Tiger's Got My Back

A Brief Word on God's Wrath by Leon Morris

2011-05-21T14:24:00.003-06:00

"The general picture which the Old Testament gives us of God is of One who is by nature merciful, and who cannot be swayed by man's puny efforts. In the last resort forgiveness is always due to God's being what He is, and not to anything that man may do. Because God is God, He must react in the strongest manner to man's sin, and thus we reach the concept of the divine wrath. But because God is God, wrath cannot be the last word. 'The Lord is good; his mercy endureth for ever' (Ps. 100:5)." - p. 154, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd Revised Ed., Leon Morris

Rob Bell and the Two-Day-Old Fish

2011-05-07T12:26:00.003-06:00

During a recent trip to Denver, Pastor Rob Bell made a brief stop at Denver Seminary. The seminary wanted to take such a rare opportunity to have a dialog with such an influential person in the Christian community. I wasn't able to go to the event, but I did get to listen to it online.

Now, I've written a little bit about Mr. Bell before, but having admittedly not read any of his books, I tried to be tentative and give him the benefit of the doubt. However, listening to him speak for 90 minutes was instructive, and I think I'm beginning to have a bit better understanding of his beliefs. I'm not going to go into everything I thought as I listened to the recording, but two things stood out to me:

Bell mentioned Jesus a lot, but not once did he mention the cross. (To be fair, he did mention "the resurrected Christ" once in passing, as he was making another point.) Bell's book is titled Love Wins; what bigger victory has love than the cross of Christ? Interestingly, whereas the Gospels devote 25% of their material to the events of the Passion Week, Bell did not see fit to mention the cross at all. In addition, he talked a great deal about his goal to share the hope he has with as many as he can. Yet after 90 minutes, I was not sure what his hope was actually in, other than "Jesus"--a concept he never bothered to define. Again, peddling a book called Love Wins, I find this remarkable.
Bell seems to give higher priority to experience than revelation. When asked to defend certain beliefs or statements, he was quick to move to personal stories as a means of justification. Yes, he knows a great deal about the Bible (whatever he might be, he is certainly not stupid), but his interpretation of scripture seemed to be obtained through the grid of experience, rather than interpreting experience through the grid of revelation. In other words, when experience and divine revelation collide, for Bell, experience always trumps.

The more I learn about Rob Bell, the more leery I am of his message. Like a two-day-old fish, something just smells funny. But I encourage you, if you have the time, to listen to the recording and come to your own conclusions.

Review of Keep Your Greek

2011-03-16T18:57:00.002-07:00

Sure, I spent many semesters and countless hours learning and studying Koine Greek while in college and seminary. But what have I done with it since then? Truth be told, the thing I've done the most is to let my skills atrophy. Lately I have been wanting to regain those skills, but I wasn't sure of the best way to go about it. With extremely limited time at my disposal and many responsibilities to manage, I could use some advice. Luckily, I managed to get a copy of Keep Your Greek: Strategies for Busy People. (Thank you, Zondervan!) Author Con Campbell provides a number of quick and easy ways to keep up on and even get better at Greek* in only a few minutes each day. I appreciated that he specifically states in the introduction that this is not a formulaic, "10-step" program, nor is it a magic bullet, but rather a list of habits and/or exercises that he has found helpful over the years. Ultimately, this is a pragmatic book: It's about getting back into the Greek NT by taking one, two or three of the ideas Campbell espouses and incorporating them into your daily routine--or even springboarding off of his ideas and creating your own.

This book is an easy and quick read, full of good ideas and resources for Greek. As this book was originally a series of blog posts, Campbell includes the comments he received at the end of each chapter, which (surprisingly to me) added a fresh, new element of interacting with the material. As a bonus, he also takes a look at pros and cons of interlinears, software tools, and other resources commonly used by students. I share his dislike for interlinears and so did not learn much new here, but I did appreciate his comments about software tools, since that is one area I have never investigated using in my own study. Finally, I appreciated the last chapter, wherein Campbell articulates how he uses the techniques mentioned previously in his own personal study. It lends much credence to the author to know that and how he uses his own advice. The only thing I disliked about the book is that some of the tips and tricks mentioned, to my mind, seem like they would take a bit longer than advertised, at least initially.

Overall, this book came just at the right time for me, as one who is seeking to regain his Greek (and Hebrew) skills. Now comes the hard part: Putting it into practice. But I don't think Dr. Campbell or anyone else can help me with that!

*And, of course, the ideas presented apply equally to biblical Hebrew, as well.

Popularity Wins?

2011-03-12T14:08:00.005-07:00

Rob Bell is coming out with a new book, Love Wins. If you haven't heard, many people are accusing him of endorsing universalism, the idea that everyone will eventually get to heaven. Others are defending him, saying that, like any good teacher, he is just raising the question. I'm not going to comment on this issue, but being familiar in general with his teachings and having seen a number of his videos, including the promo for Love Wins, I have another concern. I cannot say if this is correct or incorrect, but it's just how things seem to me.

It seems to me that Rob Bell wants to be "the popular kid." Allow me to explain: His videos are always on the cutting edge of culture. His teachings seem to stress themes like God's love, right actions and social justice--each with an emphasis on this life--but not so much themes like God's judgment in the life to come. (If he did stress the latter, well, there would be no uproar right now.) The clothes he wears look like they all came from the latest Gap catalog. And to top it off, he's kind of got that "I'm better than you" smirk on his face all the time. Now, I'm not saying that any of those things are necessarily bad--they all have their place. (Okay, maybe the last one is a bit irritating.) There's nothing wrong with making an engaging video. Striving for love, justice and righteousness in this life is important. And I really don't care much what anybody wears or how they choose to look, so long as there is a godly character beneath the surface. But taking his appearance as a whole, the themes he stresses (and doesn't) in his teaching, and given the enormous response his works have received, it seems as if he's more concerned with being (or staying) popular than being true to the faith.*

One Facebook comment I ran across about the Love Wins brouhaha lamented, "The real problem is that many 'biblical' pastors are out of touch with our culture and lack the skills that Bell has to reach a postmodern society." I can't deny that some pastors are out-of-touch with reality and the culture. But many more are engaging the culture around them--their neighborhood, their city, their county--and are faithfully doing so, without the popularity of a Rob Bell.

The bottom line is, God calls pastors to be faithful, not popular. If they do happen to be popular, then so much the better, but faithfulness always trumps popularity. In Bell's case, if he really is espousing universalism in his book, then it would seem that he is seeking the world's acceptance more than God's. (What better way to get people to like you than to state as God's spokesman that you can do whatever you want and you'll still get to go to heaven?) My own concern is that he has allowed the postmodern culture into his heart too much, and that he is too concerned with what people think of him (masked as "engaging the postmodern culture") than where he stands in relation to Truth. I hope for Bell's sake that I am greatly mistaken.

*Let me be clear: I am not trying to be mean to the guy. I'm not accusing him of heresy. I'm not even commenting about the clothes he chooses to wear. All I'm saying is that, for me, all outward appearances suggest that popularity is his main goal.

P.S.: In fairness to Mr. Bell, I am including links to two reviews of Love Wins, one pro and one con. If you are interested, I would encourage you to read them (or even the book itself!) and come to your own conclusions on this controversy.

"Pro" review: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
"Con" review: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

Review of Hearing God

2011-02-28T20:58:00.003-07:00

Dallas Willard is a professor of philosophy at USC, but he's also one of Christianity's premiere authors when it comes to spiritual formation. Yet somehow, I managed to read not a single of his books all throughout seminary (purely unintentionally). I finally picked up and read Hearing God in the context of preparing to teach an adult Sunday school course, using the book as a basis. The thesis of the work, in Willard's own words, is as follows: "Hearing God's word will never make sense except when it is set within a larger life of a certain kind" (p. 211, italics original). Accordingly, the author discusses 1) what God's word actually is (hint: it's not limited to just the Bible) and 2) what kind of life we must live to hear and rightly discern God's voice in our life (viz., an active life of faith that submits itself to God). These two themes are further broken down by the various chapters, of which Willard gives a basic framework in the preface (p. 13). I highly recommend referring back to this framework at the beginning of each chapter--things will make much more sense this way. Similarly, the book ends with "a formula for living with God's voice" that ties up the book's contents into a neat and tidy three-page bow. (Note: Even though he ends with a "formula," the book itself is in no way formulaic.)

I appreciated much about this book. Willard's manner of writing is clear and concise, not sacrificing anything intellectually, yet at the same conversational and easy-to-read. In addition, like a good speech, the book tells you what it's going to talk about, it talks about it, and then it tells you what it talked about . This layout makes understanding such a potentially nebulous concept much easier. Willard's theology is also well-informed, well within the evangelical framework, and, of course, biblically based. And as I sit here, I can honestly say that I can't find anything wrong with the book. There were so many good nuggets that the only problem I can see with this work is trying to narrow down the material for teaching it in class!

In sum, if you're looking for a solid, well-written book on understanding divine guidance, stop looking--just get Hearing God.

Book Review of Tom Jones by Henry Fielding

2011-02-18T10:10:00.003-07:00

I first picked up Tom Jones in college. I only got a few hundred pages in when I lost interest and put the book down. A few months ago, however, I found a cheap copy at a used-book store and decided to try my luck again. This time, my experience was markedly different: I was hooked within a few pages. Fielding writes in a very engaging manner; it feels like one is listening to a close friend relate a personal story rather than reading a 250-year-old book. The characters are robust: The über-benevolent Squire Allworthy, the absolutely knuckleheaded Squire Western, the heroic, noble Tom Jones--who has got to be one of the unluckiest men ever in fiction-dom--and the lovely Sophia, who must suffer under her father's irrational love. The plot is superlative: Throughout the course of the book, I found myself thinking about the characters (and actually being concerned for their welfare!) in between reading sessions. I had to know what happened to them, and how everything was going to work out happily in the end. (Indeed, with about 40 pages left, I was starting to get very worried.) The love, sex, betrayal, and plain-old human nature of the plot is such that if one updated the scenery, it might be a book written to describe present-day events. Fielding complements his fine character creations with a sharp wit that is apparent on almost every page. I laughed out loud quite a few times throughout the book, and I got the distinct feeling that the author was winking at me almost non-stop. I can imagine that Mr. Fielding would be a riot in a pub with a few drinks under his belt!

In an era whose modus operandi is instant gratification, it can require extra discipline to make it through this lengthy work that at times uses some unfamiliar language. Nevertheless, reading Tom Jones is completely worth the effort, as you will enjoy a master storyteller at his best.

Excerpt from Life in the Spirit by Mother Teresa

2011-01-01T08:57:00.002-07:00

"We have 53,000 lepers and yet never one has been sent away because we did not have. It is always there, though we have no salaries, no income, no nothing, we receive freely and give freely. This has been such a beautiful gift of God. In Calcutta alone we cope for 7,000 people every day and if one day we do not cook they do not eat. And this, one Friday morning Sister came and told me: 'Mother, Friday – Saturday, there is no food, we will have to tell the people we have nothing to give today or tomorrow.'"

"I had no words, I had nothing to say to her, but by nine o'clock the Government for some unknown reason closed all the schools, and all the bread that would have been given to the children was sent to us and our children and our 7,000 people ate bread and bread for two days. They had never eaten so much bread in their lives. Nobody in the whole city knew why the schools were closed, but I knew. I knew the delicate thoughtfulness of God – such a delicate love."

Review of Zondervan's New Commentary on Ephesians

2010-12-15T08:46:00.003-07:00

Zondervan has just released a new commentary series on the New Testament, with four titles available: Matthew, Galatians, Ephesians, and James. When I had the chance to grab an early reviewer's copy of Ephesians, I jumped on it! After having spent the last few weeks perusing the commentary, I can say that overall, it is definitely a good addition to my personal library.

In the preface, author Clinton E. Arnold remarks that Ephesians is the book out of which he has most preached and taught over the years, and his love for this Pauline epistle comes across throughout this commentary. Arnold provides a detailed and robust introduction to the book that should leave the reader with no questions about the historical background of Ephesians. While this, of course, is standard fare for any commentary, his introduction is among the best and fullest I've read. In addition, Arnold provides a very nice section about the theology of the epistle at the end of the commentary, which means that the work provides not only detailed information about each verse of Ephesians, but it also steps back from the minutia and reviews key themes of the book at a broad level. This fact alone should be of much aid to anyone who uses this commentary for preaching or study. Regarding the actual, verse-by-verse commentary itself, I feel that Arnold has done a good job, although in this respect it is probably equally as good as WBC, BECNT, NIVAC, or any number of other commentary series. To be fair, Arnold does do the reader a service by providing the actual Greek text along with his translation and by providing paragraph diagrams, which include layman's descriptions of the various parts of Greek syntax that Paul is using. Arnold also frequently refers to Wallace and BDAG in the footnotes, which makes diving deeper into a word or phrase much easier for the intermediate-and-above student of Greek. In the end, however, one should not expect to find much new and ground-breaking material in the commentary section. Used in conjunction with several other commentaries on Ephesians, though, it will still be of great help.

I should issue one caveat: This commentary is definitely designed for someone with a working knowledge of biblical Greek. Although a Greek neophyte will be able to learn much from this commentary, a full interaction with the material requires that the reader understand the original Greek language, including syntax. Arnold uses many technical terms throughout that would probably serve to confuse non-Greek readers more than help them. That being said, if you have had Bible-college or seminary training, ZECNT Ephesians would be a valuable addition to your regularly referenced commentaries.

Review of The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto

2010-12-04T13:01:00.005-07:00

I decided to read The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto when I saw that it was on C.S. Lewis' top-ten list of books that influenced him, reasoning that if it was good enough for Lewis, it was probably worth my time to read. All I can say after having read several of the list's books is that Lewis has strange tastes!

The Idea of the Holy is Otto's attempt to pick up where systematic theology leaves off. That is to say, while systematic theologies treat the rational aspects of God, The Idea discusses the non-rational divine aspects. How does one describe that which is by definition indescribable? Otto does so by using the via negativa (what it is not), metaphor (what it is like) and appeal to personal experiences in the believer's life, including one's a priori understanding of the holy. For Otto, the non-rational aspects of God, which he dubs "the numinous," can be explained (as best as one can) by the mysterium tremendum. Mysterium refers to the "wholly other" aspect of God--elements that differ in essence from everything that humans know and can describe. Tremendum refers to God's awefulness, His majesty, His overpoweringness, and all that causes humans when confronted with Him to experience what the Bible calls "the fear of the LORD." Taken together, we see that deep in God's nature there is something that we cannot ever fully understand, something which instills soul-shaking fear and respect, yet something for which we yearn, and indeed something which we as a race have felt from the beginning of history.

After discussing the concept--or feeling--of the mysterium tremendum and its means of expression in some detail, Otto turns to the expressions of the numinous in the Old and New Testaments and in Luther's works. The chapter "The Numinous in the New Testament" is especially worthwhile because of Otto's thoughts on the kingdom of God and predestination. He does an excellent job reaching past the "rational" mindset of the post-Enlightenment West and viewing those key theological concepts as part of God's supra-rational plan. Specifically concerning election, he writes

"The idea of 'election'…is an immediate and pure expression of the actual religious experience of grace. The recipient of divine grace feels and knows ever more and more surely, as he looks back on his past, that he has not grown into his present self through any achievement or effort of his own, and that, apart from his own will or power, grace was imparted to him, grasped him, impelled, and led him. And even the resolves and decisions that were most his own and most free become to him, without losing the element of freedom, something that he experienced rather than did." (p. 87)

Any true follower of Christ will at once recognize the truth of this statement--although it may defy rational analysis--because he or she has experienced it and knows it is true a priori.

Otto goes on to discuss how the idea or feeling of the numinous developed throughout humankind's history to become what it is today in "civilized" religions such as Christianity, and how its origins can still be seen in "primitive" tribal religions today. Here Otto writes under the assumption that religion evolved gradually from primitive humans, a theory also adopted by C.S. Lewis. As I find it hard to rationalize this view with my own interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis (namely, that Adam was a real man who had a close relationship with God, at least prior to the Fall), this part of the book remained fairly unhelpful to me. To one with a different interpretation of Gen 1-11, it may provide much more benefit.

Overall, this is a very difficult book to read. As Otto himself states in the forward, no one who has not mastered the rational aspects of God (i.e. systematic theology) should venture into the numinous. I could also add that to get the most out of this book, one should also have some familiarity with philosophy (and esp. early-1900s German philosophers and theologians such as Schleiermacher), biblical Greek, Latin and even some German, and be accustomed to the writing style of circa 1920. As someone with some but not all of this knowledge, the book was especially challenging for me. However, I did gain some valuable insights from it, and I plan to read it again at a later date. All in all, I felt the book was worth reading, but its appeal will ultimately be limited to a very specific audience.

Report: Everything Harmful to Everyone

2010-05-20T11:03:00.000-06:00

PRAGUE - An international committee of top scientists released a long-anticipated report on Wednesday regarding the dangers of everything for everyone. According to the report, which is the culmination of years of study, everything on the planet is potentially threatening to any person, given the right set of circumstances.

“We spent years in the lab testing everything we could think of,” said top scientist and report author Dr. Miles Ferguson. “Lab tests confirmed that even an innocuous substance like water, when heated to above 212 degrees, could cause steam that can burn a person’s hand or other body parts.” The report recommends that people strictly limit their interaction with water, and that pregnant women should avoid it altogether. Other items that the five-year study found potentially dangerous were child car seats—a review of data revealed that 3 children had sustained slight injuries due to malfunctioning seat belts in the last 10 years—, banana peels—which test confirmed might cause an injurious fall if discarded on a smooth floor—, and all known flora and fauna—due to the risk for allergies, bites and scratches, and goring and trampling, in the case of mega-fauna. The report states, “We recommend that all persons avoid interaction with all animals, including wild, domesticated and feral, and plants, especially grasses, due to the inherent risk of associating with them, which may lead to harmful side effects or even death in some cases.”

Additionally, the report noted that many of the ins and outs of daily life are, in fact, potentially dangerous. Food-storage containers, for example, were determined to be particularly unsafe. “Plastic containers sometimes contain harmful chemicals,” stated Ferguson, “which might increase your risk for getting stomach cancer, and glass containers can break, resulting in razor-sharp shards.” Exercise, too, was found to be a risk-taking endeavor; one team discovered that many thousands of people had been injured or died during a workout. Furthermore, as many people exercise outdoors, this leads to an increase in the risk of skin cancer. Team lead Dr. Paul Daniels said, “Although we recognize the health benefits of moderate exercise, we feel these are outweighed by the possibility of melanoma, muscle strains, joint sprains and heart failure. It’s best just to avoid it.” But if you think avoiding exercise means more time for television, guess again. The study found that when rats were subjected to viewing television for more than 18 hours a day, their risk for eye cancer elevated by an almost statistically significant amount.

“Driving cars, eating, sleeping, paying bills, yard work, duct tape and even nature itself were all found to be potentially dangerous, and in some cases, fatal,” said Lewis Johnston, co-author of the nearly 5,000-page report. “We recommend that in order to negate all safety and health risks, persons should do nothing and be nowhere 100% of the time. Total abstinence and non-existence is the only way to ensure your safety and health will remain secure.”

Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T12:48:00.008-06:00

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, I thought I would post some of my own ideas on the environment, or more particularly, on the environmental movement. While I do think stewardship of the earth is an important aspect of mankind's work--in fact, a divine command given to us in the Garden of Eden--I take issue with the environmental movement as a whole. It strikes me as a movement striving toward an earthly, man-made (and carbon-free) Utopia that is attempting to force the rest of us into submission in order to achieve that goal. It has moved from promoting healthy human interactions with our environment to a battle for political power, based on an anti-biblical worldview.

Therefore, I present to you the changes I would like to see in the environmental movement:

Drop the "salvation" language. If I switch to a hybrid car or turn my lights off for an hour once a year, it is not going to "save the earth." There are billions of people in the non-West who are more than making up for me in the "Global Warming" game. Plus, since there are problems with climate data dating back to 1960 (see next), we must question the underlying proposition that the earth is heating up due to human causes in the first place.
Admit that there's a problem with the data. With the recent Climategate scandal, we now know that much of the data that the UN (via the IPCC) is using to determine whether or not the earth is heating up was deliberately altered. Unfortunately, the original 40+ years' worth of data has been "lost," so we will never know what the real temperature data is. And even if we did have the original data, the manner in which it was collected has also been shown to be suspect.
Stop using the environment as a motivator. Yes, the environment is important. Yes, bettering the environment for its own sake is a noble cause. But most people aren't going to get motivated and make radically life-altering choices because of "the environment." If you really want people to be environmentally friendly, make it cheaper than the alternative and stress this fact ad nauseum. The caveat here is that it has to be cheaper in the short-term; as a consumer, if I'm buying an electric car, for instance, I'd better be able to come out ahead financially in 2-3 years' time--not 10.
Let the free market "do its thing." When cars came out, the government did not have to enact legislation to force people to switch from horses. The car was a better mode of transportation that was affordable to most people, so most people sold their horses and bought cars. The same could be said for ice boxes and electric refrigerators, land lines and cell phones. When consumer demand is high enough, someone will come up with an affordable product to sell--and that includes "eco-friendly" products.
Quit the scare mongering and guilt trips. Fear and guilt are poor motivators. We all want clean air and water, and we all want to preserve forests for future generations. Making me feel like a jerk because I don't use Denver's inadequate public-transit system, or telling me that if I don't act in wild and financially irresponsible ways, the earth will be destroyed before my kids grow up, well, that's just irritating. How about some positive reinforcement every now and then?

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Pro-Choice is Anti-Woman

2010-04-16T07:49:00.002-06:00

Below I have posted an excerpt from the Constructive Curmudgeon. The entire article is worth reading, regardless of your position on the role of women in the church, but I think all sides in the debate can agree with this:

11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.

Cognitive Dissonance

2010-03-28T07:55:00.003-07:00

When it comes to abortion, the government "has no right to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (i.e. the decision to kill an unborn person).

When it comes to health care, the government "has the ~~right~~ duty to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (in the form of a mandate to purchase health insurance).

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

Myth of the Modern Man

2010-03-04T19:50:00.002-07:00

As many people come to the Bible, they bring with them a peculiar bias. It's one they probably don't even realize they have. Nevertheless, it's the starting point for a train of thought that casts doubt on the accuracy of Scripture and can lead one far from the path of God. I call it the Myth of the Modern Man.

It goes like this: Our modern society has mastered electricity, the combustible engine, canned foods, computer technology, the Internet, satellite television and many other advanced technologies. We've figured out human psychology to the extent that we've got it all documented in the DSM. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our DNA ancestry back hundreds of thousands of years. We no longer hunt and gather, engage in bartering or fight each other with pointy sticks (most of us, anyway). We are so much more advanced technologically and sociologically than other previous peoples that it follows that we must be vastly smarter than they were, too.

From this foundation proceeds the idea that the Bible just can't be right. After all, people back then thought that the gods controlled the weather and demons caused epilepsy. Since we who are vastly superior intellectually know those things can't be true, we have no reason to trust them to have gotten anything else right, either. Everyone knows that people don't get swallowed up by a fish and then vomited out three days later. There might have been a king named David, but most of what is written about him is legend, you see. Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he didn't really rise from the dead--these things just don't happen! Even though we are removed from the events of the Bible by many thousands of years more than the original authors, we second-guess them from our Modern throne and say, "But of course it didn't really happen like that."

A cursory examination of architectural and artistic history sheds light on the Myth of the Modern Man, however. The great pyramids, for example, are very large and intricate structures that are extremely precise in their layout. They still rank among the wonders of the world. They were made by humans long ago without the aide of computers, machines or even metal tools. Try making a pyramid using only your brain and a stone hammer--not so easy, is it? Much the same can be said for Stonehenge and many of the buildings erected by early peoples of the Americas. Machu Picchu's architects created an intricate system to provide the location with water from a nearby spring, and they devised an underground drainage system to prevent the torrential rains from washing the whole place off the mountaintop--a system which has been working quite well for the last 600 years. Artistically speaking, I will never forget an example I saw at a museum in Kansas City a few years ago. Archaeologists had found a piece of jade which had been fashioned into a 6" cube and had a 1" hole drilled through its center. Jade is a material that is harder than diamonds, yet someone thousands of years ago was able to drill a hole through six inches of the stuff (for merely aesthetic reasons, nonetheless!). To this day, no one knows how the feat was accomplished.

The examples go on and on, but the point is clear: Earlier peoples were just as smart and ingenuous as we are. They mastered the materials of their day (stone, iron, etc) and created wonderful and lasting works without the aid of our modern contrivances. They created such fundamental things as writing and philosophy, which are the building blocks of our own society. Their only tools were whatever they could find around them and their wits, and they used them skillfully. These were smart people. And if they were able to do all of this, does it not follow that they could perceive events just as well as we? And is not the corollary also true that they could sniff out a fishy story just as well as we?

And yet, unlike us, the early biblical writers did believe the stories they heard and documented. The stories made sense to them; something about them rang true. Maybe they even had a grandfather who told them what it was like to serve King David. Maybe they were well aware of a type of aquatic animal that could swallow a man whole. Maybe they knew some of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. Maybe things did happen differently and for different reasons in another time and another place.

So the next time you are tempted to read the Bible and ask, "Did it really happen like that?" think about living without the benefits of modern technology. How long would you last? How observant would you have to be to completely sustain yourself and your family using only what you could hunt, trade or grow from the land? How long would you last in such an environment if you believed everything anybody told you? The answers to these questions might persuade you that those folks might have indeed known and recorded what really happened.

Today

2010-02-18T21:00:00.004-07:00

The Winter Olympics are an amazing thing to watch. Here are people who have devoted their entire lives to a given sport (most of which are incredibly dangerous) and are now at the pinnacle of success. They execute triple lutzes, Double McTwist 1260s and 90-mph luge runs flawlessly, looming larger than life above us normal folk who work in an office for a living. We look at them and think, "I could never do that." And for most of us, we are right. We weren't privileged to be raised near a mountain range; our parents didn't start us in competitive skating at age 2; and, most importantly, we don't have a natural inclination to cheat death on a daily basis.

But think of successful men and women in other areas. Businessmen, speakers, teachers, singers and songwriters, moms and dads. Whatever it is you aspire towards, whatever personal or career goals you have, you no doubt have your role models, your idols. "The best." Those people about whom you think, "I could never be as good as him." The difference between these cases and those above is that in these cases, for most of us, we are wrong to think in this way. Each of these people is most likely just like you, dealing with the same issues, the same circumstances, the same constraints. In many cases, Fortune did not smile upon them; success was not given to them on a silver platter, nor did where they were raised come into play. (And thankfully, death-cheating was rare.) What does set them apart, in large measure, is their attitude.

While this is a multi-faceted topic, of course, I think I have identified a key aspect of this attitude (or at least I'm hoping so!). Like most of us, I, too, have personal and career aspirations. And because I am an overachiever, I set the bar high for myself. Without going into details, I want to be the best that I can possibly be--all the time. And when I do less than my best, it really grinds me. I can't stand it. Unfortunately, one cannot be at his best all the time. Perfection is a goal which can never be achieved. I have tried to come to grips with that. I understand that I will never reach perfection this side of the grave; I will not reach all of my goals tomorrow, or next month, or next year. And as I get older I am learning that I can't even do all of the things I should be doing to achieve those goals. It's just not possible. But what I can do is ask myself a question. Every day, I can ask myself, "What can I do today?"

What can I do today to move one inch closer to my goals? What can I do today to become a better, healthier person? What small thing is in my power to control that I can change for the better today? Asking this question is enormously freeing and gratifying. Will I be out of debt tomorrow? No. But can I make a good financial decision today, one that will help me become debt-free? Probably. Will I ever know everything there is to know about the Bible? Not a chance. But can I take a few minutes to become more acquainted with it today? More than likely, yes. Am I the world's best dad? Despite what any coffee mug or t-shirt I may someday receive might say, I doubt I am. But can I take Brodie for a few minutes to give his mom a well-needed break? Well, it doesn't take a genius to answer that question.

Am I great? Am I among those to whom people refer as "the best?" I would highly doubt it. Will I someday become noticeably successful? I'll leave that question for others to decide (they'll be the ones who would have to notice, after all). Will I at least achieve my own goals? That's the plan. And when I do achieve those goals, I'll know that it wasn't because I won the lottery, or because the Spirit miraculously endowed me with a Blombergian knowledge of the Bible in my sleep, or because I was visited by the Dad Fairy. I'll know that it was because each day between now and then, I made the decision to do something small, something positive, something today.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

2010-02-05T22:22:00.012-07:00

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

Look Who's Talking Now, or Thoughts on Leviticus

2010-01-22T20:15:00.003-07:00

I'm currently reading through that great and exciting tome, the book of Leviticus. What a joy it is indeed! In all seriousness, many people get bogged down when they reach this book. How many people (myself included) have had their "read through the Bible" campaign halted when they reach this seemingly dry, boring and utterly inapplicable book? Why is it still even in the Bible at all, we surely wonder. This time 'round, though, I have been reading Leviticus through a different lens, and although it cannot take all of the dry, technical writing out of the book, it has been teaching me about God--knowledge that is well worth the work.

What is this lens, this magic magnifying glass through which I am observing the text? Perhaps it is best expressed through the title of Francis Schaeffer's book He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Most people in the Ancient Near East (ANE) worshiped local gods, who were represented by idols. These idols were carved by the hands of men. They did not speak; they had no power. They were, in reality, nothing at all. Yet a group of former slaves from Egypt do not need idols carved by men. They don't need a silent representation of God; they hear His very voice. In the ANE, this is unheard of (pardon the wordplay)! What's more, this God is very, very powerful. He spoke the universe into existence, and now He speaks to them personally. He provides structure and order to their fledgling country. He describes in painstaking detail how to build the tabernacle, how to construct the priests' garb, and how and when to make sacrifices and have feasts. He gives them a civil law code, so they can know how to act, and a dietary law code, so they can know what to eat (quite a helpful thing in an age without refrigeration!). The maker of the universe condescends to talk to a rag-tag group called Israel, and even goes so far as to help them set up their government and cult, so that they might be an established nation.

Is Leviticus dry? Unless you enjoy reading blueprints and law textbooks, yes. Is it boring? When you remember that God is doing most of the speaking, it becomes much less boring. Is it inapplicable today? God is shown to be personal and to desire orderly worship. Furthermore, He wants our total devotion to Himself in all areas of life--civil, religious, even in what (or how) we eat! These truths alone will take a lifetime (and then some) to apply. The bottom line? Don't discount this admittedly hard-to-read yet enormously important book of Scripture. After all, God is there, He is not silent, and he wants to speak to you and me--even through Leviticus.

The New American Commentary: Judges by Daniel Block

2010-01-22T19:32:00.006-07:00

"No book in the Old Testament offers the modern church as telling a mirror as this book." So ends Daniel Block's New American Commentary on Judges.* One might very well add, "The book is a telling mirror of American society as a whole." Block takes a biblical book describing events that took place 3,000 years ago and shows how relevant they still are through his solid exegesis of the text.

Throughout his commentary, Block reviews and expounds upon the continual decline of Israel after they entered the Promised Land, during the time of the shofetim (traditionally translated "judges," but Block uses the more technically correct term "tribal leaders"). Block traces two main themes of of Judges throughout his commentary. The first is the gradual Canaanization of Israel. In every episode, Israel and her shofetim take on more and more of the characteristics and culture of the surrounding peoples (the Canaanites), which of course is in direct disobedience of God's original command to them to completely and utterly destroy the native peoples. By the end of the book, the only people Israel attempts to destroy in this manner is the tribe of Benjamin--their own brothers and sisters! Block shows that this is the dramatic effect of acquiescence and indeed full acceptance of a sinful culture. The second main theme Block traces throughout the book is God's grace. Israel and her leaders follow and disobey the laws of God in whatever manner is most convenient for them at the moment. Although they cry out to God on multiple occasions, it is always a cry for help and never a cry of repentance. Every judge, save two (Othniel and Deborah), are shown to be poor leaders. And yet God continually saves them from destruction! As Block mentions several times, God is more concerned with redeeming his people than they are!

There are several other important topics that Block tackles in his commentary, not the least of which is the narrator's repeated observation that "there was no king in Israel." For those discussions, I would refer you to the commentary itself, which I felt was a good resource overall. Block provides the reader with the usual discussions of grammar, history and so forth that one expects in a quality commentary. I appreciated, too, how he wove the aforementioned themes together to provide his commentary and the biblical book with a good and memorable flow. On the other hand, I felt his "theological and practical implications" sections were rather weak. I would have liked to have seen some of these implications more drawn out, since Judges is so incredibly apropos to today's culture (and indeed, it was all too easy for this reader to find his own implications). I also must sadly admit that the commentary suffered from bad proofing. I have never seen so many basic grammar and punctuation errors in a published book. (I even found some of the Hebrew transliterations to be incorrect!) All in all, though, these negatives did not detract from the overall quality and value of Block's commentary, and it has become a welcome addition to my personal library.

*Note: The volume also includes a separate commentary on Ruth, which I have not yet read.

Ability and Desire: An Article Review

2010-01-14T18:58:00.004-07:00

In my last post, I discussed an article from the (now) penultimate issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) on biblical literacy of Victorian Britain and present-day America. A few short pages later, I discovered another stellar article that deserves comment, one that deals with the oh-so-contentious area of human free will.

The article, entitled “Ability and Desire: Reframing Debates Surrounding Freedom and Responsibility” and authored by Scott C. Warren, provided me with a valuable tool to use in my own theological journey. For quite some time now, I have been wrestling with the Calvinist/Arminian debate. To put it simply, I can see both sides of the argument. God is sovereign, and no one comes to Him except those that are drawn by Him (Calvinism). At the same time, sinners are held morally responsible for rejecting God, which implies that they had the freedom to choose this route (Arminianism). (I don't buy the hyper-Calvinist idea of double predestination, and I don't think John Calvin would, either.) But how do these two truths intersect? How does one marry the ideas of divine sovereignty and human free will in a logical, non-contradictory way? While I don't expect to resolve this tension completely in my lifetime, Mr. Warren provided me with an answer to a piece of the puzzle.

What the author did was to look at the word "freedom." What does freedom really mean? To answer that question, he draws a diagram. The outer perimeter of the diagram is a box labeled "all conceivable actions." That is, the box represents anything you might think that a person could do in any situation. Inside of the box is a circle representing those things which are actually actionable--that is, what a person has the ability to do in a certain situation. A second circle inside the box represents those things that a person desires to do--what he or she would like to do in a given situation. Finally, the two circles form a simple Vinn diagram, and the overlapping segment is where free actions reside. To make a long explanation simple, Warren defines freedom as "the ability to do what you desire to do." Freedom is thus comprised of ability and desire.

This turns out to be an extremely important distinction that throughout history and the present has been overlooked. But it helps to explain the biblical data very well. Take, for example, Hebrews 6:18, which states that "it is impossible for God to lie." Really? Something is impossible for an omnipotent being? Couldn't God tell a lie if he wanted to? And that is precisely Warren's point: God would not want to lie. An omnipotent deity may very well have the ability to lie, but a good God would not have the desire to lie. To lie would fall so far outside of God's desires that it may be referred to as impossible. In the same way, Jesus, who was fully man, was really tempted to sin and therefore had that ability, but being fully divine, did not have the desire to sin. Therefore, we can agree with Millard Erickson's words, "[Christ] could have sinned, but it is certain that he would not" (italics original).

This idea also works with human freedom. The author argues that humans in their natural state have the ability to repent of their sins and turn to God, but they do not possess the desire to do so. They are free to choose to follow or reject God, but they freely choose to reject him 100% of the time. Warren aptly sums it up when he writes, "The essential problem is not that sinners cannot do what they must, but that they will not do what they can."*

How, then does one change her inmost desire? How does a sinner change his propensity to sin? He doesn't--God alone can do this. Thus in Warren's ordo salutis, regeneration precedes acceptance of salvation. In other words, men and women freely act on their natural desire to reject God until God changes their desires, at which time they act freely to accept His rule. The author contends, and I agree, that without regeneration, a person cannot desire to repent. Thus even though she has the ability to repent, she would never act on it. Thus the certainty of sin and the justice of God's judgment of sinners are harmonized.

There are many more nuances to ponder and resolve (at least in my own mind) in the Calvinism/Arminian debate, enough to keep me busy for the foreseeable future. But thanks to a scholarly article in an obscure (for some) academic journal, I have received a nugget of wisdom that puts one more question to rest.

*In other words, if sinners were judged because they did not repent--and this because they could not repent--God would be unjust. But if sinners could reorient their own hearts toward God in their own strength--that is, if they themselves could obtain the desire to repent--there would be no need for grace.

Why 19th-Century Britain Challenges Me

2010-01-09T10:42:00.008-07:00

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unexpected places. I received the latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in early December and saw an article entitled "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own." Interesting, I thought. I'll get to learn some history. Instead, I learned about myself.

The author, Timothy Larsen, discusses the basic attitude of 19th-century Britain concerning the Bible and the reading thereof, and then compares them to 21st-century America. What he found is alarming.

Victorian Age Britain:

"Even the scientist T.H. Huxley, the original agnostic who wrote polemical works attacking the Scriptures, insisted on 'the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education.'"
Catherine Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had read the Bible in its entirety eight times by the age of twelve.
Florence Nightingale, who denied that the Bible was special revelation, nevertheless "read it earnestly every day, both by herself and aloud to her servants."
"Obviously figures such as [the ones mentioned above] represent best practice, but the point is that Victorians across the denominational and theological spectrum agreed that this [voracious and regular (read: daily) Bible reading] was best practice, and there was a mass culture of aspiring to attain it across the traditions."

Current Day America:

In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts discovered that 43.4% of adults had not read a single book (much less the Bible!) in the entire previous year.
"Most Americans now cannot name the first book of the Bible and half cannot name even one of the four Gospels."
And finally, a personal quotation from me: "What percentage of people think that the axiom 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' was originated by Abraham Lincoln?" (Hint: Read Mark 3)

The article really hit home for me. It made me think about my own Bible reading habits. What I realized was that while I am academically familiar with scripture, having studied it in the classroom for many years, I was not as personally familiar with it as I should be. Even my own Bible reading was focused on studying various biblical books, and really diving deep. While this is a good habit, and one which I have not dropped, I was neglecting the broad, surveying reading that allows familiarity over time (and a more developed matrix for those deep dives). It is important to note, this was not an exercise in self-guilt, but rather a realization that I could be doing better. (Also, I didn't like the idea of being upstaged by a twelve-year-old girl!)

Because of this article, I have changed my own personal reading habits. I now carve out time to read the Bible every day, with the goal of reading it through multiple times this year (a feat accomplished by reading just 15-20 minutes a day). I still keep up on my other reading, too, but now I am prioritizing differently. I'm finding that I look forward to it, too. I'm beginning to engage with the story lines and connect with the characters. In short, I'm enjoying it.*

I would encourage you, then, to dust off that Bible and read it--purposefully, chapters and books at a time, not randomly, verses here and there--not as a guilt-ridden duty, but as a joyous opportunity. Don't try to understand everything the first time through, either, but remember that with discipline, you will have many more opportunities to increase your understanding. With this mindset, you just might be unexpectedly surprised. I know I have been.

*And I'm watching less TV--and added bonus!

LiterateTwit

2010-01-01T15:18:00.002-07:00

I've finally done it. I've joined the Twitter craze. I did it on a whim, really. I was reading a book and had just marked a sentence as important with my pen when I thought, "What if I tweeted this?" What if I provided brief excerpts of what I've read in the hopes that someone, somewhere would be intrigued enough to pick up the text in question? I thought it was a worthy enough idea that I implemented it. Therefore, I bring you LiterateTwit.

Be forewarned: I will not be tweeting about my daily life--when I go to the store, when we run out of toilet paper, and that sort of thing. My tweets will deal exclusively with material I am reading so as to edify the recipient and encourage him or her to read quality books, journals and articles. It will also be replacing the Reading List section of my blog. In the future, then, in order to know what I'm reading, just check Twitter!

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

2009-12-20T13:45:00.001-07:00

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:

(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.

American Express on How to Get out of Debt

2009-12-14T19:33:00.004-07:00

My wife and I are...how do I say this...pursuing aggressive financial goals. Jessica is a stay-at-home mother, which means the mouth-to-job ratio is 3:1. At the same time, we're working to pay off debt accrued during the first few years of our marriage, and we are trying to pay it off at a torrid pace. This makes for a difficult position. We have had to learn to live well below our means and embrace a very simple lifestyle. I will spare you the boring details, but I would be willing to bet that most Americans would not sacrifice as much as we have. But then, perhaps most Americans don't have the singularly focused drive that we do, either.

Some people do have what it takes, though, and American Express found a few who fit the bill for a radio ad I heard tonight. They found five women who joined together to pay off a combined $50,000 in debt. Good for them, I thought. But in the ad they were extolling the virtues of having an AmEx credit card. With an AmEx card, they said, you can pay off your debt, still live the extravagant lifestyle you want and be able to "buy the things that you deserve." I could not believe what I was hearing! Here are these ladies who somehow managed to pay off a huge amount of debt and learn nothing while doing it. There was obviously no lasting lifestyle change. There was obviously very little thought as to why they were in debt to begin with. When the money they got to promote AmEx runs out, I would expect them to go right back into the hole--thus very likely paying back their patrons with interest.

I'm not saying that the approach my wife and I are taking to eliminate debt is the apex of human ingenuity, but we are at least trying to embody Proverbs 30:8, "Give me neither poverty nor riches." We understand that, much like trying to dig yourself out of a hole, using a credit card will in no way lower your debt. We understand that extravagant spending on a middle-class paycheck is foolish. (Remember Dave Ramsey's quote: "Don't try to keep up with the Joneses--they're broke, too!") And we certainly understand that on this earth we deserve nothing more than a handful of basic, God-given rights--nothing that can be purchased with a credit card.

As for us, we will continue to live the simple life, enjoying simple pleasures. We will pay off our debt and never return to it. We will continue to learn of the pleasures of faith and family that no amount of money could ever buy. And we will kindly show American Express what they can do with their precious plastic card.

The Conservative Bible Project

2009-12-07T19:42:00.012-07:00

I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. If you haven't figured out yet, I am definitely a political conservative. You might even think that I have some wacky views (I do), but this is just plain bizarre.

I'm referring to the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). Run by a man named Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schafly), the CBP "is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions." Schlafly argues that professors are an incredibly liberal bunch (politically, not theologically), and since they are doing all of the Bible translating, then of course our English translations are filled with liberal propagandist translations. And of what are these sins against the original text comprised? The CBP lists 10 guidelines upon which a "fully conservative translation" of the Bible should rest, and which no English translation today meets. I will list them exactly as they are presented on the CBP website and offer up some commentary in red after each guideline.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

This has to do with versions translating "fishers of men" as "fishers of people" and using "laborer" rather than "volunteer." Never mind that "men" in the Greek New Testament usually refers to males and females both, or that the word for "laborer" comes from the root word meaning "to work," not "to volunteer." And apparently paraphrases (e.g. The Message) and word-for-word translations (e.g. NASB) are inherently liberal...somehow.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

Okay, I get that there has been a backlash against gender inclusive language, and some people don't like it. That's fine. There is certainly room for debate on that issue. However, I'm not sure what "other feminist distortions" they are talking about, nor have I ever heard of the NIV deleting references to unborn children. Granted, I only have a master's degree in biblical studies. Maybe someone with more gravitas could enlighten me?

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

The fact of the matter is, if you want to write something that most people will understand, you have to write at around an eighth-grade level. In any case, that's more formal education than the biblical writers had, and they come across as pretty erudite.

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

I don't even know what they are talking about on this one.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So ancient Israelites sought the will of God by going to Vegas? Seriously. The Roman guards did gamble for Jesus' clothes by casting lots, but lots were cast for other reasons than attempting to make a quick denarius or two--see Jonah 1:7, for example.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

No translation I have read does this. People have decided to interpret such passages in ways that deny or downplay the reality of Hell and Satan, but the words are still in the text.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that none of Jesus' parables is first and foremost about establishing a free market system. There may be elements of his parables that do support the free market, but these should be drawn out in exegesis, not during translation.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

There are indeed passages of scripture that were added by early scribes. These are clearly indicated as such in modern translations. They are kept in the text due to their historical importance. See John 7:53-8:11.

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

I don't have a clue as to what they are talking about here.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Liberal wordiness? I'm beginning to think this is a practical joke. Oh, and a word about "Lord" is in order. Lord is ba'al in Hebrew and kurios in Greek. LORD is a gloss of Yahweh, which is God's name. Jehovah is a later corruption of Yahweh. Lord God is a gloss of Yahweh Elohim, "Yahweh God" in Hebrew. Given the several different Greek and Hebrew terms, using the single English term "Lord" for each of these would be...an unnecessary ambiguity.

The bottom line is, this seems to be a group of people trying to make the Bible support a particular political view--modern American conservatism. I think also that the CBP is confusing what the text says with how people have interpreted the text. In any event, I have serious suspicions about this project or any other that attempts to conform the Word of God to their own preconceived notions. Last I checked, the opposite should be true.

Open Letter to President Obama on Climate Change

2009-12-01T09:58:00.003-07:00

Here is the text of a letter to the editor (in the form of an open letter to the President) that I submitted to the Denver Post last week. It hasn't been posted yet, which I am assuming means it won't be posted at all. But that's why I have a blog!

---------------------

President Obama,

It has recently come to light that climate data provided to the U.N. by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) is suspect. The CRU, whose data is used by the IPCC, uses ice cores, tree rings, corals and thermometers to determine global climate conditions. Since 1960, thermometers have shown a steep rise in temperatures, while ice cores, tree rings and corals have not. The CRU has responded to these divergent data by only using thermometer data for this time period. In other words, they discarded the data that did not fit their hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming). Not only is this extremely poor science, it calls into question the very method the CRU is using to determine global temperatures.

Mr. President, I urge you not to agree to any global policy decisions in Copenhagen until reliable climate data can be obtained.

Respectfully yours,

The Reality of Reality TV

2009-11-29T11:10:00.003-07:00

James Wolcott over at Vanity Fair has written a dead-on article about the various ways in which reality television is a cancer on society. Rather than recount his argument, it's better just to read it for yourself. What I like is that he separates bad TV from TV in general. I'm not a great fan of the medium, but I do like to watch good movies, and I enjoy documentaries, shows on nature and cooking, and even the occasional sporting event. I think these are good and proper uses of TV, when exercised in moderation. But let's face it: There is nothing redeeming about reality TV.

Does God Punish His People?

2009-11-21T14:03:00.003-07:00

As you read through the book of Judges (and indeed much of the Old Testament), you will notice a theme: Israel follows God. Israel abandons God. God punishes Israel. Israel returns to God. Israel abandons God again. God punishes Israel again. And so on. This is the dance between God and His people that weaves its way through the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many people, especially those antagonistic toward Christianity, have dwelled far too much on the “punishment” portion of the cycle. In so doing, God is seen as a capricious master who delights in tormenting those He “loves” when they have even the slightest slip-up. But is this really the case? Can God be so cruel? Or perhaps is there something else going on here?

I think there is something else going on here, and in order to see it, we have to look at the idea of covenants. Covenants were quite common in the Ancient Near East, so it is no surprise that they show up in the Bible. A covenant is simply a formal agreement or promise. Usually covenants are made between a stronger and a weaker party (called the suzerain and vassal, respectively). For instance, a king might make a covenant with his subjects in which he promises to protect them as long as they pay their taxes, volunteer for the army and don’t cause trouble. In the biblical context, we see many different covenants that God makes with His people. One of these covenants occurs in Joshua 24. Under Joshua’s command, the people have entered into Canaan and have driven out many (though not all) of the people there. At the end of the book, God reminds Israel that He took them out of slavery in Egypt, guided them through the wilderness and gave them possession of the Promised Land. This is the backdrop for the covenant; God has protected and guided the Israelites faithfully. Then God, taking the role of suzerain, tells His vassals what He expects from them: “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD” (Josh 24:14). This, to me, is a pretty fair deal: Yahweh will continue to protect and provide for Israel, but they must serve and revere Him in return. It’s nothing different than any king would ask of his people. But what if the people don’t hold up their end of the deal? “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you” (24:20). The consequences of breaking the covenant are given at the outset: God will withdraw His protection and in fact bring disaster on Israel. He is letting Israel know ahead of time what He will do if they choose to violate the covenant.

My wife and I are currently taking a class on Love and Logic. Love and Logic is a method of parenting wherein the goal is to raise children who can think on their own, make wise decisions and generally contribute to society. One method that L&L teaches is to make enforceable statements. In other words, when a child misbehaves, don’t tell them what to do; instead, say what you will do. For instance, if a child is whining, a parent might respond, “I am happy to listen to people who can speak in a normal tone of voice.” L&L says this is a better response than “stop whining!” because a parent cannot control if his or her child whines. A parent can control how he or she responds to whining.

This is precisely what happens in the book of Judges. God has laid out His covenant with Israel in Joshua 24. God will protect and provide for Israel, and Israel will serve God. If Israel chooses not to serve God, then God makes the enforceable statement, “[I] will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you.” God knows that He cannot control humans. He didn’t make them to be controlled; he made them to love Him, and of course love is meaningless without the option not to love. In Judges, Israel decides to take the latter option: Israel chooses not to love God.

This brings me to the question, does God punish His people? I think punish is not the right word. In L&L, as a parent I am not punishing my child for disobeying me; rather, I am allowing him to experience the natural consequences of his choice. It is my duty as a parent to make sure that those consequences are uncomfortable for him at times. Furthermore, I don’t parent in this way because I am cruel—I parent in this way because I love my son! Consequences are a very real part of life, and he needs to learn about and experience them under the careful eye of mom and dad before he gets out on his own and it’s too late. In the same way, I don’t see God as punishing the Israelites in Judges; rather, he is acting on his own enforceable statement. Israel knew what would happen if they chose to forsake God, and they did it anyway. As a good parent, God allowed the natural consequences to happen, and he made things uncomfortable for His children at times. He did this because He loved them.

How do I know He loved them? Take a closer look at Joshua 24:20: “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” Did God bring disaster on Israel in the book of Judges? Numerous times. Did He make an end of them? No. In His grace, time and time again God raised up judges to deliver Israel from bondage and bring them peace. When Israel cried out for help in the midst of a situation of their own making, God had compassion and saved them.

And this compassion carries over into our covenant with Him, the covenant of the cross. We are all in a lethal mess, one we made ourselves by choosing to forsake God. God allows us to experience the natural consequences of our decision, and sometimes it can be quite uncomfortable. But in His grace, He sent His Son to die on the cross, to take our mess upon Himself, if only we will cry out to Him. When we do cry out to Him and accept His grace, not only does He take those consequences upon Himself, but He goes so far as to empower us to fulfill our end of the covenant. He gives us what Israel lacked—the gift of the Spirit.

Does God punish His people? I don't think so. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Instead, He shows grace time and time again. In Judges, God raised up human deliverers. With Christ's work, we are now delivered and empowered. If that is God's idea of punishment, I'll take all He's got!

And Yet...

2009-11-16T21:13:00.001-07:00

That same night the LORD said to [Gideon], “Take the second bull from your father’s herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.”
So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime. In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! They asked each other, “Who did this?” When they carefully investigated, they were told, “Gideon son of Joash did it.” The men of the town demanded of Joash, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.”
But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.”
So that day they called Gideon “Jerub-Baal,” saying, “Let Baal contend with him,” because he broke down Baal’s altar. – Judges 6:25-32

God had called Gideon to deliver the Israelites from the oppression of the Midianites. Israel had cried out to God in anguish for help, and soon, Gideon would provide it to them. He would route a seemingly infinite Midian army with a scant 300 men, delivering his fellow countrymen in God’s strength. But who were Gideon’s countrymen? What was Israel like? Who are these people on whose behalf YHWH himself fought through Gideon?

Before Gideon’s famous fight, God asked him to do some “prep work.” God told Gideon to desecrate his own father’s place of worship—the same place he himself worshiped as a child, no doubt. On God’s orders, Gideon killed his father’s best bull, destroyed his Baal altar and sacrificed the animal to YHWH using the Asherah pole as fuel for the fire. There is really no more blatant religious commentary one can make than that! “YHWH is God; Baal and Asherah his consort are destroyed in his presence! Their holy places are worthless scraps of kindling, only useful to be burned!” If YHWH was to save Israel, they needed to be reminded that He was in charge.

How do the Israelites react to this—the same men who had cried out to God in anguish for help? They are filled with rage. They see their holy places desecrated and destroyed, and they demand a hefty revenge—the blood of Gideon! The idolatrous Israelites demand death for the “criminal” Gideon, when in fact it is the two-faced Baal worshipers whom God should have pronounced guilty of the capital-offense crime of putting another god before Him! Israel has become a completely pagan nation—incensed that their idols have been struck down but uncaring that they have forsaken the one true God—whom they had actually had the audacity to petition for help!

And yet God still delivers them!

Is any culture, then, so far gone that God is not willing to deliver the people, if only they would cry out?

The Case for Intelligent Design

2009-11-11T20:05:00.018-07:00

Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!

Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.

As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.

Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?

Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:

Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:

Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.

The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.

Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.

Let's look at a few more examples.

DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.

Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.

These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:

The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*

Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.

We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.

At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:

*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.

Tolerance

2009-11-10T20:41:00.002-07:00

I saw this bumper sticker on the car in front of us as we drove home from Costco last night. I’ve seen it before, and no doubt, you have, too. Ordinarily I would have paid it no mind, but I had been thinking about Nidal Malik Hasan earlier in the day. Hasan, of course, is the suspect in the Ft. Hood shootings earlier in the week. There are reports surfacing that Hasan held some pretty radical (and quite intolerant) Islamic views--views that likely caused him to kill fellow soldiers.

As I write about Hasan, I also think of Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed abortionist George Tiller in Wichita earlier this year. Somehow he came to believe that killing the doctor was a justifiable act, even a righteous act—one that was presumably pleasing to God. I grew up in the Wichita area and knew much about Dr. Tiller. My dad took part in peaceful protests down at his clinic. But neither he nor anyone else that I knew would have ever considered killing Dr. Tiller to be even an option on the table, much less the right thing to do.

I think of the Columbine shooters, who killed fellow classmates at the school just down the street from where I used to live in Littleton, Colorado. I can’t even imagine the thoughts running through their heads that made them go on a shooting rampage.

The list could go on and on, but the point I am trying to make is thoughts lead to action. One's worldview shapes the way one acts. Our culture says that all worldviews are equally valid, none is any more or less true than any other. (One might say that Pontius Pilate is our spokesperson and his catchphrase is, "What is truth?") Since no one way of thinking is superior to another, of course we should be tolerant of all. But when tolerance is the supreme virtue, what do we do with men and women like Nidal Malik Hasan, Scott Roeder and the Columbine shooters?

How Difficult the Challenge

2009-10-29T08:46:00.006-07:00

Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. For he says,

"In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you."

I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2; italics added (NIV)

The Forgotten Depression

2009-10-14T20:05:00.002-06:00

Thanks to ChrisB for a link to an excellent article on the economic depression and recovery that occurred in 1920-21. It's a somewhat lengthy piece, but if you are at all cognizant of and/or concerned about the current stimulus efforts, it is well worth reading in its entirety.

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

Contentment by Oliver Wendell Holmes

2009-10-04T14:13:00.000-06:00

Contentment by Oliver Wendell Holmes
"Man wants but little here below"

Little I ask; my wants are few;
I only wish a hut of stone,
(A very plain brown stone will do,)
That I may call my own;
And close at hand is such a one,
In yonder street that fronts the sun.

Plain food is quite enough for me;
Three courses are as good as ten;
If Nature can subsist on three,
Thank Heaven for three. Amen!
I always thought cold victual nice;
My choice would be vanilla-ice.

I care not much for gold or land;
Give me a mortgage here and there,
Some good bank-stock, some note of hand,
Or trifling railroad share,
I only ask that Fortune send
A little more than I shall spend.

Honors are silly toys, I know,
And titles are but empty names;
I would, perhaps, be Plenipo,
But only near St. James;
I'm very sure I should not care
To fill our Gubernator's chair.

Jewels are baubles; 't is a sin
To care for such unfruitful things;
One good-sized diamond in a pin,
Some, not so large, in rings,
A ruby, and a pearl, or so,
Will do for me; - I laugh at show.

My dame should dress in cheap attire;
(Good, heavy silks are never dear;)
I own perhaps I might desire
Some shawls of true Cashmere,
Some marrowy crapes of China silk,
Like wrinkled skins on scalded milk.

I would not have the horse I drive
So fast that folks must stop and stare;
An easy gait - two forty-five
Suits me; I do not care;
Perhaps, for just a single spurt,
Some seconds less would do no hurt.

Of pictures, I should like to own
Titians and Raphaels three or four,
I love so much their style and tone,
One Turner, and no more,
(A landscape, - foreground golden dirt,
The sunshine painted with a squirt.)

Of books but few, - some fifty score
For daily use, and bound for wear;
The rest upon an upper floor;
Some little luxury there
Of red morocco's gilded gleam
And vellum rich as country cream.

Busts, cameos, gems, such things as these,
Which others often show for pride,
I value for their power to please,
And selfish churls deride;
One Stradivarius, I confess,
Two Meerschaums, I would fain possess.

Wealth's wasteful tricks I will not learn,
Nor ape the glittering upstart fool;
Shall not carved tables serve my turn,
But all must be of buhl?
Give grasping pomp its double share,
I ask but one recumbent chair.

Thus humble let me live and die,
Nor long for Midas' golden touch;
If Heaven more generous gifts deny,
I shall not miss them much,
Too grateful for the blessing lent
Of simple tastes and mind content!

Discipline

2009-10-03T14:27:00.003-06:00

Discipline. Now there's a word for you. Who wants to be disciplined? The very word connotes a lack of spontaneity that sucks the life out of you. And discipline won't get you on television. Think about it. Who are the sports players who get a majority of the media's attention? The ones who aren't disciplined; the ones who do dumb and provocative things (like Plaxico Burress, who recently shot himself in the leg). Who gets to be on reality shows? Typically only complete imbeciles make for "good TV" nowadays, and the less they can control themselves, the better. And why are there so many home foreclosures out there? Among other reasons, many people weren't disciplined enough to only buy as much house as they could afford.

Discipline. My family's recent income adjustment (taking the form of a 10-month-old boy) has made us become much more disciplined financially. As a result, we have a strict monthly budget that we follow, and if we want to make a major purchase, we have to figure out a way to save up the money for it. Instant material gratification is all but gone at our house. We have chosen to be disciplined financially to allow for my wife to stay home and raise Brodie and to better our financial position at the same time. Let me tell you, that requires lots of discipline!

Discipline. One of the distinctive features of Denver Seminary is their mentoring program. All students are required to do a number of learning contracts in which the goal is to become better in an area of spiritual formation or at a ministry skill. Students are required to write out a needs assessment, a goal statement, and at least six specific actions to take to achieve the goal. Students then meet with mentors and small groups for accountability.

Discipline. I used to be a competitive runner. I ran some pretty respectable times and placed in some pretty tough races. To get to that point, though, required running, on average, 8-10 miles per day, every day, whether I wanted to or not, year-round. There were countless days where I was tired, or weather conditions were extreme, or I simply didn't want to run. But I did anyway.

Even though living a disciplined life isn't always fun and usually very hard, it is also very rewarding. I think about our financial discipline. Through it, God is teaching us how to rely on him and helping us to reevaluate what we really need and what we can live without. And you know what? We are just as happy now as ever. When I performed what seemed like countless learning contracts, it was those disciplined times the Spirit used to lay a strong spiritual foundation in my life (one that has been put to the test on many occasions!). I was able to be highly competitive as a runner solely because I put in the countless miles of hard work to get there, and I have some great memories and experiences because of it.

In short, the best and strongest parts in my life are due to discipline. Through dedicated, structured, purposeful and hard work, God has allowed me to achieve some pretty impressive things, and I truly think my family and I have a great life due to the fact that we have learned to be disciplined. But I never wanted to be on TV anyway.

The Shack: A Book Review

2009-09-30T15:59:00.005-06:00

I like to tell people that I read boring books. They’re not actually boring, of course (far from it); they’re just highly specialized. Let’s face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master’s degree in biblical studies, it’s only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read “boring” commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I’m curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest “must read”—The Shack by William P. Young.

After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don’t really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter’s murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young’s portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.

Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young’s work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.

Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young’s portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God’s three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons’ relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity—each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are “above” or “below” others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.

Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection—all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus’ emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn’t pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.

Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young’s lax view of Christian duty—or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus’ statement, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).

Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack’s daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, “Every knee will bow before me,” as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies (“so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God”). While I do not wish to underestimate God’s grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.

In the end, William P. Young’s The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, “Don’t believe everything you read.”

Why the Bible is Still Relevant Today

2009-09-24T20:31:00.004-06:00

Theological and Practical Implications of Judges 3:7-11

...When people abandon Yahweh in favor of any other allegiance, they absolve him of any obligation to them. In fact, they render him their enemy and may expect his judgment. On the other hand, when an individual who has been called by God into his service challenges the forces of evil and darkness in his [God's] power, the hosts of heaven and earth are dethroned. Herein lies the hope for the moribund church today. In the words of Yahweh himself, through his prophet Zechariah, victories are won "not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zech 4:6).

NAC: Judges, Ruth by Daniel Block, pp. 155-6.

The Question

2009-09-12T20:32:00.004-06:00

I sometimes listen to local pastor Gino Geraci (local pastor and radio talk-show host) on the way home from work. I have to say, when it comes to the Bible and religion, the man knows his stuff. Most of the time I agree with what he says, but two days ago I had to take issue with him, albeit on a minor point. But, being a seminary grad, minor points are my specialty!

He fielded a question from a caller on the ending of Mark. If you turn to Mark 16, you will find that, after verse 8, the NIV states, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The caller was curious about Gino's thoughts on what is the true ending of Mark. Gino did a good job explaining the issue, citing evidence from all sides of the debate along the way. But then he asked the caller, "What happens if Mark ends with 16:8?", to which the caller responded, "It just doesn't make sense." Gino agreed. I disagree.

Mark 16:8 reads, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." The women had just seen a young man in a white robe (an angel) who had told them of Jesus' resurrection and had given them explicit instructions to go and tell this incredible news. What did they do instead? The exact opposite--they fled and kept their mouths shut. Now if you think about the immediate context, no, it doesn't make sense for Mark to end this way. But what was Mark trying to communicate here? I think he is ending his story with a hanging question for a reason. All throughout his gospel, we learn of this extraordinary man who claims to be God. He performs miracles, heals the sick, feeds the masses, and he even claims to forgive sins! He performs actions that fulfill Old Testament messianic prophecies, he identifies and equates himself with God, he winds up on a cross, yet his tomb is found to be empty. The reader takes part in this journey for 16 chapters, and Mark hopes that by this time he has fashioned a new disciple for the kingdom. But there is one question that remains, and it deals with identification. For the reader who believes, with whom will he or she identify? Will I go and tell, or will I flee and keep quiet? This is the same question that all believers must answer, often on a daily basis. Will I obey the young man's command, or will I follow the example of the three women at the tomb? This is why ending Mark's gospel at 16:8 makes perfect sense. The shorter ending forces the reader to look within, to answer the hanging question for his or her own life. It is really the question, the answer to which is the foundation for all else: What will you do with the message of Christ?

Christianity Without Church?

2009-09-09T09:55:00.006-06:00

Why does organized religion matter? Isn't faith a private, personal, subjective thing, after all? It's a relationship with Jesus, so who cares about getting all gussied up and driving to a building every Sunday morning? This is the kind of thinking Kevin DeYoung examines in a Christianity Today interview about his new book, Why We Love the Church.

DeYoung points out that while the term church can refer to believers in general, two Christians meeting at Starbucks does not constitute a true church, i.e. a defined local community of believers. Why not? DeYoung says that the church as an institution has a structured litugry (teaching, singing, praying, ordinances) and offices (pastor/elder/bishop and deacon/deaconess). This is another important meaning of the word ekklesia. Coming together in a regular, organized manner is essential, he says, to have a lasting impact. (It's also commanded of us in Heb. 10:25.) Furthermore, he claims that many of those who care decrying the necessity of an organized church are, quite simply, immature in the faith. I tend to agree with this assessment. Organization, structure and even routine are extremely necessary for Christians. Let me explain.

Imagine that a group of Christians decided they were no longer going to celebrate Christmas by purchasing gifts, decorating, caroling, seeing family, etc. After all, December 25 isn't really Jesus' birthday, and we all just do the same things over and over again, year after year. Besides, what do any of those things have to do with one's relationship to Christ? They're just external trappings, so it is asserted. This, of course, is missing the point. All of those activities are part of the tradition of Christmas. Giving gifts reminds us of Christ's ultimate gift. Family get togethers provide a structured, planned time of fellowship with kin, something we need to stay connected to one another for a lifetime. And perhaps this is the only time each year when Luke 1-2 is read.

Tradition, organization and structure allow for remembering, learning and growth opportunities over the long term. There is certainly a place for spontaneous meetings over coffee, but this alone will not contribute to lasting growth. Fellowship, teaching, congregational singing and prayer are all part of the essential dynamic called the local church, the involvement in which is expected by all beleivers. One should question its necessity ony with great care.

A Concise History of Beards--Mine, Too!

2009-09-02T15:00:00.010-06:00

Ever since I was 18, I have almost always sported a goatee or a full beard. Periods of clean-shavenness have been exceedingly rare and short-lived. I recently started thinking, why do I prefer having facial hair? An interesting question, one which I will answer shortly. Before I do, though, I thought I would share a brief pogonological comment or two. So here it is, ladies and gentlemen: A concise history of the beard in Western civilization.

The oldest flint razors that have been discovered thus far date to around 30,000 BCE. This means that men living prior to this date had no choice but to walk around fully bearded, wearing the skins of saber-tooth tigers they killed themselves. After that, the history of facial hair gets a little fuzzy (no pun intended) for about 27,000 years. Enter the ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans. The Israelites, of course, all had beards, since Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving (or so it was interpreted). Thus growing a beard was a God-honoring prospect, a profoundly pious act. The ancient Greeks also revered the beard, considering it a sign of wisdom and virility. The most famous Greek of all, Alexander the Great, changed the social norm when he commanded his armies to enter battle cleanly shaven. Why? The enemy could grab one's beard during hand-to-hand combat, putting oneself at extreme disadvantage! The Romans, too, preferred the clean-cut look (at least after 300 BCE, which is when the first barber reached Rome), considering facial hair to denote slovenliness.

After these ancient societies collapsed, Europe descended into the Dark Ages. Apparently pogonologists were in short supply, because I could find no information about beards during that time (can you believe it?). We can, however, pick up in our history of the beard in the Middle Ages. 15th-century Europe was a beardless society; the fad was reborn in the 16th century. At this time, the first association of beards and politics appears. Catherine the Great did her best to do away with beards, because to sport one was to protest the religious climate of the day. In fact, priests who had traditionally been clean-shaven as a show of their celibacy, grew out their beards (and got married) to send a message. This love affair with the beard was short-lived, however; by the 1600s, they were no longer in vogue. That this was the case can be seen in Peter I. He wanted to be like the West so much that in 1698 he forbade his fellow Russians to grow beards, and by 1705 he was exacting a 100-ruble tax on men who defied his orders.

Beards were by and large out of style from that point until the Civil War (thanks to a little help from men like Abraham Lincoln and Ambrose Burnside). The mantra of the day, of course, was "the bigger, the better." But the mighty beard took another downturn in WWI. Soldiers were required to shave, since a grizzly face would inhibit gas masks from sealing tightly. Also during that era, movies were becoming more and more popular, and of course, many flicks were about the war, featuring actors portraying soldiers--sans beard for authenticity's sake. Concurrently, major ad campaigns by razor companies emphasized the importance of a good, clean shave. Thus from 1920-1960, beards were virtually forbidden. The arrival of the Beatnik movement in the 50s led some members to grow beards just to be nonconformists. The hippies of the 60s picked up on the habit from them, but they used the beard/long-hair combination as a means of protest against the US government and the Vietnam War. By the 70s, however, this look had become mainstream and carried with it no political baggage. The 1980s saw a return to the hairless face, which persisted until the 2000s, where the trend has been to grow sideburns, goatees and pencil-thin beards.

The beard has been around as long as men have. Over the last 6,000 years or so, men have been shaving their faces and growing out their beards for various reasons--sometimes social, sometimes political, sometimes religious. The beard continually rises in and falls out of style, again, for myriad reasons.

With the prolific history of the beard now stated, I can answer my initial question: Why do I have one? For me, there is no social, religious or political reason. I think, rather, that it comes down to the issue of fatherhood. You see, I have never seen my dad without a full beard. (In fact, in 30+ years of marriage, neither has my mom!) My dad's beard is his most distinguising physical characteristic. I can't imagine him without it--nor do I want to. I suppose his genes allowed me to grow a beard in the first place, but there's more than reproductive biology at work here. Having facial hair just feels right. Being clean-shaven just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it; I don't know why I feel this way. Perhaps I am trying to emulate him, but especially now as a father myself, I can't imagine taking a razor to my entire face. I can't imagine going through life with a smooth chin. It just ain't right.

For more information on the history of beards, check out the following links:

Laboring in Vain?

2009-08-18T15:59:00.001-06:00

“Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:58

Such is Paul’s climactic application for 1 Corinthians 15. He has just argued for the reality and centrality of bodily resurrection for the Christian, how we will one day receive a new, glorious body and live forever in perfect fellowship with God and others. Therefore, because of that great reward which awaits us, we are to stand firm in our faith. Okay, I can see that. An eternity of bliss is worth a few years of enduring hardships. That makes sense well enough. But then Paul adds one more sentence in which he states that our “labor in the Lord is not in vain.”

This is another case where it seems that doctrine and experience are at odds (at least for me). Let me illustrate. I always seem to get the tough nuts to crack, so to speak. The non-Christians in my circle of friends historically have not been all that interested in adopting Christianity as their religion of choice. By and large, they enjoy discussing religion and spiritual things, they have no qualms listening to my point of view, and I get the impression that they might even respect me for believing as I do and living out that belief system. But they have no interest whatsoever in becoming a follower of Christ. The usual culprit is their intellect. They are held prisoner by the idea that things just aren’t that simple as the gospel message would claim. The Bible wasn’t written to be taken so literally. What can we really know about this Jesus guy, anyway? There are so many different religions out there, how can there be just one that’s correct? And the list goes on. Although I know arguments to counter each of these questions, I have also learned that often they don’t do much good. This is what I have come across as I do the work of evangelism: Lots of prayer, lots of good discussions, lots of good friendships for which I am thankful, even, but ultimately no decisions for Christ.

It’s hard to look at this situation repeat itself over and over again in my life and believe that the work is not in vain. What am I accomplishing? What good have I done? How am I screwing up? Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps one day I will find out that I did more than I thought. But I won’t know until that day.

I suppose in the end, I have to accept the fact that I did what was asked of me—I have tried, in the power of the Spirit, to be faithful. The results are not up to me. But when one labors long and hard with nothing tangible to show for it, the word failure does crop up in one’s mind.

Am I a faithful failure?

Karma: Garbage In, Garbage Out

2009-08-10T21:07:00.005-06:00

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

*Let us put aside the fact that American karma is a bastardized version of the actual Hindu/Buddhist doctrine. I am only discussing the American version here.

Something Seems Fishy Here

2009-08-08T10:48:00.005-06:00

I received an interesting link from my father-in-law this morning, which I think is very much worth sharing.

Like I said, interesting. Then I stumbled across the transcript of President Obama's weekly address, given today (emphases added). Here are some excerpts:

So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care...

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history...insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

Insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime...

Maybe I should email flag@whitehouse.gov--Obama's words seem awfully fishy to me.

Begging the Question

2009-07-24T15:44:00.003-06:00

I typically let most grammar and usage mistakes slide. Mind you, when I find one in print or hear one spoken, it still makes me cringe. I have learned, though, just to let it go, except when I think that pointing it out would be beneficial to all parties involved (for instance, when I am grammarian at a Toastmasters meeting). I come across a few mistakes, however, over and over again, and sometimes I must comment.

The particular oft-misused phrase stuck in my craw at the moment is begging the question. Countless times have I heard or read something like, “The Rockies have been on a tear since firing manager Clint Hurdle. That begs the question, why was Hurdle not fired sooner?” The fact of the matter is Hurdle’s firing does not beg the question of timing. It raises the question.

Begging the question (a.k.a. petitio principii) is a logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. Note that in the phrase begging the question, beg does not mean “plead for” but rather “assume” and question does not mean “a sentence in interrogative form” but rather “the thing one is trying to prove.” Thus, begging the question literally means “assuming the thing one is trying to prove.”

For example, the famous zinger, “When did you stop beating your wife?” begs the question. It assumes that you have been beating your wife, even though no evidence has been produced that you do in fact beat her. Another example is, “OJ could not have killed his wife, because he just wouldn’t do that sort of thing.” It assumes that OJ could not have killed his wife because he would not kill his wife. No evidence is produced to suggest why he would not perform such an act other than “he just wouldn’t.”*

Perhaps I am being way too anal about this, but I believe that clear and cogent thinking is extremely important, and an important part of solid thinking is having a solid understanding of the words and phrases used. Furthermore, not only is the phrase begging the question often misused, the real fallacy of question-begging is common, as well. Thus knowing the true meaning protects you from misusing your words and your logic.

So the next time you read, “The economic crisis begs the question, when will things turn around?” join me in cringing in your chair. Let out a good, hearty scream while you are at it. And then relax by chanting this mantra: It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It'll make you feel better. I promise.

*Apologies for the misogynistic examples; ladies, please do not take offense!

A Challenging Legacy

2009-07-20T10:06:00.006-06:00

I never realized what kind of a man he was until it was too late.

I last saw my grandfather a week ago Sunday. It was my birthday, and Jessica, Brodie and I had traveled back to my hometown in Kansas for a long weekend. All of the family was supposed to come over to my parents' house at 5 PM Saturday to see us and celebrate. A little before 5, Grandma called and said that Grandpa was running a fever. It was decided that they would not come, since there was a baby at the house. A little after 5, Grandma called back and said that Grandpa had fallen. My dad, aunt and cousin left the party to go to my grandparents' house to help out. My cousin, an RN, decided once they were there that Grandpa needed to go to the hospital. That is where he was the next day when I saw him.

I walked into the room, and Dad introduced me to him. Grandpa, whose mind was failing him, said, "I remember Jon, but that's not what he looks like." (I can't blame him for that; I have changed my looks quite a bit over the years.) After we assured Grandpa that I was his grandson Jon, he turned and looked at me and asked, "Are you a Christian?"

This is when I realized what kind of man my Grandpa was. Here he lay dying in a hospital bed. His body was failing him; his mind already had. He wasn't even really clear about who I was. Yet he wanted to make sure that I believed in Christ. His faith somehow, miraculously, was still strong.

I assured him that I was a Christian and introduced him to his newest great-grandson, Brodie. In the course of our short conversation, he repeatedly told me to raise Brodie up to honor his father and mother and as a Christian. Again, I witnessed a man at the end of his days--so weak he couldn't stand--and his primary concern was to make sure that my family and me (who were, for all he knew, strangers) loved Jesus.

He soon fell asleep and I left the room. That was the last time he was lucid, and although he lived for a few more days, that was when I said goodbye to Grandpa. That was also the moment that his legacy was crystalized in my mind. He was a man of faith.

My dad told me about the last thing Grandpa said. He had spotted a new doctor, one he hadn't seen before, and in a garbled mumble, said to him, "Do you believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"

A man of faith to the very end.

TV or Not TV, That is the Question

2009-06-29T21:30:00.005-06:00

I get it. I've read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I've sat in many lectures and read many blog articles by Dr. Douglas Groothuis. I understand the reasons not to watch television. Glorified violence. Gratuitous sex. Triviality and banality. And I completely agree that many, if not most, shows on television are a complete waste of time and perhaps even sinful to watch, which is precisely why my wife and I do not watch those shows.

But what about that minority of shows that don't focus on these things? For example, I like to watch cooking shows. Why? Because I like to cook, and I learn new things by watching the professionals in action. My wife and I also like to watch documentaries like Nova or Secrets of the Dead. (Recently, e.g., we just finished watching the BBC documentary The Human Face on Netflix.) Again, these are shows in which you can learn something about science or the humanities and actually feel edified after having watched them. And, of course, I do like to do battle with the contestants on Jeopardy every now and again.

Now this isn't to say that I always watch high-quality shows like these. I do confess that sometimes, after an especially long day at work, I do crash in front of the tube and watch fairly trivial shows. But usually when this happens I am so mentally drained that I would be hard-pressed to pick up a book or have an enlightening conversation anyway. I have had to come to grips with the fact that I just can't be productive all the time.

So I pose the question, is some TV okay, if those shows are actually edifying in some way? Or is TV such a wasteland that one should avoid it at all costs?

Paul's Letter to the Roman-Americans

2009-06-28T10:00:00.003-06:00

I just finished preaching a month-long sermon series on Romans at my church. I have to say, I was really struck by Paul's thoughts on what the gospel is and the impact is has on Christians. Romans is, in essence, Paul's grand treatise on the gospel--his sales pitch to the Roman church, as it were, whose support he was trying to obtain for a trip he had planned to spread the gospel to Spain. As one goes through the book, one sees the contrast between Paul's gospel and the gospel too many of us in the church today (including myself, far too often) live out:

Paul: Humans, left to their own devices, are under for God's wrath. (ch. 1-3)
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.

Paul: Humans who try to find righteousness by adhering to a set of rules (the Jews, in Paul's case) are under God's wrath. (ch 1-3)

Us: Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but we've still got plenty of unwritten rules, don't you worry!

Paul: Salvation can only be found in Christ. (ch 3)

Us: Salvation can only be found in politics.

Paul: Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? No way! (ch 6)

Us: A little sinning here and there isn't really a sin at all, as long as it doesn't violate one of our unwritten rules (see above).

Paul: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel us to spread the gospel! (ch 9-11)

Us: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel someone else to spread the gospel!

Paul: The gospel should cause a transformation in every area of our lives: Our church life, our citizenship to the state, our interactions with family, friends and strangers, etc. (ch 12-15)

Us: What I do outside of church is my own business.

Paul: We should put aside our freedoms in nonmoral areas for the sake of unity and peace. (ch 14-15)

Us: I'm an American; I have rights and I will use them!

I wonder what Paul would tell us today. How would Romans be different if we were his original audience? Would he have to change his message? Or would it be much the same, stressing the same things, since the Romans were humans just like us, too, struggling with the same issues day in and day out? I think the latter might be more likely. Preaching through the book, one finds Paul's letter to be extremely relevant today. In it we see our sinful nature. We see our redemption in Christ alone. We see the model of Christianity to which we strive to adhere.

I wonder if Paul knew how timeless his letter was when he wrote it...

On Being a Dad

2009-06-13T08:50:00.008-06:00

I have learned a lot about what it means to be a father in the past six months. By no means would I consider myself and expert, but I have figured out a few things:

Changing a diaper is not as bad an experience as I thought it would be.
Sans diaper, baby-boy poop can travel as far as baby-boy pee.
You can understand a fair amount of what a baby is trying to tell you if you're around him long enough.
You can eat very quickly while only using one hand.
Not much beats coming home from a long day at work at having your son smile at you.

As I ponder this experience of fatherhood, I remember a quote from a book by one of my college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves. In his book A Genuine Faith: How to Follow Jesus Today, he writes,

Jesus cannot teach me how to be a good father because he was never married,
and that is too bad--not just for him but also for me. If he had been married,
if he had fathered many children, then his example would provide another model
of Christian behavior.

Jesus wasn't a father, he was a son. He can't teach me (at least not by example) how to be a dad, only how to be a son to my own dad. But God the Father knows exactly what it means to be a dad; after all, it's in his job title! Through his loving patience with the nation of Israel, I learn how to be patient with my own son. The sacrifice he made for me by sending his son to his death shows me the radical nature of sacrifice I am to provide for my own family as a father. God the Father instructs, exhorts, disciplines and provides for his children out of perfect love, giving me an example to follow as one whose task is the same--being a dad.

May I ever learn from his example!

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction?

2009-06-10T14:58:00.006-06:00

Belief in Bigfoot is logical.

I know what you are thinking right now—I am crazy. Look at the crazy guy who thinks it’s perfectly sane to believe in Bigfoot! Let’s all laugh and point! All right, all right, get it out of your system. Better now? Good.

Seriously, though, I believe that Bigfoot exists. Let me explain why. First, the discovery of animals once thought mythical is not unprecedented. At one time gorillas were considered mythical creatures. The kraken was thought to be a figment of frightened sailors’ collective imagination until someone brought in a colossal squid. Similarly, the coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years until a fisherman caught one in 1938. And of course previously unknown fauna are being discovered all of the time.

Second, there is possible physical evidence to corroborate the existence of Bigfoot. Hair and fecal samples of unknown origin have been collected near alleged sightings. Piled rock, stacked wood and damaged trees—all seemingly intentionally done—have been reported in those areas, as well. Of special evidential import, however, are films, pictures and footprints. The famous Patterson-Gimlin film has been subject to intense scrutiny, but it has never been proved to be a hoax. (Indeed, if it is a hoax, it is one of the best ever done.) Various pictures, including the recent “Jacobs creature” photos, show something very primate-looking. (The Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the picture was of a mangy bear. Decide for yourself.) There have been many footprints discovered over the years. Some have proven to be hoaxes. Some, however, seem to be genuine, to the point of having possible dermal ridges.

Third, there are thousands of reported sightings of a large, hairy primate in North America. All throughout the continental United States and Canada, people claim to have seen such a creature. One can even find reports dating back nearly 400 years to the native peoples of the Northwest. In many cases, the eyewitnesses are of reputable character (not mentally ill, not known to be habitual liars, not seeking fame, etc) have no reason to lie, are experienced woodsmen[1] (many sightings occur deep in the woods where few urbanites would venture), do not know and therefore cannot collaborate with other persons who report sightings, and simply cannot come to any other explanation of what they saw. Furthermore, the details of the sightings are very often extremely similar. The object of the sighting always has a human-like face, very broad shoulders, hair of roughly six inches in length, a height of 7-9 feet, arms that extend down close to the knees, and so on.

The logic of my belief in Bigfoot (meaning an undiscovered large, bipedal, North American primate), then, can be represented by the following inductive argument:

1. Animals not thought/known to exist are often discovered.
2. Physical evidence exists that may corroborate the existence of Bigfoot.
3. Therefore, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be rejected a priori.
4. Many sightings by reliable people of reputable character occur, most of which contain extremely similar details describing a large, bipedal primate.
5. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are lies or fictional accounts.
6. Many sightings are reported by experienced woodsmen.
7. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are misidentification of known animals.
8. Some sightings have been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
9. Some sightings have not been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
10. Sightings have been reported over a vast amount of North America for hundreds of years.
11. It is not likely that a vast network of Bigfoot hoaxing has been in existence for hundreds of years.
12. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are the result of hoaxing.
13. Not all sightings have been identified as lies or fictional accounts, misidentification of known animals, or hoaxes.
14. Therefore, it is likely that some sightings are real and reliable accounts, the object of which is a large, bipedal, North American primate.
14. Therefore, it is likely that a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
15. Therefore, a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
16. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.

In the end, I suppose, belief or disbelief in Bigfoot is trivial. In fact, I prefer that most people disbelieve in its existence; that means fewer people are out there trying to bag one. But one day, when you take your kids or grandkids to the zoo to see the gorillas and the sasquatches in the primate enclosure, remember me. I’ll be the guy in the corner thinking to himself, “I told you so!”

[1] Many such people, in fact, have often seen bears in the wild and are adamant that what they saw was not a bear. Thus the misidentification of known animals cannot account for all reported sightings.

Gratuitous Lesbianism

2009-06-06T07:10:00.003-06:00

This post isn't about homosexuality. I promise. This post is about a trend I have noticed in the land of Television. Over the past several months, I have thrice had the occasion to be watching network television when, out of nowhere, for no reason, one of the characters is announced to be gay. Each time it has been the same. A female character's love life is brought into the show, and lo and behold, she's in a relationship with another woman, and there's always a man who thinks he can bring her back. The women, of course, are portrayed as beautiful, happy and smart, and the guy is always of the "handsome but full of himself" variety.

Now I can understand that some might think of this as a good plot twist or sub-story (indeed, Seinfeld had a quite funny episode devoted to the topic), but the problem is, each time I have seen this idea used, it is completely out of step with the rest of the show. There is simply no need to make one of the characters a lesbian. It does nothing to further the story line; indeed, it's not related at all. It's like someone down at the station inadvertently stuck a scene from some other program into the one I was watching.

Of course, I know what's going on here. It's the land of Television's way of saying, "Hey, everybody, look how cool and sexy and smart these lesbians are! Isn't being gay great?" Fair enough, I guess it's their show. But it seems to me that they are sacrificing their show's quality by inserting random pro-gay commercials into the plot.

At least when I preach, it's in context.

Bound to Burn?

2009-05-17T21:20:00.003-06:00

I like the earth--it's where all my stuff is. I'd like to keep it lookin' good for my children and grandchildren. So I recycle. I also try not to waste energy or throw litter out my car window. I even like that plasticware is now designed with a certain amount of negative space to reduce the amount of material required per utensil. What I don't like is much of the current fad of "saving the earth." Ever since it started, I get the distinct feeling that I'm being had, that there's something someone isn't telling me about here. You know, like when Hollywood's elite tell me not to air condition my house or to take the bus to work instead of drive, or else life on earth will cease to exist, even though they have mansions to cool and private jets to fly.

One particular area in which things just don't feel right to me is the idea of a "carbon footprint." We're all supposed to reduce our carbon footprint, but I have to ask, who is "we?" This is precisely the point in Peter W. Huber's article that recently appeared in City Journal, entitled "Bound to Burn." Huber argues that for us rich Westerners to lower our carbon usage and output is just fine and dandy--until one looks at things globally (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing anyway?). His main point?

We rich people can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the
couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We
can’t even make any durable dent in global emissions—because emissions from the
developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity
desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same
global economy.

He goes on to say that even though we rich-types out there burn more carbon per capita, there are a lot more "capitas" in the world's poorest countries. Thus, "the 5 billion poor...emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do." To make matters worse, as the richer countries reduce their demand for carbon-based fuel, the price for said fuel goes down as well. This, of course, means that for countries like China, who burn massive amounts of coal, they can burn it even more cheaply than they already were. These countries are also increasing their rate of fuel usage at a much faster rate than can be offset by our carbon-reduction efforts.

Huber makes many other thought-provoking points in his article--too many to mention here--but in the end, he takes a realistic look at the situation and realizes that on a global scale, humanity is not going to stop using carbon-based fuels anytime soon, regardless of the amount of reductions in Western countries. Therefore, he reckons, we ought to focus our efforts on getting that carbon out of the atmosphere once it has been released. And what is the best way to do that? Things no one disagrees with. Planting trees, which beautifies our cities and keeps them cooler to boot. Using land wisely and improving agricultural tactics, which can result in greater prosperity. Ideas that benefit both humans qua humans and nature, instead of ideas that villify human use of resources and deify Mother Nature.

So why are these ideas not at the forefront of the environmentalist movement, but riding the bus to work is? I think the leaders of the movement don't really care about the environment, at least not as much as they care about having power. Think about it: How much power do you exert over people when they plant a tree? Not much. How much power do you exert over people when you fundamentally alter the manner in which they travel? Quite a bit more. I think this also explains a lot about the misinformation we receive. For example, in his famous documentary, Al Gore showed an ice berg losing massive chunks of ice into the ocean. He neglected to mention it was computer-generated. To take another example, we are told we need to "save the earth." Since when did it need saving to begin with? Is it misguided hubris to suppose that we can destroy a planet billions of years old by driving to work? Or is it intentional misinformation: If the earth is to be saved, then there must be a savior--a savior with enough political power to make the necessary changes.

This is why I sit uneasy with the environmentalist movement sweeping through our nation. It has nothing to do with treating the earth well. It has everything to do with feeling underinformed, misinformed, and being extremely wary of anyone in pursuit of political power.

Who Do You Love?

2009-04-28T20:26:00.004-06:00

Money and righteousness seem to be strange bedfellows. I've been thinking about both lately, perhaps because of a sermon I recently heard/delivered, perhaps because of the economy, perhaps for other reasons not to be named here. In any case, in Christendom money and righteousness have long been pitted against one another or seen as the best of friends, depending on the circles in which one is a member. The same was true in Paul's day, with ascetics living in the desert on the one hand and members of the social elite in the makeup of the early churches on the other. There were even televangelists (well, they would have been if there were television back then) promising God would bless His followers with good careers, nice homes and lots of money; after all, God wants you to be happy! It is interesting and eerily parallel to the present that these proto-televangelists (Paul calls them false teachers) are the subject of discourse of 1 Timothy.

In a pattern common to the letter, in 1 Timothy 6 Paul addresses a specific problem he sees with these false teachers, and then suggests a remedy. He constructs this last section of the letter as a chiasm, which when displayed greatly helps the modern reader understand the flow of the passage:

a. A description of false teachers (vv. 3-5)
b. A proper view of money for the believer (vv. 6-8)
c. The love of money (vv. 9-10)
c'. The love of God (vv. 11-16)
b'. A proper view of money for the rich believer (vv. 17-19)
a'. A description of teachers of the Truth (vv. 20-21)

Without getting into too much detail, the problem is that these false teachers are proclaiming that "godliness is a means to financial gain," which is leading to internal strife within the community of believers (or at least among the sub-category of false teachers and their followers) (vv. 4-5). Paul attempts to restore order and unity by reminding the church that while money is temporal, life is eternal. Thus, as long as a person has his or her needs met financially, that should suffice (vv. 6-8). He then commands the rich Christians to be generous. Generosity is their privilege and duty, and it comes with eternal rewards (vv. 17-19). Paul finally finishes off the chiasm with words of instruction for Timothy, who is to "guard what has been entrusted to [his] care" (v. 20).

While there is much more that could be said about the previous verses, I would like to focus on the center of the chiasm--Paul's main point. What I believe he is doing is taking Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matt. 6:24), and applying them to the Ephesian context. Paul draws a contrast between the false teachers' love of money and the true Christ-followers' love of God. He argues, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...but you, man of God...pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (vv. 10-11, italics added).

This is where it gets weird. This is where things don't make sense. Here's what does make sense--Jesus tells a rich young ruler to give everything he has to the poor, because it's more likely that a camel will pass through the eye of a needle than that a rich person will get into heaven. The opposite of the love of money should be giving it all away and living the ascetic lifestyle. But that's not what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6. Paul says that the opposite of trying to get rich is to get righteousness. The opposite of the love of money is...just love. You might still get rich. You might instead become poor. Your financial status might not change at all. You must be content with what you have.

What is one to do with such an idea? A millionaire becomes a Christian, starts giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still lives in a mansion. A homeless woman finds salvation in Christ, and lives out the rest of her days in a refrigerator box. A middle-class man tries to make ends meet and provide for his family, and yet his focus is to be on matters of faith? But I've got bills to pay and mouths to feed! he screams to himself. Paul's words again allude to the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear...But seek first [God's] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matt. 6:25, 33). But it's not fair; it doesn't make sense; it's not the American way!

But then again, it does make sense. Godliness reminds us that ultimately we are not in charge of our finances (as one of my coworkers puts it, "We're all temporary employees"). Faith teaches us that God's grace is not constrained to what is calculable. Pursuing righteousness does lead to divine provision for our physical needs, although endurance may teach us we have misjudged what our needs truly are.

Money versus righteousness. The pursuit of financial gain versus the pursuit of God. Envy and strife versus contentment in all situations. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

100th Post!

2009-03-28T12:50:00.004-07:00

Well, here it is. My 100th post on Tiger's Got My Back. What does one blog about at such a milestone? I suppose I could reminisce about all of the great posts I've had, but that's a little too self-congratulatory for my liking. So instead, I will humbly speak of my last semester at Denver Seminary.

I have learned a two things this semester. First, I have learned how little I truly know about theology and the Bible. Sure, I've been studying it for ten years, but my own lack of knowledge often frustrates me. This was made even more apparent to me as I went through the orals process. Codifying my theological beliefs into paper format was a definite wake-up call that, although I knew where I stood on many issues at a high level, showed me I need to work on nailing down the details. One such area is Bible references. I have a hard time remembering where a particular passage or verse is located. I suppose the only true solution for this is the hard work of memorization. Ugh. I also learned that my knowledge of the history and terminology of various theological issues is a bit weak. I really had to read up on some various terms, people, church councils, etc, that at this point in my academic career, I probably should have known. I think a lot of this is because 1) over the course of such prolonged study, one is bound to forget quite a bit of material, and 2) my personal reading is too narrowly focused on books and subjects I enjoy, rather than those I need to read to grow. I will be changing my reading habits accordingly come May.

I have also learned that I am at the point where I need to dig a little deeper into topics than seminary requirements dictate. I have noticed with these last few papers that it has become increasingly hard to limit their content to the page limits assigned to them. One might write an entire book on 2 Thess 2:1-12, whereas I have but 14 pages at my disposal. Now, given my current work and family situations, I'm not complaining, but I just feel that I am barely scratching the surface anymore. Perhaps there will be more advanced writing in my future...

Summing up, these past few months have been a good end to seminary. I have a better idea now of where I am at theologically and academically, and I can see now that my MDiv is just the foundation. I need to push myself to the next level. I need to get (more) serious about using the gifts God has given me. (I've all but forgotten Hebrew--how can I live with myself?) I need to read books that will challenge me and enable me to be more well-rounded, in addition to the ones I simply enjoy. (Just to prove how much of a nerd I really am, I'm trying to develop a reading matrix for this purpose. If anyone has any good ideas, please let me know.)

In effect, the bar remains for me where it has always been set: I want to be the best, not for comparison's sake, but for my own. I think this semester has reminded me of that. Perhaps one day I will get there...

Soteri-what?

2009-03-14T13:20:00.003-07:00

The good news is I passed my oral exam. My panel of professors also commented several times on how well-written my paper was. The bad news is, I have to redo the section on soteriology.

Everyone who wants to graduate with an MDiv from the seminary must write a somewhat lengthy paper on his or her theological beliefs, ranging the spectrum from describing God's revelation to humankind to interpreting God's Revelation specifically to John. Overall, many of the topics are relatively easy to understand, and the "orthodox" positions are obviously the correct ones. The hardest topic for me to wrap my mind around is soteriology (theology of salvation). The old Calvinism/Arminianism debate rears its ugly head once more.

I grew up in the Baptist church (first American, then Southern, then General), but I now attend and am on staff at a Wesleyan church. 99% of the doctrine is the same between these denominations, but of course one of the main differences is in this area of soteriology. My own view has been shaped in part by my denominational journey. Growing up, I was taught that five-point Calvinism (TULIP) was the way to go. As I grew in my knowledge of the scriptures, I concluded that this framework was not the best interpretation of key texts. I didn't want to go clear to the opposite end of the spectrum and embrace a full-fledged Arminianism for the same reasons. In fact, as I read the Bible (esp. the New Testament), I see that both sides have some things right and some things wrong. I attempted to create some type of mediating position in my paper, but the type I managed to create was...less than entirely coherent and a bit contradictory, shall we say? (Hey, it was a first try.)

In the next few weeks, I will be doing some more research on this and try to come up with a better mediating view (if I know one thing, I know that I fall in the middle somewhere). I'll do the best I can to explain the "mechanics" if you will of the salvation process (ordo salutis, for you Latin geeks) in a satisfactory manner. I can't help but feel, though, that this attempt to systematize God's salvific work in humankind, corporately and individually, is in effect putting God into a box. I am not sure that God works in the same way to bring people to Himself in all cases. I'm not sure he needs a specific process to do this, either. In fact, if I could use one phrase to describe my views on all of this, it would be, "I'm not sure." That doesn't mean that I may not become "sure" in the future, or that I will just write off the whole of soteriology to the category of mystery and be on my way. Nor do I deny that one's position in this area can greatly influence one's ideas on evangelism. It's just one area about which I have no good answers.

Here is what I do know: Followers of Christ are commanded and expected to spread the gospel. That much alone should keep me plenty busy until I can figure out the rest of it.

Experiencing Doctrine

2009-02-27T21:49:00.005-07:00

"Experience must always be tested by doctrine, not doctrine by experience." I read these words in a journal article I was reviewing during sermon preparation. It got me thinking about my own experience. There have been times when what I experienced did not jive with what the Bible teaches. For example, the Bible insists in multiple places spanning both Testaments that God "will never leave or forsake" his people. There was a time in 2006 when all my senses and all of the circumstances of my life were shouting out to me, "God has left you; He has forsaken you!" Looking back, I see that even though my experience told me God had left me high and dry, in reality He had not. It was a test, a peirasmos in the full sense of the word (for all you Greek scholars out there), and it was what I needed to get serious about this whole Christianity thing. What I thought was God's utter lack of care for me was in actuality the most caring thing God could have done for me. I don't know how to put this other than...my experience was wrong, but doctrine was right.

This month's Toastmasters magazine quips, "We are all bad judges of ourselves." I would agree and go a step further: We are all bad judges of our immediate experience. I look back on many events in my life that I didn't think were beneficial at the time, but in 20/20 hindsight I can now see how they were indeed a part of God's plan for me. I wouldn't have all the wonderful things I have now--Jessica, Brodie, and my faith--without them. My doctrine allowed me to understand my experiences in the proper context. But had I let my experience define my doctrine, where would I be now?

We live in a very experiential age. I don't mean to say that experience is null and void, because obviously that is just plain silly. And I don't mean to say that one should unquestioningly assert biblical precepts, experience or no. But I do mean to say that we should interpret our experiences in light of revealed Truth (for that is what the biblical metanarrative is) and not vice versa. In our postmodern era, this is a counter-cultural call. It isn't popular. It isn't what itching ears want to hear. But it is the truth.

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, a though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. - Habakkuk 3:17-18

The Goal, or How Much Further Have I to Go!

2009-02-21T14:47:00.004-07:00

...It is not just those who plan to enter the academy professionally who need to have training in philosophy. Christian philosophy is also an integral part of training for Christian ministry. A model for us here is a man like John Wesley, who was at once a Spirit-filled revivalist and an Oxford-educated scholar. In 1756 Wesley delivered "An Address to the Clergy..." In discussing what sort of abilities a minister ought to have, Wesley distinguished between natural gifts and acquired abilities. And it is extremely instructive to look at the abilities that Wesley thought a minister ought to acquire. One of them is a basic grasp of philosophy. He challenged his audience to ask themselves,

Am I a tolerable master of the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate of them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther when I stumble at the threshold...Rather, have not my stupid indolence and laziness made me very ready to believe, what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, "that logic is good for nothing?" It is good for this at least,...to make people talk less; by showing them both is, and what is not, to the point; and how extremely hard it is to prove any thing. Do I understand metaphysics; if not the depths of the Schoolmen, the subtleties of Scotus or Aquinas, yet the first rudiments, the general principles, of that useful science? Have I conquered so much of it, as to clear my apprehension and range my ideas under the proper heads; so much as enables me to read with ease and pleasure, as well as profit, Dr. Henry Moore's Works, Malbranche's "Search for Truth," and Dr. Clarke's "Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God?"

Wesley's vision of a pastor is remarkable: a gentleman, skilled in the Scriptures and conversant with history, philosophy and the science of his day. How do the pastors graduating from our seminaries compare to this model?

Taken from Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview, p. 4

The Marx Brothers

2009-01-30T15:19:00.003-07:00

A few recent PBS documentaries reminded me of the greatness of a certain comedy act of the 1920s-1940s. Of course, I speak of the Marx Brothers. They had witty jokes, bad puns and impeccable timing that has not been seen since. I would love to see these films re-released in theaters. For that matter, I would love to see a present-day film in the style of the Marx Brothers. (Steve Martin would obviously fill Groucho's role.) This is not to say that today's comedies aren't good, but what the Marx Brothers had was out of this world.

Please enjoy a few clips, on the house. Or inside of it, it's warmer there.

The Millennial Presidency

2009-01-19T08:38:00.002-07:00

Very rarely do I discuss anything political on this blog, but today I will make an exception, based on the cultural impact our next president seems to be having. First of all--and let me just throw this out there--I don't really care what kind of dog his family gets. Not even a little.

Moving on, it has actually surprised me a good deal to see the amount of hope that is being attached to the man. The news media seem to think that tomorrow's festivities will not only be inaugurating a new presidential term, but the very millennial kingdom mentioned in Revelation. In fact, one might think that he is Christ returned. Change is coming! All of our problems will be--no, have been--solved!

I have nothing against Mr. Obama, mind you. I didn't vote for him, but he won, fair and square. I hope he does a great job. All I am suggesting is that he is just a man. Does his election warrant hope and optimism for Americans, especially black Americans? You bet. If I were black, I would be extremely proud, and he would undoubtedly work that much harder to achieve my own dreams. This may well be Obama's lasting legacy, and a good one, at that. Does his win mean that everything bad and evil in America will disappear overnight? No. Does this mean that all of the sudden the people in this world who hate America will become our allies? Not a chance. And nationalized health care? Don't even get me started on how bad of an idea that is. Will life continue, much as it always has, regardless of who's in the White House? Yep.

I would urge caution, therefore, in ascribing too much to any man, even a president. Why not instead place your hope in Christ and Christ alone? After all, he is the only person who defeated death. He is the mediator between God and man. He is the eternal judge and the one who gave his very life for you.

Wish Mr. Obama well, hope that he is a good president, but let's face reality--true hope can only be found in Christ.

Former Broncos Player is Found by Jesus

2008-12-28T21:48:00.003-07:00

I just ran across a great story posted on 9news.com. The title, however, should read, "Jesus Pursues Former Broncos Lineman; Gets Help from His Pal Jason." If you have a few minutes, it is well worth your time to read.

Former Broncos lineman admits drug habit

God is definitely awesome, and I mean that in the least cliched and most serious way possible.

Salvation Army Band - Phil Keaggy

2008-12-28T11:18:00.005-07:00

What kind of guy would I be without dedicating a Culture Corner spot to one of the best rock guitarists of all time (and undoubtedly the best nine-fingered guitarist ever). Of course, I speak of Phil Keaggy. While he is quite good with his band, I prefer to hear him solo--just his guitar and massive spread of effects pedals. I got to hear him a few years ago in just this manner, and it was a performance in which all I could do was shake my head and wonder. Now that I have a few pedals at my own disposal, I am realizing how hard it really is to find the right effects for the right songs, not to mention add backing vocals, drum beats and baselines to songs with just a loop and a guitar. How does one even think up something like that? The man's talent is ridiculous.

So without further ado, I present to you Mr. Phil Keaggy.

Merry [CENSORED]!

2008-12-19T10:58:00.002-07:00

I stopped by Starbucks on my way to work this morning, and while ordering my drink I was witness to what, unfortunately, has become a common occurrence. The barista wished his patron a “Merry Christmas.” He immediately realized his error, apologized and extended the store-approved greeting, “Happy Holidays.” The “offended” patron was, of course, not offended in the least and expressed that he rather preferred the former greeting. This got me to thinking, just how many Americans are offended by “Merry Christmas?” Thankfully, the Internet knew the answer.

First, I wanted to know how many of us actually celebrate Christmas. A Google search showed that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Ninety-six percent! That’s 291,671,654 of us, compared to 12,152,985 who do not (based on July 2008 population est.). One might be tempted to think at this point that if 96% of the population celebrates Christmas, approximately 96% of the population would not be bothered by “Merry Christmas.” So I did a little more digging.

I next discovered a 2005 Gallup poll on this phenomenon. The poll focused on consumer reaction to retailer approaches concerning the holidays. Here are some of their results:

3% of respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”; 97% would not.
32% of respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings”; 68% would not.
5% of nonreligious respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”.
8% of non-Christians respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”.

Now, I’m no business owner, but looking at the Gallup data, I would assume the proper course of action would be to inform my employees to wish customers a merry Christmas! That way, I only run the risk of giving 3% of my customers a negative experience, versus 32% if I extend a generic holiday greeting. That is potentially a serious amount of cash money walking out the door.

So why do many businesses insist on banning “Merry Christmas?” I would have to assume that it’s due either to 1) their being caught up in a culture of extreme tolerance or 2) they don’t want to get sued. Regarding 1), this whole tolerance thing is getting a little out of hand. Let’s take an example. Say three people are in your store. Person A is offended by being told, “Merry Christmas.” Person B is offended by being told, “Happy Holidays.” Person C is offended when you don’t acknowledge the season at all. What are you as a store owner to do? No matter what, you will offend someone. How do you choose whom to offend? Or, conversely, to which person will you give preferential treatment? Using tolerance as the “gold standard” by which one acts leads to absurdities such as this. It is a poor foundation on which to build one’s life. The bottom line is, you can’t be tolerant of everyone all the time, so let us dispense with the notion once and for all. Regarding 2), what can I say? The few sue-happy activists are desperately trying to ruin things for us, and the judicial system is letting them. I suppose if I were a giant corporation with deep pockets like Starbucks, this might be sufficient motivation for me to ban “Merry Christmas” from my stores. Better to bother 32% of your customers whom you know won’t sue than tick off the one guy who will.

In the end, I suppose this is a pretty trivial matter. It doesn’t change the fact that 96% of us do celebrate Christmas, or that some of us even celebrate it for the right reason (by the way, it’s Jesus). But it does make me hang my head a bit and wonder how we even got to this point as a country.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Fear of the LORD

2008-11-14T15:08:00.006-07:00

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10 (NIV)

I'd never really come at this verse from a philosophical perspective, but for some reason I did this morning. Why is the fear of the LORD the beginning of wisdom? How is knowledge of the Holy One understanding? What's going on here, anyway? I began to think...

If we fear the LORD, if we have knowledge of the Holy One, then we have begun at the proper place. We have started our search for wisdom and understanding with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Those who fear the LORD find the foundation of their worldview rests on this statement. Whatever else that is deduced or induced comes from this fact.

Now a person can start at X and form a valid chain of arguments that lead to Y. The logic can be air-tight, and every counter-argument can be refuted soundly. But as we all know, if X itself is false, the rest of the argument is a moot point. If we start off with X = "In the beginning, God...", then we are not guaranteed to make it successfully to Y, but we are guaranteed that we have begun the journey well. We know that whatever wisdom or knowledge we desire, we cannot get it without first starting from "In the beginning, God..."

If, on the other hand, we start off with "In the beginning, God did not create the heavens and the earth", we have taken a wrong turn on the very first step of the journey. We base all our other knowledge on this statement that doesn't hold water, at least biblically speaking. We have started at the wrong X. This starting point may allow one to come very close to arriving at Y, but there will always be something...not quite right. There will be something lacking, something incomplete. The wisdom and understanding to be had from "In the beginning, God did not...", in the end, is not true wisdom, not true understanding. At best, it is an imitation, at worst, an abomination.

Not all paths lead up the mountain. It turns out this is because they don't all start at its base. They begin in the wrong place, and they lead in the wrong direction. A journey down these paths is doomed from the start. But there is one path that does start at the right place; it does lead in the right direction. And at the entrance of that path, a sign reads, "In the beginning, God..."

John Michael Crichton, 1942-2008

2008-11-05T19:08:00.002-07:00

I read the sad news today that Michael Crichton died of cancer Nov. 4. He was 66.

He was unique for me in that he topped an extremely short list of modern fiction writers whose books I would actually read. In fact, not long ago I read Airframe, a tale about the VP of Quality at an airplane manufacturer exposing a cover up. As I work in quality in the aviation industry, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Timeline, Congo, State of Fear, Jurassic Park, Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery--I read and enjoyed them all.

Rest in peace, Mr. Crichton.

In Memoriam*

Michael Crichton

1942 - 2008

Best-selling author Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, November 4, 2008 after a courageous and private battle against cancer.

While the world knew him as a great story teller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us -- and entertained us all while doing so -- his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes. He did this with a wry sense of humor that those who were privileged to know him personally will never forget.

Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand. He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he leaves behind the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire to understand, and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world.

Michael's family respectfully asks for privacy during this difficult time.

A private funeral service is expected, but no further details will be released to the public.

*taken from MichaelCrichton.net.

The Lost Art of Listening

2008-10-23T19:41:00.000-06:00

I have experienced several interesting encounters in the past month. The most recent of these encounters happened today. I was engaged in a class discussion on a very hot topic at the seminary. As the lone representative of the male gender in the discussion group, I was asked for my opinion, and I proceeded to give it. One member of the group, however, made several comments to me that indicated she was not so much listening as looking for ways to argue for her point. She made various assumptions about what I said that were simply not true, and to be honest, rather offensive. It was as if what I said was only useful to her if she could use it for her own purposes.

The second encounter I experienced was a few weeks ago, and it took place at a soiree for my wife's coworker. I met two gentlemen, one of whom was a pastor, and both of whom had attended Denver Seminary. Ah, I thought, these chaps will engage in good conversation with me. Huzzah! Unfortunately, this was not to be the case. The two gentlemen proceeded to wax theological to each other, pontificating and philosophizing, with each, I believe, attempting to impress the other with his knowledge and rhetorical skill. In fact, after the first few sentences, I was completely left out of the conversation, even though I would assume that I was their intellectual equal. After a while I just walked off, and neither one of them seemed to notice my absence.

These encounters got me to thinking--whatever happened to listening? I mean real, actual listening. The gentlemen at the soiree never bothered to stop talking for a moment, say, "Jon, as a fellow seminarian, what do you think about x?" and genuinely listen to my response (and one of them was a pastor!). The woman at class today only listened to me so she could make her point. If she cared at all about what I thought simply because I thought it, then it didn't come across. Whether these people intended it or not, they came across very selfish, inconsiderate and rude simply because they didn't listen to me. I certainly did not feel very valued as a person in these situations.

This is why I try very hard to listen. And it is hard work to listen. It is hard work to bite your tongue, to let your own agenda slide and affirm someone else. But when I keep my mouth shut, my agenda to myself and my ears open, I discover something--other people have good things to say, too! In fact, I can even learn from them! I can affirm them as persons of worth and become a better person myself.

I confess, though, that I am just a little selfish. I have a maxim that I follow, "Only speak when you have something to say." So, having politely listened to another person, when I do open my mouth, I expect the same courtesy. I expect to be listened to, to be valued as a person. I think this is what frustrates me so much about the opposite behavior. It can take me some time to think through what I am going to say. For someone then to disregard my words really irks me. It lets me know that I am better off saving my words for another occasion.

In any case, I relate these stories and thoughts to you in the hopes that you will consider your own habits. Do you listen well? Can you let go of your own agenda, ask someone a question and just sit back and listen? I can testify that there are people out there that just may be deeply appreciative of an open ear and a closed mouth, and you may learn a little bit more about the value of people, yourself.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. - Gen 1:27

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. - Jas 1:19, 26

Qwantz.com Takes on the Straw Man

2008-09-24T12:09:00.000-06:00

I recently stumbled upon a very interesting and weird comic strip called Dinosaur Comics. The graphics never change (yet still amuse me every time), only the words. One strip I saw today I felt was apropos for posting here for three reasons:

You learn about a logical fallacy.
It pokes fun at people who debate each other on the Internet. (Who, me?)
It achieves 1 and 2 in a funny way.

So without further ado, say hello to T-Rex, Dromiceiomimus and Utahraptor!

Security

2008-09-13T09:08:00.001-06:00

"For many people, money is their security." I heard a sermon on the radio the other day in which the pastor uttered this phrase. It got me to thinking. His point was that God should be our security, not money. After all, what is money? It’s just another version of “stuff”. If I just have enough stuff, then I’ll be fine. That sounds ludicrous even as I type it. I say I don’t believe it, but then again…Stuff is tangible. I can see and touch the things I own. God is spiritual; my knowledge of him is not empirical. Maybe that’s why idols were so prevalent in the Old and New Testaments. You could have this tangible thing, this piece of “stuff”, sitting on the shelf. Where’s God? Oh, he’s right over there, chillin’ in the corner.

I think that’s one reason why God commands us to give away the first portion of our income, why He wants us to give sacrificially. It forces us to decide where we will find our security—God or money. I looked at the amount we’ve given away for the year a few weeks back. Let me tell you, that figure would look awfully good in my savings account, with a baby on the way. Or it could have paid off a significant portion of debt. Or I could have invested it, started a college fund or any number of other things. But instead, we gave it away. The world would tell me that I am foolish, and I would probably agree with them. But then again…We still make ends meet every month. All the bills get paid in spite of the basic mathematical rules that tell me we won’t make it this time. Most importantly, I am happy. With every tithe check, I sign away my control over my money. I sign away the pressures of worrying about having enough. I become a steward of God’s money. If He wants me to pay all of my bills, then He makes sure that happens. If He wants me to be able to provide for my family, then He can do that, too. All I have to do is "manage the estate".

“For many people, money is their security.” That’s a battle I have to fight continually. Every payday, I face the decision: Will I write the check out this time? Will I let God be my security? Or will I hold on to my money--cling to my “stuff”?

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Matthew 6:24-25,32-33

Dangerous Mood - Keb' Mo'

2008-08-23T15:58:00.000-06:00

This installment of Culture Corner was an obvious choice. I had been trying to profile a song by this particular artist for a while, but I couldn't decide on which one. As soon as I heard "Dangerous Mood", though, I knew this was the song to introduce Keb' Mo' to the Tiger.

Keb' Mo' exemplifies the slow, southern blues style pioneered by Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and pretty much everyone Kenny Wayne Shepherd visited back in 2004. His skills on the guitar are amazing. He doesn't have the sheer speed a la Chris Duarte, but every note he plays is filled with emotion--his guitar tells its own story, lyrics notwithstanding. He also brings a deep, soulful voice to his masterful guitar playing. He has that one-two knock-out punch that most of us only dream of possessing.

And remember, if you enjoy this song half as much as I do, then I had twice as much fun as you.

The Big Bad Wolf

2008-08-20T20:03:00.001-06:00

The best Christmas present I ever received was given to me by my wife last year.* It was the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. (Why yes, I am a nerd; how could you tell?) It is a great introduction to philosophy by two of the best Christian thinkers today. One of the best features of the book is that each chapter contains a reference list of additional, more in-depth resources. As I was perusing these bibliographies last night, I came across http://www.philcristi.org. This is the website for the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which is "an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy." I have not had the chance to perform and in-depth review of this website, but I have linked to it on this blog for that purpose. I have managed to read one particular article, however, which I felt was definitely blog-worthy. It is an article entitled "The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design: A Review of Richard Dawkins', The God Delusion" by Peter S. Williams.

Although I have not read Dawkin's book, it is obvious that Williams has, and meticulously. In his lengthy review (15 pages, but I would urge you, if interested, to read all of it), Williams dissects Dawkin's arguments for atheism and naturalism and against theism and the Intelligent Design theory. Williams gives a very fair critique. Not only does he point out areas of weakness, but he also points out areas in which Dawkins is right on the money. Probably the most interesting point found in the review is Dawkin's support of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with it, but he does state that if an intelligent designer did leave marks of design in the universe, such marks would be subject to scientific scrutiny in theory, if not in fact. Dawkins also correctly notes that certain scientific disciplines such as archaeology already employ the concepts of Intelligent Design--the problem comes when those concepts are introduced into biology. Williams rightly praises Dawkins for this understanding, while also critiquing him for poisoning the well by "tendentiously talking about 'Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America' and 'creationist Michael Behe.'"

Williams goes on to discuss many other aspects of the book, and for time's sake I cannot repeat them all here. His review is, however, a great read for one interested in understanding better the philosophy that lies behind modern science.

*I expect to receive a much better present this year, though.

Dihydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

2008-08-08T10:41:00.000-06:00

My mom forwarded this video to me this past week. I immediately knew that I had to post it, since it so accurately describes my own view on "saving the environment". Penn and Teller's adept social commentary shows the dangers of 1) being so consumed by a cause that the ends justify the means and 2) not educating oneself properly.

I actually did this same thing back in college. I posted a petition outside my dorm room as a joke, and I even got a few signatures--including the RD, who signed his name along with a message instructing me to take it down. (I'm pretty sure he thought it was funny, though.)

Enjoy!

Come Alive - Foo Fighters

2008-07-07T16:24:00.003-06:00

When Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side, a large crowd gathered around Him; and so He stayed by the seashore. One of the synagogue officials named Jairus came up, and on seeing Him, fell at His feet and implored Him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live." And He went off with him; and a large crowd was following Him and pressing in on Him...

...They came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?" But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid any longer, only believe." And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. They came to the house of the synagogue official; and He saw a commotion, and people loudly weeping and wailing. And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep." They began laughing at Him. But putting them all out, He took along the child's father and mother and His own companions, and entered the room where the child was. Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!"). Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded.

Change? Ya Got Change, Mister?

2008-06-06T14:15:00.000-06:00

I am fairly apolitical, but even rather apathetic souls like me notice politics every now and again, whether we want to or not. In case you forgot, there is a presidential election this fall, and I live in Denver, home to the 2008 Democratic Convention. So I pretty much can't escape politics, no matter how hard I try. (And I try hard.) So since I can't escape it, I will write a rare blog on the subject.

My curiosity was piqued when I heard on the radio that a few days ago, both Obama and McCain gave campaign speeches, in which they used the word "change" a combined 57 times. As I recall from past elections, this is not atypical. Every candidate wants "change". My amorphous curiosity began to formulate into a thought as a result of a discussion I had in class this morning on the difference between change and transformation. Change can be good or bad, directed or undirected. Change is inevitable. In some sense, it just is. Transformation, however, involves change for a purpose. It is based on values; it is always directed. Transformation doesn't just happen.

This put the current election "change propaganda" into a bit clearer light for me. Both major candidates want change. What do they want to change? Does Obama want to paint the White House pink? Does McCain want to raise taxes on llama sales? I'm sure you politics junkies out there know much more than I do, but I submit that the only major change either candidate wants is to have the word "President" before his name and not Bush's. Do they really want change, or will they keep 99% of the status quo, because the status quo brought them into power and keeps them there?

Neither candidate will question the validity of an economy that requires a "working poor" class to survive. Neither candidate will abolish the IRS and mandate that congress stop spending $13,000 for a toilet seat. Neither candidate would say, "Welfare isn't working--so we're going to phase it out and get out of the way of charities and religious trying to help the less fortunate." Neither candidate will say, "America needs to repent of its sin and return to the God of the Bible." Whether you agree with the above statements or not (and I will not allow arguing over the specifics; they are merely examples with which I myself may or may not agree), these are examples of real change.

But why would these men really challenge the system that brought them this far?

Colorado Senate Bill 200

2008-05-31T07:28:00.002-06:00

On Friday, Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) signed into law Senate Bill 200, which is a revision of a previous anti-discrimination law. Opponents of the bill, led by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, argued that it would allow for any transgender man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa at all public places (including schools), and that proprietors have no legal recourse. Furthermore, any proprietor who tries to prevent this behavior would find himself or herself sitting in jail for a year. I have to admit, legalizing such a specific law on who can use which bathrooms with such a stringent penalty seemed like an awfully silly thing to do. So I found the text of the law (hyperlinked above) and read it for myself.

What I found was interesting. The existing law made acts of discrimination with respect to housing practices, public places (not including churches), publication of written or other materials, and so on, illegal. A majority of what was changed was the addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes’ characteristics, which already included race, religion, ethnicity and the like. SB 200 basically says, “You can’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.” I would wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, it is wrong to discriminate against anyone, and as a follower of Christ, why would I do that anyway?

The section about which Focus on the Family took issue was Section 6: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, which reads in part (I have emboldened relevant text):

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of
public accommodation

From this reading, it does seem like Focus has a valid argument. If someone is transgendered, then he/she legally could use the bathroom he/she finds most applicable, right? Wrong. Take a look at part of Section 7: Penalty and Civil Liability (again, relevant text is emboldened):

Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to
any citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every
disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in
said section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved

Apparently Dr. Dobson didn’t read this particular clause. With respect to the bathroom issue, I would think that the age-old gender division of bathrooms would be a perfect example of an exemption of this type. All citizens of the country understand that their bathroom choice in a public place is based on their physical “plumbing” as it were. That is how society functions, regardless of one’s creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. The intent of this law, therefore, was not to allow for crazy bathroom switching but to protect a group of people from discrimination.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. I could be mistaken with my interpretation. Maybe she-males are secretly plotting how they are going to infiltrate men’s restrooms around the state. I would encourage you, therefore, to read SB 200 yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

"Then Who Can Be Saved?"

2008-05-24T09:59:00.000-06:00

I have begun the arduous task of preparing for my doctrinal oral examination next Spring. Basically, at Denver Seminary, in order to successfully complete the M.Div. program, one must write a somewhat lengthy paper summing up his or her theological beliefs and then defend those beliefs orally (and without notes) in front of a pair of professors. Fun, right? It is, however, an excellent chance to go back and think hard about the entire spectrum of theology and really nail down (at least for now) what I believe.

I am working through the topic of general revelation at present (that is, what God has revealed to us through nature, history, etc.), and the topic of salvation came up. Namely, can a person be accepted as a true believer if he or she has never heard of Jesus? Some would say, No, a person cannot be saved without a knowledge of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, through a human instrument (Rom 10:9-14). One must confess that Jesus is Lord, and how can a person know that if it is not told to him or her? Others say, Yes, a person can be saved without such knowledge. They believe that, just like the saints of the Old Testament, if a person has faith in God to the extent that his or her knowledge will allow, then he or she can be saved in Christ, even without knowing the object of their salvation (Hebrews 11, the famous "by faith" chapter).

Now the debate is much more complex than what I have represented here, but my view is this: I would maintain that it is possible for a person, never having heard the name of Christ, to be saved. The linchpin of the argument for me is the Old Testament saints. They had faith and were justified by it. They knew that Messiah was to come, but they did not know who it would be. Likewise, a person in a currently "unreached" area of the world, if they had faith in God based on what had been revealed to him or her from nature, would have a similar faith as OT saints (admittedly, with a much lesser degree of knowledge). What about Paul's comments in Romans 10? It seems to me that Paul was primarily exhorting his readers to spreading the gospel and not making an exclusive theological claim. That being said, before you burn me as a heretic, hear me out. I did not say that such a route to salvation would be easy. I expect that it would be nearly impossible for a person to respond with saving faith to general revelation. However, in Matt 19, Jesus speaks about the rich getting into heaven being similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle. "Then who can be saved?" the disciples ask. He responds, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Likewise, it may be impossible by our reckoning for a person who has not heard of Christ to be saved. However, let's face it: As an American, I am rich, and I have faith in Christ. With God all things are possible.

One final caveat: I do believe that a person who has heard the name of Christ is now responsible to come under His lordship. Therefore, the preceding paragraphs are a moot point for many, if not a majority of, people today.

So now I pose the same question to you: Must a person hear the name of Christ proclaimed in order to be saved? I have given my argument briefly. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. You never know, with a good enough argument, you might even change my mind...

Philosophy of Evangelism and Discipleship

2008-05-23T08:43:00.001-06:00

Today's entry is a slightly modified essay I wrote for a class this past semester. I thought it was one of the better pieces I had written in a while, so I'm posting it. I hope you enjoy it, and any feedback is appreciated, as always.

Evangelism and discipleship are two ideas that have been used and abused by many in the church. Just recently, in fact, Iived a link to a YouTube video from a friend of mine. A prominent youth speaker was telling a stadium full of students about a youth group that had attended one of his previous retreats. The youth group had put up poster boards in the youth room with the names of every student, teacher and administrator in their high school. Within three months, they had given the gospel presentation to everyone in their school (he did not say how many, if any, of these people accepted Christ). The speaker then asked the audience who had had a one-on-one conversation about Jesus with someone in the past two days. Only four had. This, he stated, was the problem with Christianity. Many Christians’ view of evangelism and discipleship, in my opinion, is the same as this man’s, and I believe it is harmful. What is so harmful about this belief? It presents “cold” evangelism as the only viable option. This approach also relies on guilt as a motivator. Furthermore, it completely neglects the idea of relationship and prefers to treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. It is against this type of view that I must stand.

In order to understand evangelism and discipleship correctly, we must look at the ideas behind these concepts. In the New Testament, the idea of salvation has past, present and future implications. Those who profess faith in Christ have been saved (Luke 7:50), are being saved (1 Co 1:18) and will be saved (Matt 10:22). This tri-fold usage of salvation terminology shows that it is a journey. Being evangelized is one of the first steps of that journey, followed by a period when one accepts Christ, followed by discipleship. Evangelism and discipleship, then, are not so much two separate entities but different stages of the same journey.

It is imperative to understand that we are all on a journey somewhere. We who have Jesus are not the sole arbiters of truth and goodness, although we know the One who is True and Good. We also know that the One in question created all men, women and children in His own image. He loves them because He created them in His image. As Christians, we must remember, then, that we, too, should love—really love—our fellow humans because God loves them and they are worthy of love. This doesn’t mean that they are not sinners going down the path to destruction, but it does mean that as we evangelize them we do so with respect. In the case of the students sharing the gospel with everyone in school, I wonder with how much respect this was done. I suspect that it was a well-intentioned project—let’s fix as many of them as we can. What if each of the students had committed instead to deepen one relationship? What good might have come out of that, even if the sheer number of people “touched” is much lower?

This is a hard concept for many of us in the West to grasp, where our idea of success involves quantitative elements. A church with 10,000 attendees must be successful, right? What about my church, that has around 20 regular attendees? Well, bless them, they’re sure trying. I would submit that both quantitative and qualitative elements must be taken into consideration with evangelism and discipleship. There are surely those with the gift of evangelism who can bring the masses to Christ. Most of us do not fall into this category. Some of us even seem always to get the seeds that have fallen to the side of the road (cf. Jesus’ parable in Matt 13)—a lot of sowing, not much reaping. At my church, we pray for both numerical and spiritual growth. I think this balance is a key when discussing evangelism and discipleship.

So, then, what is our ultimate role as Christians, if it is not to tell everyone we meet about Jesus? In a moment, I will argue that this question is not the appropriate one to ask. First, though, we must remember what Jesus said when asked about a person’s ultimate role. In Matt 22, a lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. In his famous response, Jesus states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (vv.37-39). Jesus said we are to love God and love people. Every action we take, every conversation or thought we have, should tie back into loving God and loving people. This is the heart of discipleship: Tying our life into these two commandments. When Jesus later gives the Great Commission in Matt 28, he instructs us to go “and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (vv.19-20). As we go, we must remember to “go” in such a way that we love God and love people. This is the heart of evangelism: Spreading the gospel in love.

Now, let us return to the above question. Does making disciples of all the nations equate to telling everyone we meet about Christ? Or does it rather mean working the gospel within the relationships we have? Perhaps circumstance plays a part in determining this, but I would say that the more loving route would typically be the latter. The question Should I tell everyone I meet about Jesus? should be replaced in our hearts and minds with the question How can I love God and people as I spread the gospel? This is the key question for us to ask as we consider evangelism and discipleship.

Having theorized sufficiently, I will now turn to how I practically apply my philosophy in ministry. First and foremost, as with any aspect of ministry, I believe prayer must be central. James 5:16 states, “The effective prayer of a righteous person can accomplish much.” Although I need much work in my own prayer life, I am firmly committed to the idea that prayer must serve as the foundation for all ministry, including evangelism and discipleship. Second, I highly emphasize growing relationships. There are people in my own circle of friends with whom I actively try to cultivate deeper relationships. As a non-Christian example, I have a friend named (Mr. X). I have shared the gospel presentation with him, we have debated the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture and we have generally talked a great deal about religion and philosophy. He knows my worldview, and I know his. He is not currently a follower of Christ. I have learned that I cannot convert him—that is a decision between God and him—and I have accepted that. What I can do is be his friend and listen to him respectfully. He knows I am a trusted confidant, and I know that I am showing him Christ’s love. In the discipleship arena, I can mention (Mrs. Y). (Mrs. Y) comes to me with questions about the Bible and faith. Again, listening is the key. She says that she learns a lot from me, but the truth is, she is working out her own thoughts and ideas through verbalization. In addition to prayer and cultivating relationships, evangelism and discipleship in my ministry involves waiting on the Spirit to work. Again, in the case of (Mr. X), I have been waiting years for him to become more open to the gospel message. God’s timing, though, is not my own (2 Pt 3:9; Ps 90:4). We do not live in a sitcom, where everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes’ time. In the same manner, with (Mrs. Y), as it is with me, growth takes time. Evangelism and discipleship timelines may need to be expressed in years or decades—a thought that we who live in a fast-paced society ought not to forget.

I have in this essay juxtaposed two very different methods of evangelism and discipleship. On the one hand, there is the common method of guilt-induced programs that treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. On the other hand, there is the less common method of forming real relationships with people, loving and respecting them because they are intrinsically valuable to God. I cannot say that this method is always—or ever—easy, fun and clean (there are no neat and tidy checklists to go down), but I must say that it is the method to which I adhere. I hope you will, too.

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Disturbing Trends in Global Climate...Reporting

2008-04-22T13:58:00.000-06:00

Monday, June 24, 1974. Time magazine publishes an article on drastic climate changes that are beginning to take place around the globe. It just might be the beginnings of a “climatic upheaval”. Yes, it is the worst fate imaginable come to life: Global cooling.

That’s right. Just 34 years ago, climatologists were worried sick that another ice age would wreak havoc on the earth and its population. The mean global temperature had dropped an estimated 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1940s. Snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere was advancing aggressively with no signs of stopping. Migratory patterns of the armadillo were changing. All of the signs pointed toward a disastrous drop in global temperature that would decimate the world’s population.

If you read the article, you will no doubt notice that if Time wanted to cut its number of staff writers down, they could substitute global-warming terminology for every reference to global cooling/ice ages and have an article that could be published today, Earth Day 2008, and no one would be the wiser.

Does anyone else take issue with this? Three decades ago, the media were convinced that we would all die in snowy graves. Now they are convinced that we will turn our world into a raging funeral pyre. What will they be convinced of in another thirty years? Global steadiness? I wonder what that article will look like…

Thursday, April 22, 2038. In Russia, crops are growing. In Ethiopia, herds of
cows are strong. At the UN, climatologists gather for the annual UN
Environmental Impact Conference. They are worried that there have not been
the characteristic climate swings the past ten to twenty years. “Normally,
we would expect various rising and cooling trends over the course of a decade or
two. We have not been seeing this—the global climate is at a standstill,”
said Swedish climatologist Soren Kiergestol. “This could wreak havoc on
our environment—it needs climatic diversity to thrive. Humankind must
intervene in order to save our planet…”

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse: Activist Actor Makes Poignant Observation

2008-04-19T15:00:00.001-06:00

I have just a few minutes between ripping up the tile in my kitchen and going to church--time enough for a quick post.

Today's subject is Tim Robbins. Now normally, one of my main life axioms is, "Don't put too much stock on anything actors or musicians say about subjects other than acting and music." So goes with Mr. Robbins, who is a bit extreme for my tastes. However, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, and our nut Tim actually makes a pretty good point about television, quoted here at length with commentary from article writer Kevin Sites:

As the keynote speaker at the recent National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference in Las Vegas, the actor and activist decried today's news and entertainment content as driven by a "pornographic obsession with celebrity culture."

"We love distraction," he said, reading from a speech the organizers reportedly tried to talk him out of giving. "I don't know about you, but show me a starlet without panties getting out of a car, and suddenly the world seems like a better place. Show me 'Knight Rider' drunk on the floor eating a hamburger, and I won't ask why my kid has no health insurance. Let's stop burdening people with facts."

A few people walked out, but Robbins finished to a standing ovation. And regardless of opinions, he did succeed in raising a powerful question, made more poignant by the acres of gadgets on the exhibit floor: Why, in an era of mind blowing media technological advances, does good content sometimes seem to lag so far behind?

Why, indeed?

Wow, A Whole Month.

2008-04-15T13:54:00.000-06:00

So I just realized it's been exactly a month since I last posted. I give my readers my most sincere apologies. I bought a house last month, in the process enduring the worst closing ever. Maybe I will talk about that later. That sucked the life right out of my wife and me. And now, of course, we are working on fixing all of the things that need it. I will try to get back to regular posting as soon as I can, but until then, I ask for your patience.

Thanks,
Jon

Handlebars - Flobots

2008-03-15T13:51:00.002-07:00

So this edition of Culture Corner is...a little different. I heard a song called "Handlebars" on the radio a few weeks back that really caught my attention. It's from a Denver band called the Flobots. The song and accompanying video really speak to the evil that humans can do to one another. The song captures the depravity of sin, thereby helping us to understand how necessary and effectual Jesus' death on the cross really was and is. If you choose to listen to the song and watch the video posted below, then, I urge you to think about what you are hearing and seeing through the lens of the gospel. Think about what redemption really means. Think about the work of the Holy Spirit. Think about God's amazing love. Think about what you can do to enlarge His kingdom.

On Biblical Inerrancy.

2008-03-04T13:25:00.001-07:00

I have a friend who recently asked me how I would defend inerrancy of the original biblical manuscripts. Namely, this friend was looking for me to speak to how we can be assured that when God spoke to humans in ages past, those humans got it down on paper right the first time? That's a pretty good question, and my simple response is I don't know. I have posted my response below, in hopes that some of you out there might be able to add to this discussion. Both my friend (who reads this blog) and I would love your input.

...in the end, Christianity is a matter of faith. There is no way to be 100% sure about the question you are asking. I have found, though, that there is really no way to be 100% sure about much of anything in this life. I have a friend who wants to have everything all figured out before he makes any major life decisions, and as a result, he’s a college-educated and very smart and talented guy working in retail, making very little money and generally not doing much with his life. This does not negate the fact that he is a good friend and a great guy (and I'm not trying to say there is anything wrong with working in retail), but it does exemplify that having all one’s ducks in a row before one begins a life journey, commits to a worldview, etc, is neither possible nor a good idea. There is a very real and necessary element of taking a long, hard look at your options, making the best decision you can based on what you know at the time, and then, well, having faith that you made the right call. (That is my own personal definition of wisdom, by the way.)

So what are we to do, then, with the issue of the transmission of God’s word from God to humans? First, I don’t know why there have not been as many questions raised about this as have been raised about subsequent transmission of that word, so I am of no help to you there. I’m sure somebody somewhere has written about this. Maybe Dr. _______ would know. I email him occasionally and always get a quick response. But moving on…

The idea that God spoke to humans in history is unique (especially for present-day Westerners like us) in several ways. Let me expound. First, the very idea that God, if He exists at all, would actually interact with humans in time and space does not bode well with most people’s world view. Second, the question you raise is a historical and not scientific one, which again poses problems. To understand what I mean, let’s look at something Francis Schaeffer called the “fact-value dichotomy”. Simply put, since about 1850 science has defined itself as the study of natural things in a closed system. That is, science repeatedly tests things to confirm or deny hypotheses, and it allows no room for supernatural activity. Science has also claimed “truth” as its own and banished religion, values, etc, into the realm of relativity. You know, “That’s true for you but not for me” type stuff. Given that, how do we Westerners gage the truth of something? That’s right, through science! But wait, science does not allow for God. In addition, God speaking to a person in the past is not a repeatable event, so it cannot be tested scientifically. So, given that science=truth, there is no way to “know” 1) that God spoke to someone in the past, and therefore 2) that the person in question copied it down correctly. Because of the arbitrary restrictions we have placed on knowledge, there is no way for us to verify (or deny, a point that many people miss) the answer to your question. Our worldview, in effect, has bound us rather than made us free.

So to ask your question from a scientific point of view does us no good. Thankfully, there are other ways to look at the issue. I prefer to look at this issue as one part of the whole. That is, the foundation of my faith is made up of many different arguments and ideas. Now, if I were to take the question of original inspiration by itself, it is useful in pondering and working through the issue. If I make this issue the crux that makes or breaks my faith, then of course I will develop serious doubts! But if I research this question, all the while with the other arguments for faith in the back of my mind (things like fulfilled Messianic prophecy, events in my own life that lend credence to biblical teachings, and so on), then even if at the end of the day, I don’t have a good answer, my faith is not likely to waiver due to the preponderance of other evidence.

So to make a long answer longer, I don’t have a good answer for you on your original question. Again, I would suggest emailing Dr. _______ for much better insight than I could give. At the same time, though, there is enough other evidence supporting what I believe that I can live with a little faith in this area. This probably sounds like a total cop-out, but I do not mean it to be. What I do mean is there will always be mysteries, things you have to take on faith. You investigate and question those as best you can, but sometimes you have to live without knowing the answer for a little while. For instance, I’m buying a house. I have an idea of what homeownership is like, but I don’t know and can’t know what it is like short of owning a house. I have to have faith that I can handle the responsibility, that my house won’t be a money pit, etc. But I have done careful financial planning, I have researched basic home repairs, Jessica and I have discussed this a lot, and I am comfortable knowing that we are making the right decision, even if I at the same time I am a little scared that we won’t be able to make it work! But I’m still buying that house.

I hope this somewhat lengthy but probably inadequate response at least will serve to help you out a little.

On Giving.

2008-02-16T11:36:00.001-07:00

I have come to the conclusion that the most spiritual thing I do is giving. It's not praying, or reading the Bible, witnessing or anything else. Giving, for me, encompasses so much more.

When my wife and I were first married, money was very tight. To be honest, we didn't have enough to cover the basics. Unfortunately, we had to buy groceries and pay some bills on credit. It wasn't the best financial policy, but when one's other option is going without food and shelter, well, them's the breaks. As you can imagine, paying the bills was not a pleasant experience, and we were remiss to part with our money. In the middle of this, of course, I felt that we needed to tithe. I reasoned that being faithful to God was more important than amassing more debt. I was putting obedience over the basic needs of life, potentially. It was not an easy decision for us to make, but it was something I felt we needed to do.

What happened next was a truly spiritual event. I wrote the first tithe check. Even as I wrote it out, I felt all of the financial pressure I had been under melt away. I had effectively removed myself from the driver's seat; I was telling God that He was now in control of my finances. I was free. Free from worry, free from doubt. I knew that God would provide.

I wish I could say that we got a check in the mail for thrice the amount we gave the next day, but we didn't. (This did happen to us recently, though.) We didn't magically get out of debt through a clerical error in our favor. We still had to struggle to pay the bills. The act of giving up control, though, changed everything for me. No longer did I live under the tyranny of the present. No longer did I have to white-knuckle every last dollar before sending it to a creditor. I simply paid the bills as best as I could, and trusted God.

In the long run, God has provided. I do not tithe, have not tithed and will not tithe so that I will be blessed; I tithe because I want to be obedient to God. God, however, out of His mercy, has blessed us. Since beginning tithing, we have both become gainfully employed, we have implemented and maintained successfully an aggressive debt-reduction plan, and we have even been able to afford decent transportation and a roof over our head, all without having used a credit card in well over a year. This is much more than we expected or deserved. Every day, I see God blessing us financially, and I must assume it is at least in part because we have been obedient to Him.

Even if He chooses henceforth not to bless us materially, though, I will still give faithfully. "Though He slay me, yet I will hope in Him." For me, giving is about submitting to His Lordship. If in His wisdom, He allows us to lose everything, I will submit. If He allows us material riches beyond imagination, I will submit. If He just gives me joy living in a regular house with my family, I will submit.

All because of writing one check.

Book Alert - Rediscovering Paul.

2008-02-09T16:02:00.000-07:00

I discovered this morning at the seminary bookstore that one of my old college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves, has just co-authored a new book on Paul, entitled, appropriately enough, Rediscovering Paul.

According to the dust jacket, it is meant as a textbook for undergraduates, but seminary students would also benefit from it.

Here's a description of the book from Amazon.com:

For some of us, the apostle Paul is like a distant uncle. We've heard he's pretty important. We've read the good parts of his letters. But sometimes he comes across as prickly and unpredictable. Not someone you'd like to hang out with at a coffee shop. He'd raise his voice, try to convert the barista, and we'd want to slink out the back door. For a mid-afternoon latte, we'd prefer Jesus over Paul. But actually, this is the guy who, from Ephesus to Athens, was the talk of the marketplace and the raconteur of the Parthenon. Maybe it's time to give Paul a break, let go of some stereotypes and try to get to know him on his own terms. If that's where you are, Rediscovering Paul is your guide. This is a book that helps us find Paul again--holding forth in the marketplace of Corinth, working with a secretary in framing his letter to the Romans, or pastoring the messy emerging churches of Philippi and Thessalonica. Drawing on the best of contemporary scholarship, honed by teaching and conversing with today's students, Rediscovering Paul is a textbook that rises above the rest.

Unfortunately, I can't claim that I have read it and it's the greatest book ever, but I did sit under Dr. Reeves, and he is definitely an expert on Paul. And another New Testament expert, Dr. Craig Blomberg, was kind enough to write a blurb for it, as well. Considering these two men are two of my favorite professors of all-time, it's enough for me to want to read the book. And if I ever finish all of my required reading, I shall...

Cake, Anyone?

2008-02-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

I hate to harp on subjects unnecessarily, but I must go back to the dichotomy of faith and reason. I have had several conversations and have read several blogs generally dealing with this theme lately, and it reminded me of a point I was probably going to make some time ago.* It goes something like this…

In the ongoing battle over God’s existence, evidence for Christianity, etc, there are typically two camps. In one camp is the Christian who says that there is plenty of evidence for his or her belief in God and such. In the other camp is the non-Christian who says there is no evidence for this kind of thing (or the evidence points in the other direction). The stage is set; the debate continues ad infinitum.

There are good and bad arguments on both sides, but I want to look at one in particular. This is the argument that there is no “scientific” evidence for God or faith, so therefore these things cannot be true. Now, if one believes in a unified theory of truth, that all areas of study can touch each other, that there is Truth that transcends categories, in that case we have an argument. But if one believes in the fact-value dichotomy, we have a problem. Since we humans have apparently decided that science is and should be separate from religion now and forever, then let us dispense with the argument that a belief in God is false for scientific reasons. In a fact-value dichotomy, there is no true or false in the realm of values. True and false become meaningless terms. Science becomes useless in matters of faith. Likewise, faith becomes useless in matters of science.

Whether or not this dichotomy is the actual state of affairs in the universe is extraneous for the current discussion. The point I wish to make is this: If you adhere to such a worldview, you limit yourself a priori from arguing against God, Christianity, etc, by using evidence (or a lack thereof) as a criterion. In a fact-value dichotomy, there can be no evidence for or against faith. It is entirely subjective. You can, therefore, never claim that Christianity is wrong—or right. Any such statement is mere emotivism, or at best, relativism.

I suppose I see this issue surface the most with the evolution debate. Purported evidence is presented against a Christian worldview (namely, that God created the universe with purpose), and this is labeled science. When purported evidence is presented arguing for a Christian worldview, this is labeled as pseudoscientific garbage not worth the paper and ink expended upon it.

It brings to mind the old adage, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

*This is in no way directed at anyone personally.

Freedom of Thought.

2008-02-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite things about Denver Seminary is captured well by the words of long-time administrator Vernon Grounds: "Freedom to think within the limits laid down by Scripture." This statement is incarnated by the mix of professors and students who make up the seminary.

In my seminary career, I have become friends with and learned under people with beliefs ranging the evangelical spectrum (and even some outside of evangelicalism *gasp!*). I have had a class with a dyed-in-the-wool Republican professor, only to go directly to my next class, taught by a registered Democrat with Liberation theological leanings. I have fellowshipped with students who were tee-totaling business entrepreneurs and anti-capitalist beer connoisseurs. Some refuse to patronize Wal-Mart, some (like me) worked for them.

Though not always a Utopia, I have enjoyed my time at the seminary, and a lot of that is due to this reason. I enjoy the eclectic mix of theology and politics, because it forces me constantly to evaluate my own beliefs. And I can assure you, those who doggedly hold on to shoddy ideas in such an arena are probably not engaged.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs in Christendom, some good, some not so good. I have learned that there are a lot more good ones than I thought. "Freedom to think within the limits laid down by Scripture" enables us (well, most of us) to dialogue respectfully with those who may view things differently, while at the same time moving forward singularly toward our goal of glorifying God.

And that is a very refreshing thing.*

*I should note that this has been my own experience. There are students who have had quite different experiences, and I do not presume to speak for them.

Thoughts on Thoughts.

2008-01-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse...Blaise Pascal, Pensees (236/578)

When we are accustomed to use the wrong reasons to prove natural phenomena, we are no longer ready to accept the right ones when they are discovered...ibid. (736/96)

Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it. ibid. (739/864)

We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:6

Life After People

2008-01-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

This past Monday, the History Channel premiered a documentary entitled Life After People. Using computer graphics, the show displayed what would happen to the world if every person suddenly disappeared. While of course it cannot be said to be 100% accurate, it was an educated guess at what would happen. This much, however, is clear: Our earthly legacy is frighteningly fragile. Within a few hundred years, most of what we have accomplished would be gone without a trace. Houses would collapse and be covered by vegetation, bridges would fall, media of all types would be eaten away by the elements. A traveler to such an earth might find Mt. Rushmore, or the pyramids, and wonder who made them and why (but after a few million years, even these too would be gone). The traveler would not find my car, my house, my bank account. This is my earthly legacy: A few hundred years of evidence that I existed, if I am lucky.

This is what the world tell us is valuable: Money, power, possessions. Money, the show did not mention, will disappear as soon as we do. Power saves no one from the grave. Possessions are just as useless and temporal.

God tells us that doing His will is valuable. He tells us that our true treasures are stored in Heaven; they are eternal. Caring for widows and orphans. Making disciples of all men and women. Serving the timeless God. The world doesn't understand, but the effects of these actions will last long after all else is gone.

"Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." Matthew 7:24-27

Media Reality.

2008-01-16T17:06:00.000-07:00

"Remember: they make the rules. And the game's got nothing to do with accuracy, or the facts, or reality. It's just a circus."

She wasn't going to argue with him. She petted the dog.

"Fact is," Amos said, "everything's changing. Used to be--in the old days--the media image roughly corresponded to reality. But now it's all reversed. The media image is the reality, and by comparison day-to-day life seems to lack excitement. So now day-to-day life is false, and the media image is true. Sometimes I look around my living room, and the most real thing in the room is the television. It's bright and vivid, and the rest of my life looks drab. So I turn the damn thing off. That does it every time. Get my life back."

Taken from Airframe by Michael Crichton, p. 341.

The Tiger's Playground.

2008-01-14T21:26:00.000-07:00

If one blog is good, two must be better, right? Right. So I started a second blog, The Tiger's Playground. As the name suggests, this is a site where I can write about, well, whatever comes into my head. I will still definitely maintain TGMB as my primary blog, but every so often I get an idea in my head that doesn't deal with theology, philosophy, culture or music (yes, I am surprised, too), and I wanted an avenue of expression for such ideas.

Who knows what will end up on the Playground. I sure don't. So if you want to read something serious and thought-provoking, check out TGMB. If you are in the mood from something of the genre "weird", try the Playground.

Conversion.

2008-01-13T08:46:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading a book on Christian conversion for a class that I will be taking in the Spring. This books highlights nicely what I have come to believe over the course of my life: Conversion is, for many people, not a simple, one-time event. Though there are certain things that all conversions have in common, the timeframe can be an instant or a decade. Furthermore, for those of us who had a gradual conversion, we may not be able to say with certainty the moment in time we "switched sides" (perhaps it was not even a temporal event at all?).

I illustrate this with a common occurrence at the church I attended as a youth. Immediately after opening announcements and a song or two, we were instructed to greet those sitting near us. This was a tall order for us introverts. Sometimes, in an attempt to help generate conversation, we were asked to tell one another when our "spiritual birthday" was. This rather cheesy term referred to the moment in time we were "saved" (never mind that in addition to the past tense [we were saved], there are present tense [we are being saved] and future tense [we will be saved] descriptions of salvation in the Bible). Many people spouted off the date in question instantly. March 21, 1974. September 4, 1992. I always responded with, "I don't know." I always felt a little guilty about this. After all, If I don't know my spiritual birthday, how can I know I'm saved?

As a five- or-six-year-old, I made a decision to accept Jesus and got baptized. Of course, I was a small child, so I didn't fully understand the implications behind this act. Over the next ten years, there were several important events in my life that were relevant to my spiritual condition. Even as a veteran seminary student, there was a particular series of events that perhaps has had the most impact on me spiritually. My relationship with God changed drastically (for the better).

So when was I saved? When did I cross over? When I was five? When I was 25? I can't really answer that question, and I'm not even sure that it has an answer. The only thing I can say with certainty is

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

Weddings and Divorces.

2008-01-07T16:07:00.000-07:00

Today is Jessica's and my second wedding anniversary. As I was driving home to pick up a card for my wife, I was alerted by the radio that today is also National Divorce Day, although I have not been able to verify this claim. Regardless, I listened to several callers talk with a divorce specialist about why they wanted a divorce. One woman was cheated on by her husband, but still loved him dearly. He loved her with "98%" of his heart. On the other end of the spectrum, another woman, as far as I could tell, just didn't want to be married anymore (and she seemed pretty nonchalant about the whole thing). She guessed that maybe her husband knew this, but she hadn't bothered to tell him yet.

These two cases angered and saddened me, especially today. When I stood at the altar of the church two years ago, I made a commitment before our God, our families and our friends to my wife that I would honor, respect and love her forever. Though I am not perfect, that is what I attempt to do every day. It angers and saddens me to see people tearing down what I am attempting to build up. I understand that there are certainly times when one should pursue a divorce (even Jesus said as much), but that doesn't mean it is any less damaging to its participants. I also understand that being divorced doesn't make one a bad person, but it does make one a hurt person.

Well, my wife just got home from work, so I must end this post. And honey, I'm looking forward to at least 58 more years!

Mainstream Media - Jon LaJoie

2008-01-03T15:54:00.000-07:00

Sometimes other people express ideas much better than I can, although those people are still usually named Jon.

The Legend of Christmas

2007-12-19T20:49:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time two thousand years ago, or so legend has it, in a little town of Bethlehem, a baby was born. Pure and innocent, the baby was wrapped in pure white swaddling clothes that smelled like fresh lemon and laid in a pristine manger in a well-kept and sanitary barn, because there was no room for his family in the local inn. The very night of his birth, the baby was visited by three wise men from Afar. They presented him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And there were some animals and angels in there somewhere, too. Oh, and shepherds. Can't forget the shepherds.

Nowadays people celebrate the birth of this baby boy, who I guess grew up and did some stuff (I think he told people to be nice, except when it wasn't convenient or they didn't want to), by giving each other gifts on Christmas. We also put up lights on our houses and write letters to each other. Some people even go to church on Christmas Eve, I guess out of obligation or because it makes them feel good. But mainly we all get stuff.

Getting stuff: The true meaning of Christmas. Or maybe it's connecting with friends and family. Putting up lights, perhaps? Wait, didn't I say something about a baby? Man, am I confused.

And that is the legend of Christmas.

As we perform all of the traditions of Christmas, let's remember what we are celebrating: The birth of the Son of God, who came to make things right again.

Politics of Politics.

2007-12-16T15:31:00.000-07:00

I have to be honest. I am getting sick of politics*. Every political campaign brings a fresh battery of negative or deceitful ads assaulting my eyes, ears and soul. Republicans are criticized because they are Republican; Democrats because they are Democrat. So-and-so had a child out of wedlock. So-and-so voted to starve old people. "George Bush is stupid." (Wow, what enlightening political commentary that is.)

I serve an omnipotent God who concerns Himself with redeeming men's and women's souls. He is fighting a battle with eternal ramifications. The laws of any nation are words are here today, gone tomorrow.

I am a committed Christian, and all my life I have been told that responsible Christians vote. I am a registered voter, and I do vote. I become less apt to do so with each passing day. I hate the divisive nature of politics. I hate the attitudes and actions of the power-mongers who populate the governing bodies. I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

Here is my question: Why should I be concerned about our nation's political scene, as a Christian (my allegiance is to Christ first)? If being involved in politics can be a good and moral activity, how so? In other words, why should I care about our government when there are people within my sphere whose lives I can make better?

I want to be a follower of Christ in this country. I need a little help on this one.

*I am speaking of state and national politics, not so much local politics.

Taking a Deep Sigh of Relief.

2007-12-16T13:06:00.000-07:00

PHEW. Finally, the end of the semester. After taking a year off from seminary, I went back to school this Fall. This time around, however, I am also working full-time. I learned a few things about the experience this semester (which, alas, I will repeat twice more):

(40 hours of work/week + 6 hours of class time/week + 6-8 hours of study time/week)*16 weeks = 1 brain-dead zombie.
Seminary does not necessarily bring one closer to God. In fact, it is my experience that the opposite can be true.
There is a half-way house for people with psychological issues right next to the seminary. There is also a road connecting the two places. It is there for a reason.
During my year away, Denver Seminary did not cease to be a difficult place to complete a master's degree. Being in my fourth year, the actual content of my classes is now pretty easy. I've been doing it long enough that it's just variations on a theme. However, the workload is still trying at times, especially for someone with a job and a family.
Seminary does not help a person to be physically healthy. Proper diet and exercise falls prey to staring at the wall while pretending to read.
Strangely enough, I believe I learned more while not in seminary than while in it. I think this has something to do with the difference between reading what I want to read and reading what I have to read. Also, this is evidence that the seminary is doing what it is supposed to--mold its students into life-long learners.

I still think Denver Seminary is an excellent institution, and I know that going there has and will continue to prepare me for vocational ministry. Also, I would still encourage anyone who wants to be challenged to go there. But know this--I'm going to throw one heck of a party when I'm done!

Makes Sense to Me...

2007-12-10T14:39:00.000-07:00

Click on the graph to see a bigger version

The Pleasure of a Good Book

2007-12-05T17:03:00.000-07:00

There's just something about books. I love the experience of reading a book. The feel of the cover, the rustling of pages. The smell of ink and paper (and maybe even a highlighter). There are the pricey textbooks, with their glossy pages, whose shininess is a foe to be reckoned with when attempting to read under adequate lighting. I haven't seen a true textbook in years, thank God. Dry as kindling but sparking knowledge if the reader is disciplined enough. I can't tell you how many textbooks I only read halfway. Then there are the cheaply printed variety of books. The reward for paying them attention is a black thumb and smudge marks in the margins, and perhaps a dog-eared page here and there, and a broken spine. I try never to break a spine or disfigure a page, although some of the longer books are almost impossible not to injure (City of God, for one). Some books I highlight and mark all over; others are much too sacred. I think my Greek New Testament only has one verse underlined, and that done with a light pencil stroke.

Each book contains a bit of paradise--a sanctuary of the mind. They are time machines: Copleston's A History of Philosophy, Vol 1 transports me to ancient Greece; The Abolition of Man transports me to the present and future--as though I were a visitor from the past. They are precious jewels, if one is willing to search for them. They are new worlds to be explored from the comfort of one's living room! They were died for in the past--scarce and sacred. They are at our fingertips now by the millions--omnipresent and overlooked.

People wonder when the book will become obsolete. I hope never. The tactile experience of a book is much too precious to be lost, and it can never be replaced by technology.

Give me a book, and I will be happy.

Care Bear Stare

2007-11-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

I don't usually read opinion columns, but I'm here in my native hometown in Kansas, and I picked up a copy of the Wichita Eagle. I ran across this piece about how people ought to respond to major issues. He brings up the idea of the Care Bear Stare vs. actual reflective thought. It's a very short, well-written article, so I will stop now and just say if you've got a minute, read it.

FSM

2007-11-19T19:55:00.001-07:00

My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.

Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:

1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:

1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Let's try it one more time, just for fun:

1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.

Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?

If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.

Commentaries, Community and Craig Blomberg

2007-11-07T21:37:00.000-07:00

Today in class my professor, the well-known and well-respected Dr. Craig Blomberg, asked a pretty good question. We were discussing 1 Peter 3:18-22, a passage in which Peter discusses Christ preaching to the spirits in prison during the time of Noah. In exegeting this text correctly, one must look at the cultural knowledge of the story of Noah and the Flood in Asia 2000 years ago, dig into syntax of the passage in the original Greek and have an understanding of 1 Enoch, an inter-Testamental apochryphal text. Even with that knowledge, it’s still a very difficult passage. If I am a typical churchgoer, what am I to do? How can I interpret the text correctly without all of this superfluous, archaic knowledge readily at hand? This was the question posed by Dr. Blomberg.

After some thought and class discussion, however, I took issue with the question itself. The issue I have with it is its use of the first-person singular pronoun “I”. How can “I” interpret the text correctly? What do “I” do? There is a time and place for personal reflection and study of scripture, but there is also a time and place for community discussion. In cases like 1 Peter 3:18-22, a community discussion is vital to understanding and edification. This in and of itself is not very earth-shattering, but then it hit me: Christian commentary authors are part of the community of believers, too. As are archaeologists, textual critics, and any other type of scholar you care to mention. We are not all going to know the ins and outs of 1 Enoch or unearth ancient coins bearing Noah’s image, but because there are followers of Christ who know and do these things, we should thankfully engage them as fellow members of the community and learn from them by reading what they have to say.

Taken this way, a good commentary becomes much more than a dry book of boring facts and trivial details; it becomes an active dialogue with a brother or sister in Christ. It furthers the community that we (and the world) desperately need.

Love Addict - Family Force 5

2007-11-04T17:32:00.000-07:00

My pastor recently told me about RadioU, a radio station that streams actual, good Christian music online. Here in Denver, there is a dearth of such music, which I largely believed to be mythical since the demise of dc Talk and good Audio Adrenaline. (For non-Christian readers out there, those two bands used to rock!) Anyway, RadioU has pleasantly proved me wrong. There is good Christian music out there, after all. Let me give you an example.

Family Force 5 is a band out of Atlanta, Georgia. They are comprised of three brothers, sons of 80s musician Jerome Olds (anybody actually know who this is? I sure don't), and two of their friends (presumably brought in because Family Force 3 just doesn't cut it). I am not sure how to describe their music, other than...awesome. Why do I like them?

1. They sing and play with emotion. It's almost like they're passionate about God! (Don't tell K-LOVE!)
2. They know their audience. They interact with the culture while retaining their core message.
3. They prominently feature the guitar. (Yes, as everyone knows, I adhere to Phil Keaggy's philosophy: Love one woman...many guitars.)

See for yourself.

Awesome. And really weird. Just my cup of tea!

Death of a Fellow Runner

2007-11-03T11:56:00.000-07:00

This morning, Ryan Shay, who was one of America's top distance runners, died during the U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon in New York. It is believed that he suffered a heart attack at around the five-mile mark. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.

This is a sad day for the sport. Though I am not running at present, I did used to be one of the better runners out there. In fact, I ran against him in 2003 at the U.S. Championships Half-Marathon in Kansas City. Well, he won the race, while I barely cracked the top 20. Nevertheless, runners share a special bond, and my heart goes out to Ryan and his wife. Runners are a special breed, and he will be missed.

Rockies vs. Catwoman

2007-10-21T09:03:00.000-06:00

The Rockies have really been putting a cramp in my style. I would wager that the city of Denver is suffering a serious productivity problem. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done when the ultimate underdog team is in the World Series, and they're from your town? It's definitely Rocktober around here. Here's an example why.

Brian Fuentes was the Rockies' ace closer for the first half of the season. He went to the All-Star game in July. Things were looking great for him. Then he got hurt. He had a strained lateral that caused him to blow four straight saves. He was put on the DL and replaced by Manny Corpas, who now has done equally well as Fuentes. Fuentes healed his injury, but was relegated to set-up man. He could have taken the low road and labeled himself a victim, but he did not. Instead, this is what he said:

"I do it for my teammates. I played with these guys all year. Whining about not closing isn't going to help the situation. You only worry about the things you have control over, and that's not one of the things I had control over...Manny is our closer right now, and I'm going to help get the ball to him. It's not about egos. You've got to check your ego at the door. That's basically what it boils down to."

This attitude well represents all of the Rockies. One of the least-paid teams in the league, these guys are selfless team players who care about each other and working together. How can you not like this team?

Contrast the Rockies with Halle Barry. Barry recently stated that she faces barriers in Hollywood because she is black (For the record, her mother is English, her father African-American):

"It doesn't matter that I have an Oscar, an Emmy, a Golden Globe and a Silver (Berlin) Bear...I shouldn't have had to try so hard to be considered. I should have to stop convincing studios I am right for it -- it should be on my acting merit."

I shouldn't have to try so hard to be considered. What a ridiculous thing to say for someone with the following resume:
1. Cheerleader, honor society member, editor of the school newspaper, class president and prom queen at Bedford High School
2. Winner of Miss Ohio USA and Miss Teen All-American (she only placed 6th at Miss World)
3. WInner of the Academy Award for best actress
4. Named the sexiest woman in the world by FHM magazine
5. Has a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame

I'm guessing she's not short on cash, either. Does she still perceive a measure of discrimination because of her skin color? Perhaps. And maybe some ignorant people do treat her with less respect because she is black. (They ought to treat her with less respect because she starred in "Catwoman". Just kidding.) To complain about it while sitting in your multi-million-dollar home, living a life that few people will ever know? This is the height of the victim mentality. Does she have to figure out how to make ends meet month after month like most people? Does she have to fight tooth-and-nail to land an entry-level job because people she doesn't know and will never see say she's not qualified (like I, a white male, had to do)? How many coupons does she use at the grocery store every week? Does she even go to the grocery store? I am sorry that Halle is discriminated against in Hollywood. Discrimination because of color is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps, however, she should look at all of the blessings in her life, fall on her knees and thank God.

But I'd rather hang out with Brian Fuentes, anyway. Go Rockies!