Simcha Jacobovici (director of the Discovery Channel "documentary," The Lost Tomb of Jesus) and Brent Bozell (founder and president of the Media Research Center). I could see the screen but I didn't have a headset to hear what they were saying.

My friend, who had a headset, gave me a running account of what these two were saying. All I could do was watch the body language and manner of the men.

I was hoping that Bozell would be measured in his response and not look like a crazy fundamentalist who was incensed that anyone would even question one of the core teachings of Christianity. Based on what I saw and my friend's commentary, I give him a B-.

I got to thinking that most people will remember how we respond to this rather than the facts that we give them to show that it is little more than a hoax.

And let's make no mistake about it. This "discovery" is a complete fabrication. (Here's a list of resources to support this position compiled by Denny Burk.)

Facts are important. Christianity claims to be a description of reality. If its description doesn't correspond to what we discover, then there is a problem. If Jesus did not bodily "rise from the dead," then Christianity becomes irrelevant.

However, people rarely make decisions based on facts. And in this post-modern culture, this is becoming increasingly so.

In this environment, it is not enough to have the facts on our side. If we bury people with objective evidence but do it in a manner that is condescending, hostile or unkind, then we lose the argument. How we communicate is even more important than what we say.

Speech Act Theory (which I must admit I don't fully understand) asserts that utterances often do more than convey information and that when utterances are intended to convey information they often communicate more than the bare meaning of the words.

For example, the gospel proclamation, "Jesus is Lord," is a speech act. It calls people to submit to the authority of Christ and denies any rival claims.

So here's my point: when we respond to the claims of this "discovery," we are doing more than just citing facts to support our position. In fact, what we say is often less important than how we say it.

Here are some things we need to be careful not to imply in this discussion:

• "I am offended that anyone would dare to question a basic tenet of my faith."
  
• "Anyone who doubts the truth of Christianity is a fool."
  
• "Anyone who disagrees with my view of Christianity will be condemned to eternal punishment."
  
• "Faith is independent of observations of reality."
  
• "Christianity can be proven true by science and historical evidence."

Instead, we should be intentional about communicating the following:

• "I'm not afraid of the truth. My commitment is to the truth."
  
• "I believe that Christianity is true, but if it were shown to be false I would abandon it."
  
• "I have persuasive evidence for the truth of Christianity, but in the end it comes down to faith."
  
• "Whatever you believe, I will treat you with dignity and respect because of what I believe."
  
• "Any claim to disprove a basic belief of Christianity should be taken seriously initially."
  
• "But this particular claim will not stand up to honest scrutiny."
  
• "I will let the experts speak for themselves."

Long after people have forgotten about the facts, they will remember the manner in which Christians responded to this "discovery."

Who we are is a much more powerful testimony of the truth of the gospel than what we say.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"