| |
Starting
November 21, 2007 through New Year's Day
For Wn'T viewers
for Christmas-tyme, now available.
Destroying Our Private Cities, Building
Our Spiritual Life
Chip's
lay-commentary on Paul's Letter to the
Philippians--
Only for
Christmas
$4.50 ea. (+ 2.50
for S&H) or $7.00 for two (+ $3.50 for
S&H)
Orders over 10
copies, $4.00 ea (+$14 per ten for S&H)
See Philippians book page for more
information
April
18, 2007
Wanting our
marginalized status back in CommonPlace
“Nevertheless, as the
church became aware of its
increasingly marginalized status,
vision triumphed—and with it,
prophetic rhetoric” (Ian Stackhouse,
The Gospel-Driven Church,
p 29).
In our attempt to be
relevant, contemporary, and practical,
we have lost things very important to
the church: integrity, true relevance,
and our prophetic voice. We trade
numerical growth for true prophetic
relevancy. We hate being marginalized,
so we desperately seek whatever means to
not be marginalized, to be noted, to be
in the main stream, to be recognized.
Stackhouse is so right on in stating
that from the church’s true marginalized
status, when it accepts this role,
“vision” triumphs and the church regains
its “prophetic rhetoric.” The church’s
rhetoric stops being a means to an end,
a means of recruiting, of votes, or
budget-building, of numbers, of power,
of controll. Big does not necessarily
lead to influence. And, of course,
small does not either. But when numbers
are important and political influence a
chief goal (usually in the guise of
conserving the parts of our culture that
will maintain the church’s central role
and place and seeking to expunge the
parts that weaken, or reduce the
church’s and its leadership’s
power-status and place in controlling
people’s lives), the prophetic voice of
the church—of the pulpit and our
discipled-lives—is diminished.
more CommonPlace
Thoughts>>
April 16, 2007
On
Church Growth: indicative vs. imperative
Ian Stackhouse brings out a very good
point in his The Gospel-Driven Church,
that is the indicative mood—the mood of
the present, of being, of
happening—should impact how we view the
activities of the church. We respond to
the imperatives because of the
indicatives. For those not versed in
grammatical jargon, this simply means
that the kingdom of God is already
present and active—the death and
resurrection of Christ, and the coming
of the Holy Spirit, has begun something
that continues. There is a reality, the
reality of God’s redemption and rule,
already in the present—already real. It
is not something we bring about. It is
something, to use an older concept,
“step into.”
“The mood one is describing is just
that mood that could enable true
growth to occur, both
congregationally and
evangelistically. The mood one is
describing is derivative of the
indicative note of biblical
spirituality: namely, a mood of
confidence that something has
actually transacted in the preaching
of the gospel, something actually
achieved in the death and
resurrection of Jesus, and in the
gift of the Holy Spirit, which in
its retelling and appropriation cane
be a source of renewal” (p 87).
Stackhouses’ concern about so-called
church growth movements is that it is
very utilitarian, that is, simply boiled
down to its core, all the traditional
means of grace and worship are a means
to an end, namely to recruit, to build
the budget, to “cause” the church to
grow. Understanding the indicative of
God’s present and completed activity of
grace in Christ and the arrival of the
kingdom restores the rightful and
biblical perspective on grace, the
church, and Christian discipleship.
“More importantly, it preserves the
centrality of the doctrine of grace
in the spiritual formation of the
church, allowing the gospel to be
celebrated and appropriated for its
own sake, not simply, in utilitarian
terms, as a vehicle of recruitment”
(p 88).
Without going into more (needed) detail,
I have found that much of modern
revivalism and modern church growth both
smack of the Old Testament concept of
Baal worship—acting out, dramatizing
before the god’s (in this case what we
do before Yahweh) what we want the god’s
(here, Yahweh) to bring about for us.
We create its; God fulfills it. I
repeat Stackhouses’ quote by Alan Lewis:
“Piously, or
politically, we cripple ourselves
with the need to bring about God’s
righteousness on earth, failing to
hear what Jesus so vividly declares:
that we need not shoulder that
burden because the goal itself does
not need to be accomplished. The
goal is a fact, God’s fact, the fact
of grace and promise. No gap
divides what God says from what God
does; and the stories of the coming
kingdom do not offer dreams and
possibilities of what the Lord might
or could do, but speak indicatively,
and in the present tense of what is
happening, and of what the future is
becoming. The kingdom need not—and
cannot not—be worked for; it may
only be accepted and awaited. On
the other hand this waiting for
God’s indicatives cannot be
dispassionate or passive…the gospel
enslaves us again with its
imperatives, demanding everything of
us by way of repentance and
discipleship” (Between Cross and
Resurrection: The Theology of Holy
Saturday, 23-24).
more Margins>>
April 9,
2007
What does this
text say to the congregation?
While reading Ian Stackhouse’s book,
The Gospel-Driven Church, I was once
again reminded of why I admire
Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, the radical German Pastor
who penned the book The Cost of
Discipleship and pointedly spoke of
the church’s “cheap grace.” Stackhouse
refers to Bonhoeffer:
In terms of preaching, it requires,
according to Bonhoeffer, competence
and careful exegesis to ensure that
it is the text, and not the personal
preferences of the preacher, that
determines what is said. ‘When we
ask ourselves, “What shall I say
today to the congregation?” we are
lost,’ says Bonhoeffer. ‘But when
we ask, “What does this text say to
the congregation?” we find ample
support and abundant confidence.
The faithfulness with which we enter
the text makes this possible’ (p.
108).
The component of worship
where the congregation needs to hear
from God and a retelling of the
redemptive acts of God is called the
sermon. But we have strayed from this
important aspect of worship and have
neglected this vital act of continual
renewal of the church for temperament,
recruitment, sharing, and agendas. We
have confused hearing about the preacher
with hearing from God. Perhaps the
preacher wants to tell the congregation
what he or she thinks God wants the
congregation to hear, but this is not
the same thing as hearing from God
through faithful exegetical exposition
of the text of Scripture. Unless the
sermon is a faithful exegesis of the
text, it is, then, just cheap words.
more Margins>>
April
7, 2007
The Gospel-Driven
Church
Back in October of 2004 I
posted a
Rough Cut
exegetical essay on Wordsn’Tone
entitled,
“The Gospel-Driven
Church.” This
Rough Cut presents a brief exegesis of
the much abused and misused Colossians
3:15 text, “Let the word of Christ
richly dwell with you.” Although the
essay itself was not intended to
critique Rick Warren’s material, the
title obviously was a pun and
self-explanatory commentary on the
Purpose-Driven books that he has
published. I thought I had been clever,
never really a good thing for an
exegete, but nonetheless, I was
attempting to make a point as a result
of my exegesis of the Colossians text
and my contempt [and I mean contempt]
for Warren’s abuse and misuse (and
constant misappropriated proof-texting
and utilitarian use of paraphrase
versions of the Bible). Nonetheless, I
didn’t invent the term, Gospel-Driven
Church. I first found it while
reading through an
evangelicaloutpost.com
blog about Warren’s books. The blogger,
Arthor Sido had asked,
“Whatever happened to the
gospel-driven church?” I saw this as I
was putting the finial touches on my
Rough Cut essay, and thought,
“Now, that’s exactly what
Paul is driving at—the gospel-driven
church, with all its implications,
counter-cultural living,
Christ-centered, cross-centered,
self-less lifestyles.”
Here is the conclusion of
my Rough Cut on Colossians 3:16.
Allow me to offer a
new spin that conveys the original
meaning of “Let the word of Christ
richly dwell in you.” Hear verses
16 and 17 together:
Be a
gospel-driven church, express
this existence through wise
living, that is doing God’s will
(cf. Col 1:9); let your teaching
and admonishing of one another,
especially during your gathered
worship, inform you of this
gospel-driven life. Whatever
you, as Christ’s people in town,
do in word or deed, do all in
the name of the Lord Jesus, that
is, let the gospel define who
you are, giving thanks through
Him to God the Father
Paul
begins chapter 3 by reminding us
that, as a church, our
mind—corporately—ought to be on
things above, that is our existence
and meaning comes from the authority
of the risen Christ. At the end of
the paragraph, Paul admonishes the
Church—our Church, your Church—to be
a gospel-driven church.
for
the whole essays>>
Then, after posting it
for a while on my website, I was curious
to see if anyone had lifted or quoted my
essays (which was available to download
and use by the general public). So, I
googled the title. Didn’t see
much regarding my essay, but I did find
others who were utilizing the same
phrase—The Gospel-Driven Church—which
mostly was used to make a comment on
either the Market-Driven Church
approaches to church growth or Warren’s
Purpose-Driven books. Among the
hits I discovered that there was
actually a book with the title, The
Gospel-Driven Church, written by Ian
Stackhouse. While I was at the November
2006 annual meeting of the Evangelical
Theological Society, I picked the book
up. I just started to read it this
week. Incredible. Although written
within the context of the church growth
movement in England, it is clearly a
commentary on the weakness of church
growth movements, so-called, in
general. Underlying Stackhouse’s
critique is his concern that the church
has trusted in other purposes and power,
including technique, to
grow—increase—the church and churches
other than the Gospel itself. In the
few chapters I have already read, I am
in agreement that we are letting
somethings other than the gospel itself
define our churches, and somethings
other than the gospel to give a church
its power to bring about change,
conversions, and growth. Stackhouse
writes:
“Hence, the most
pressing challenge facing the
evangelical-charismatic church [or
any evangelical church, which is
implied here] is a confessional one:
to have faith that the gospel is
able to do its own work, create its
own structures and fashion its own
distinct community” (p 76).
We are just not confident
enough in the Gospel. As a result we
trust everything but. We think
technique is more important than faith
interpretation of the text and we eschew
reenacting the Gospel. Again,
Stackhouse comments, “Being effective in
ministry…has become more important than
being able to act as interpreters of the
historic faith” (p 79).
Stackhouse is writing
what’s been on my mind for many, many
years. I wish every pastor would read
the main thrust of Stackhouse’s
argument:
“The main thrust of
out argument is to suggest that
there are other criteria for
measuring success apart from
numbers, alluring though the numbers
game may be. But if there is to be
growth—and there is no virtue in
smallness per se—let us be sure that
it takes its cue from the power
inherent in the gospel itself, and
the various means by which the
gospel enacts its message” (79).
When church growth is
primary, and its cousin, increasing the
church budget, a close secondary goal,
the point of all preaching, then, is to
make relevant, meaningful application,
recruit, and move the individual to
guilt (i.e., “your never fully
surrendered”), and thus furthering our
distance from faithful exegetical
exposition and interpretation of the
text of Scripture. The “need” isn’t to
hear from the text, but to use the text
to promote Church growth and commitment
to church activities. This is one
reason I put out my Rough Cuts, that is
to show how exegesis let’s the text
speak, and as one small step in
recovering our commitment to the text of
Scripture and to reaffirm that we
believe God’s Word and His Gospel is
powerful enough to bring about His ends
and to expand His Church and to increase
His Kingdom.
Read my
Rough Cut
exegetical essays on Colossians 3:16,
"The
Gospel-Driven Church"
and other
Rough Cuts>>
more Margins>>
April
1, 2007
The
narrow gate, watch for false prophets,
and the House on the Rock
in Gemara
“Therefore everyone
who hears these words of mine and
puts them into practice is like a
wise man who built his house on the
rock. The rain came down, the
streams rose, and the winds blew and
beat against that house; yet it did
not fall, because it had its
foundation on the rock. But
everyone who hears these words of
mine and does not put them into
practice is like a foolish man who
built his house on sand. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the
winds blew and beat against that
house, and it fell with a great
crash” (Matthew 7:24-27).
Ever notice that sermons
on the house built on sand or
rock usually lean toward the
scare-tack or are negatively applied and
illustrated? When sermons on the
house built on sand or rock
are preached, it seems that the preacher
tends only to reach back to the “narrow
gate” comments in verses 13 and 14 for
the context. Very convenient for them.
So, I start there:
It should be noted that
the narrow gate implies few find it.
According to Jesus, elsewhere and here,
there was no expectation that throngs
would show up at the gate to enter,
meaning only a small gate to enter into
God’s kingdom is needed. The path (or
road, depending on the translation) is
wide and the gate wide that lead to
destruction, not because there are more
things that are evil or immoral to end
one in destruction, but because there
will be more to show up at that
gate—more will find it, thus needing a
larger gate. Consequently, the
narrowness is not our standards—the gate
is not narrow because of our personal
standards (of how to dress, who to hang
with, what music or TV or media to
enjoy, what habits are good vs. bad),
nor our judgments and loathing of
cultural and social habits. The
narrowness of the gate, its width, does
not refer to some narrow, yet
“allowable” cultural involvements that
Christians may participate in. Thank
goodness. This now begs my comments on
how Matthew’s version of the Sermon on
the Mount ends and what we are to make
of it.
Shoddy exegesis and poor
exposition is often hidden and disguised
through clever (and often passionate),
cliché-filled sermonizing and harsh
rhetoric. I have rarely heard a message
on this passage that actually expounds
what’s there and promotes Jesus’ (and
Matthew’s) intended meaning. What I
usually hear are two things: a pompous
account of how righteous the preacher is
(through multiple references and
illustrations of and about himself or
herself) and, I hear, not a sermon, but
an agenda. One learns more about the
preacher than the text (or what God is
saying through the text) in many such
sermons.
I find it odd, and of
course overlooked by many a preacher,
that the Sermon on the Mount’s ending is
preceded by a number of commands, even
before the descriptions (of gates,
paths, roads, trees, fruit, houses,
sand, rocks, false prophets, wise and
unwise builders) are laid out. The
Sermon on the Mount stretches from
Matthew 5:1 through the end of chapter
7—we should not ignore this. Generally
speaking chapter 5 is a description of
living a blessed life as one who
understands and acts according to the
fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has
arrived. The series of commands just
prior to the close of the Sermon on the
Mount reaches back to Matthew 6:1 and
is, indeed, an interesting set that
preachers of this passage should heed
and take serious note:
Beware of practicing
your righteousness before men to be
noticed by them; otherwise you have
no reward with your Father who is in
heaven” (6:1).
And then, the cousin of
this command to refrain from being
self-righteous is given in Matthew 7:1:
"Do not judge, or you too
will be judged.” I suggest these two
commands should dissuade preachers from,
well, being so judgmental and
self-righteous in how and what they say
about the wise and unwise house builders
and its implications on the audience.
To be frank, how we preach this text
should be seriously guided by the very
words of Jesus Himself in 6:1 and 7:1
less we fall under the same warning and
caveat found in 7:2ff and be called a
hypocrite ourselves.
“For in the same way
you judge others, you will be
judged, and with the measure you
use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother's eye and
pay no attention to the plank in
your own eye? How can you say to
your brother, ‘Let me take the speck
out of your eye,’ when all the time
there is a plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank
out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to remove the speck
from your brother's eye” (vv 2-5).
It is interesting, as
well, that the Sermon on the Mount’s
final teaching contains a command to
watch and measure prophets to see if
they be false or not. Furthermore,
there is no appeal to faulty Christians,
or less fervent followers, or even nasty
outsiders (i.e., the lost) here. But,
to the hearers of the Sermon on
the Mount. My take on this is, part of
hearing God’s word and building one’s
house upon the rock must be related to
whom we listen to, whether there
is the producing of the fruits of the
Kingdom (i.e., that’s chapter 5!) or not
in who preaches (or in the workers,
so-called, who claim to follow Jesus).
The command here is not that we
might be false-prophets bearing bad
fruit, but that we should watch out for
them. Look out! They will be those who
look like good prophets who do miracles
and call Jesus “Lord, Lord,” but they
are not producing the fruit that stems
from a life that resembles Chapter 5 of
the Sermon, nor do they refrain from
judging and displaying their
righteousness (which is a false
righteousness).
Read chapter six, it is
mostly addressed to those whom we are to
following—that is Church leadership.
One builds his or her house on a rock,
if they watch out for false prophets.
If someone is trying to get the speck
out of your eye, my guess is that person
is a false prophet. Watch out for them!
Finally, a comment on
building that house on the rock. Jesus
clearly says in Matthew 7:24 that it is
those who hear these words
(meaning all the words of the
Sermon on the Mount!), these are the
ones who build on the rock and are able
to withstand the rain and winds for
misfortune. If someone sets themselves
up as the authority, with a direct line
to God, who tells more about their
status and righteousness than speaks of
the text, who claims to be
prophetic—watch out, this one is a false
prophet even if he or she is using every
spiritual catchword in the language.
more Gemara>>
March 31, 2007
The faulty
accusation of exclusivity
I am puzzled over what seems on the
surface to be a legitimate objection,
but is actually is quite unreasonable,
silly, and really ultimately only an
excuse to continue to disbelieve and/or
to refuse to discuss, examine the
evidence, and to be generally open
minded. And, for some, it is simply an
excuse to continue to be disobedient to
the truth, to be mad at God, to show
displeasure over something that one
blames God for. Nonetheless, I am
amazed when I hear the complaint that
Christianity and the Bible is
exclusive. Of course the Christian
faith is exclusive. But the reality is
often a negative chage and
accusation—Christianity and Christians,
especially evangelicals, exclude others,
whether it be in fellowship, in
acceptance, and especially the exclusion
from a heavenly afterlife. Amazing.
The accusation of exclusivity,
nevertheless, is a faulty excuse for
disbelief.
Shocking, there is truth to the
statement. As Ravi Zacharias has so
well pointed out, “Christianity seems to
be the only world religion accused of
being exclusive.” You see, that’s the
point. Such accusation of exclusivity
is a faulty excuse to exclude
Christianity, and worse, for an argument
for disbelief because every religion has
a line of exclusivity. In fact, I’d say
every person has some measure of
exclusivity within his or her own
personal worldview, lifestyle, and
belief system (or disbelief system).
There is always the line drawn that
divides what is believed and disbelieved
(about almost everything). This is
exclusivity.
There are two points relevant to those
who accuse Christians of being exclusive
as a reason for disbelief or rejection
(besides that such a position is itself
exclusivist). First, since every
religion and belief system is exclusive
in nature (and everyone has some form of
exclusivity within their own personnel
belief system), one should consider that
it is a matter of whether the
exclusivity is true, that is, does it
have a foundation that is reasonable,
fits reality, and is based on truth.
Second, one might
consider a more poignant view on the
matter of exclusivity and religion,
namely how do those who do the excluding
treat those who are excluded.
Christians are to treat all with love
and respect, even going the extra mile
to provide help, assistance, love,
meeting of needs, even putting one’s
well-being above those that are excluded
(i.e., outsiders). Now this is
tricky, for the true Christian doesn’t
actually judge whether another is
ultimately excluded or not—the Christian
leaves that to the final judgment of
God. Meanwhile, although believing many
will be finally excluded from heaven and
sentenced to hell, separated by God on
the final day, no one on this side of
that judgment is excluded from Christian
charity, respect, and love. In fact,
the exclusive believing Christian is to
die for those who will be excluded at
the end. No other religion has this
built into its belief system. Many
religions practice excluding now, and it
shows in how they treat outsiders.
Perhaps this is one reason some actually
accuse Christians of being exclusivists,
because they judge now and are not
loving and respectful of outsiders.
Let’s not give that possibility for an
excuse. Nonetheless, it is still a
faulty excuse to accuse Christians of
being exclusivists as an reason for
disbelief.
more Margins>>
March
24, 2007
Ultimate Truth matters
I just recently heard a
rather simple, yet poignant and very
personal reason that truth matters.
Bottom line, we expect people to be
truthful to us--personally. The example
stemmed from an answer given to comment
made by a skeptic who doubts
Christianity’s validity, yet posits a
postmodern worldview where the universe
is closed and truth is in the beholder.
“Truth simply does not matter.” But of
course it does. “When your wife says
she loves you, don’t you want her
telling you the truth,” asked the
apologist. I would have added, when a
friend or business associate tells you
something you expect it to be the truth,
don’t you? If truth doesn’t matter, why
do we have (or need or appeal to in the
courts) so many laws to protect us from
untruth, or maliciousness, or libel, or
fraud? No one likes being lied to,
mislead, or deceived. Truth matters.
Now what I take the
person to mean is that ultimate
truth does not matter. What we want are
the penultimate truths we need in order
to survive and even enjoy a measure of
happiness as a species. But truth as a
category for a worldview, an ultimate
truth, is not needed. Oh, really?
But this playing with
truth categories is a farce, a
difference without distinction. Really,
for many it is an excuse for a
lifestyle, or a simplistic reason to
exclude the ultimate claims of a Creator
on one’s life. Or, even just a
commentary one one’s own dislike or
distaste (or even hatred) for Christians
and things Christian. Sometimes it is
simply a reason to continue to be mad at
God, or even just to be mad and
distrustful in general. Such wordplay
allows one to demand truth from people,
but allow personally to be excused of
ultimate accountability from a Creator.
If one is to posit the need for
relational truth, immediate penultimate
truth for the sake of living in this
world, then we should be perplexed at
whose truth matters: where is the line
that is to be drawn that distinguishes
between penultimate, relational truths
and ultimate, worldview truth(s)? Such
a demand for personal and relational
truth, while denying ultimate truth,
puts the realm of truth back into
personal choice and preference. And
we’re back to the foundation again—what
objective, unchanging truth(s) determine
what is right and what is wrong so we
may judge what and which truth (and
falsehood) matters to us personally, or
even corporately. This leads us, again,
to point out the reasonableness of
belief in a Creator-God outside of this
known universe and that denying God’s
existence is, well, still unreasonable.
Truth to me works as long as it
is personal truth that supports one’s
self-interests. To promote any form of
truth demands some form of objectivity.
Or this demand for personal and
relational truth is just purely
self-interest and has nothing to do with
actually truthful or factual
statements. So, it is either the
truthfulness of wife’s statement, “I
love you” or it’s only a empty statement
to make the one who demands it to be
true to feel good about what has been
stated. Shallow comfort, really.
Personally, I’d prefer some factual
basis for such a statement. You see
truth matters…to everyone…even if the
God-denier denies it. He or she cannot
live without it, nor would they want to.
more
Margins>>
March
22, 2007
The Gospel, a myth
fulfilled in reality
“I occasionally
wondered if the gospel was myth, but
I came to see the gospel as myth
fulfilled in reality—in a real time,
place and Person. Science and art
reveal the reality of the biblical
story. Astrophysics reveals a
beginning and the necessarily of an
immaterial first cause.
Biochemistry and DNA reveal a
‘language’ of encoded instruction, a
logos becoming flesh and
blood. Archaeology and history
reveal the Bible as accurate
eyewitness accounts of real events,
people and places. What—rather,
Who—I experience behind all the
beauty seems too good to be false.
Sometimes it’s a haunting.
Sometimes a glory. The story has
what C. S. Leis called ‘the ring of
truth’” [Kelly Monroe Kullberg,
Finding God Beyond Harvard: The
Quest for Veritas, p. 21].
Sometimes, I just find
some words worth quoting and leaving to
stand without comment. I found what
Kullberg said in her introduction here a
great way of expressing that
Christianity is open to debate,
examination, and tests for validity,
empirical consistency and experiential
relevance.
more
Margins>>
March 20, 2007
The
Lord’s Banquet and Daniel’s warning
I discovered an
interesting observation and contextual
link between a teaching and parable of
Jesus in Luke 14 and the warning and
exhortation Daniel gave to
Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon (Daniel 4). The king had seen a
vision of a large and wide reaching tree
with many branches. The tree was to be
cut down—a sign that the God of Heaven
would send judgment upon the king and
his kingdom. Read Jesus’ parable of the
banquet invitation in Luke 14 and then
note the words Daniel exhorts the king
to fulfill in order to put off the
pending judgment on him and his kingdom:
And He began speaking
a parable to the invited guests when
He noticed how they had been picking
out the places of honor at the
table, saying to them, "When you are
invited by someone to a wedding
feast, do not take the place of
honor, for someone more
distinguished than you may have been
invited by him,
and he who invited
you both will come and say to you,
'Give your place to this man,' and
then in disgrace you proceed to
occupy the last place. But when you
are invited, go and recline at the
last place, so that when the one who
has invited you comes, he may say to
you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then
you will have honor in the sight of
all who are at the table with you.
For everyone who exalts himself will
be humbled, and he who humbles
himself will be exalted." And He
also went on to say to the one who
had invited Him, "When you give a
luncheon or a dinner, do not invite
your friends or your brothers or
your relatives or rich neighbors,
otherwise they may also invite you
in return and that will be your
repayment. But when you give a
reception, invite the poor,
the crippled, the lame, the blind,
and you will be blessed, since they
do not have the means to repay you;
for you will be repaid at the
resurrection of the righteous."
When one of those who were reclining
at the table with Him heard this, he
said to Him, "Blessed is everyone
who will eat bread in the kingdom of
God!"
But He said to him,
"A man was giving a big dinner, and
he invited many; and at the dinner
hour he sent his slave to say to
those who had been invited, 'Come;
for everything is ready now.'
But they all alike
began to make excuses. The first
one said to him, 'I have bought a
piece of land and I need to go out
and look at it; please consider me
excused.' Another one said, 'I have
bought five yoke of oxen, and I am
going to try them out; please
consider me excused.' Another one
said, 'I have married a wife, and
for that reason I cannot come.' And
the slave came back and reported
this to his master. Then the head of
the household became angry and said
to his slave, 'Go out at once into
the streets and lanes of the city
and bring in here the poor
and crippled and blind and lame.'
And the slave said, 'Master, what
you commanded has been done, and
still there is room.' And the
master said to the slave, 'Go out
into the highways and along the
hedges, and compel them to come in,
so that my house may be filled. For
I tell you, none of those men who
were invited shall taste of my
dinner'" (Luke 14:7-24),
I know I made
it easy—the bold “the poor”—but
with that, I just wanted to make it
harder to read-over, gloss-over, or
ignore the words in the text. Simply,
Jesus expected that those that follow
him would invite all to His banquet, but
there would be those who’d expect places
of honor, yet the instruction to the
followers, the inviters, the heralds
were to call—invite—to the banquet those
who never expected such an invitation,
nor would they assume places of honor
and have need to prove their status.
Later, we discover that there would also
be those with invitations who had other
things to do—some legit, some no so, but
still in light of the invitation to this
particular party, all things are to be
put on hold. Since those with excuses
will not come, the Lord of the banquet
instructs his heralds to invite those
that can’t afford to be there, those of
least and no status in the community.
Fill up the banquet table with the
vulnerable and marginalized of the
community. How contrary to much of
church growth—we are so dependent on
attracting those that can pay for the
larger church ministry, bigger building,
and higher salaries. But I digress, who
can support the place and status of
that church or minister. The link I
made with Daniel 4 might actually
connect and give basis, foundation, and
background (even a promise-fulfillment
context) to the parable. There is
obviously “a kingdom” connection between
the texts. After the warning of
judgment, we read Daniel trying to
persuade the king to repent. Here’s the
content of what that repentance was to
consist of:
"'Therefore, O king, may my advice
be pleasing to you: break away now
from your sins by doing
righteousness and from your
iniquities by showing mercy to
the poor, in case there may be a
prolonging of your prosperity'"
(Daniel 4:27).
Maybe we should have some church growth
books with a different spin:
Church Mission According to the Parables
and Daniel’s Blueprint for Church
Growth. There is no doubt that
many of us need to reevaluate church
ministry, church mission, church vision,
and our outcomes for church growth less
we end up the recipients of a similar
Daniel judgment and warning.
more Margins>>
March 11, 2007
My
kids and a church plant
It is difficult for me to
change churches. In all the years I
have been a Christian, now nearing
twenty-nine years, outside of moving to
a new state (or country) I have only
changed churches two times, both with
much internal agonizing. The second
change has come recently as my family
and I have begun to participate in a
small Church plant here in Bridgeport,
CT. It has been tough mostly because my
teens have waited a long time to be a
part of our (now former, large) church’s
youth program. But because my teens
have both said they’d prefer going to
the small church, we have made the
change (pretty much official and
regular). My daughter asked to go
regular to the church plant when she was
asked to lead its children’s church on a
regular basis. My stepson said he’d
like to go full time as well, because
they have asked him to help in the sound
booth. In fact it’s his new ministry
that provoked this Margin. After the
first Sunday as Michael was being
trained in how the sound booth works, he
mentioned to me—three times actually—the
following afternoon and days, “This past
Sunday was the best Sunday I have ever
had.” Really, his words. Later, at
dinner one evening, they all asked if we
were going to the new church regularly.
(It’s called The Bridge). I said, yes,
if they were ready. They said they
were. I told them we have enjoyed our
former church very much. They are good
people and great friends. But at the
larger church, we basically went because
there was much to take away, much that
was given to us through others (of
course all of which we appreciated).
Now in this small church plant, we go, I
explained to them, not because we will
have something to take away, but because
we have something to give. My daughter
and stepson both understood, for they
had already begun giving. In fact, the
week after Michael began learning the
sound booth, it was announced that the
current sound booth technician had to
move and that Michael would now the lead
(good God-timing, the Pastor said).
Michael now has worked the sound booth
as the only technician three times, once
at a funeral, once last week, and this
morning. After the worship service,
Michael said he felt like a hero. He is
even bragging about his new ministry to
his friends at school. These are small
things, but are significant for my
children—they are learning about God’s
church, not as those being ministered
to, but as those who are offering what
they have to help the church. I
appreciate that, without much help from
me, my two teens have begun owning their
church-life for themselves—and
apparently for others.
more
Margins>>
March
10, 2007
Revised Habits of the Mind essays and my
book
It is getting close to
Easter time again. I have revised and
reposted in a pdf format a previous
Habits of the Mind
essay entitled,
“Guess who is coming to Easter?”
Easter is a natural time to receive
guests and visitors at our Church.
Among these visitors, without even
trying, we’d be amazed at the one group
who will show up. If you have not read
the essay….you will be surprised…full
essay>>
I have also revised a
number of
Habits of the Mind
essays and put them into pdf format. If
you cannot download you can email me at
chip@wordsntone.com or download the
software at
Adobe-Reader.
Revised Habits of the
Mind essays:
The middling
of the Christian faith
(pdf)
It is all
about access
(pdf)
Guess who's
coming to Easter? (pdf)
You meet all
kinds (pdf)
“Men without
Chests”
(pdf)
The following essays is
new:
Why the skepticism and hatred for
Evangelical political activism? (pdf)
You can also find Henry
Yordon’s
The
Other Side essay,
“My
visions of a New Jerusalem,”
in the new pdf format. See
The
Other Side Essays>>
Finally, I have copies of
my book on Paul’s Letter to the
Philippians for $5.00 each (add $1.20
for ea. Book for shipping, and 6% for
Connecticut orders). You can find a
free downloadable chapter on this
site…for reviews and summaries of
Destroying Our Private Cities, Building
Our Spiritual Life,
and shipping instructions visit
The Book page>>
March 6, 2007
We have come to a pretty pass when
atheism is allowed to invade public
life. I am being somewhat factitious
here, just making a point. Actually,
these words are just a slight alteration
of Lord Melbourne’s terse cut leveled at
the horrible likes of William
Wilberforce’s audacity to allow his
private faith in Jesus Christ to
influence his political views and invade
English cultural debate and life. The
original Melbourne sneer at
Wilberforce’s advocacy to end the slave
trade read, “Things
are coming to a pretty pass when
religion is allowed to invade public
life.” We hear this in modern
times as well, in many forms. One
particular inference comes from atheists
who, in America, insist that religion
should play no role, have no influence,
nor have any bearing on matters public,
especially if tax dollars or public
property is concerned. Anything that is
forced on the public should not
have a religious basis
whatsoever. There is a strong
underlying secondary principle that, at
least among atheists, that only what
finds its basis scientifically should be
forced upon the public and invade the
private. Those holding an atheistic
worldview cannot mean that forced
beliefs, rules, actions, etc. can find
their basis in consensus (for a
consensus still exits to allow, at least
in a restricted measure, religious
thoughts and ideas into public debate),
or a basis in democratic vote (i.e., a
majority, since a vast majority of
Americans hold to some form of religious
faith).
My ponder here is not to say that in
America an atheistic worldview, or a
scientific basis cannot be allowed in
the public debate (thus my opening is
jest). Of course they can. Our
Constitution and Bill of Rights allows
for all voices to be heard. My only
limit to such “freedom” is that any
view—including a religious one—that
denies the right of another’s voice to
be heard equally no matter their basis
is unconstitutional. But I digress a
little—my ponder:
Are we then to have a purely secular
influence and shall absolutely no
private belief system be allowed to have
a say, a voice, an opinion, or a vote in
the public sphere? Someone’s personal
belief system will be allowed, for the
public sphere shall not be voiceless (I
am sure). Why is it then that only
religious-based beliefs are rejected and
off-limits? Isn’t an atheistic belief
system a personal belief—for certainly
it is a matter of faith that underlies
the assumption that only science is a
valid basis for debate and public
opinion. (For such a belief is most
certainly built on an a priori
assumption, which is a matter of faith,
or at least a non-scientifically
verifiable assumption about the
universe.)
If we live in a democracy, then all
voices have a right to be there—not just
secular voices. Of course, in America
those of non-faith (e.g., agnostics and
atheists) have a right to be heard and
their views a part of the political
debate. I just don’t like it when I
hear my view is being imposed upon
American-atheists as if it simply should
not even be a part of the public
discussion. “Your opinion is
religiously based and motivated so it is
invalid and should not be imposed upon
others.” It is still, things have
come to a pretty pass when religion is
allowed to invade public life to
some.
I am afraid, despite the desires of my
non-believing, God-denying fellow
Americans, that religion in the public
sphere was part of the original intent
of the founders and it is even, for
crying out loud, in the founding
documents. Argue if you will that the
First Amendment clauses keep religion
out of public life via some supposed
high Wall of Separation, but that wall
was built to keep the State from
mandating which religion you must adhere
to—not the public to be void of hearing
from those who have religions
convictions. It has always amazed me
that the Lord Melbournes of today
forget and ignore that context, the
literary context of the Bill of Rights.
The placement and literary context gives
first place of importance to how the
public interacts with its government,
and the founders agreed that religion
does play a role. The freedom of
speech, the right of assembly, and the
right to petition the government for a
redress of grievances are directly,
contextually juxtaposed to the State not
interfering with religion and those
having a religious basis for life to be
free to do so. The First Amendment
implies a religious voice in public
affairs. Until we live in a country
which foundations are atheistic in
worldview (like the former communist
countries and various dictatorships—and
they have faired so well, haven’t
they?), the role of religion in public
life is a right by design, not default.
Finally, it amazes me that, although
American-atheists desire to rid the
public sphere of religious speech, they
borrow religious terms and concepts such
as love and honesty and other moral
concepts. This is odd, since in a
purely atheistic world (universe), there
is no basis for morality. Value
statements are all personal. And
conveniently, atheists tend to forget
(or deny) that there are still many
underlying non-scientific and
supra-historical assumptions that exist
to form an atheistic worldview. It has
come to a pretty pass when religion
and/or religiously based beliefs are
left out of or even forced out of public
debate.
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of
grievances.
more Margins>>
March 3, 2007
Why the skepticism
and hatred for Evangelical political
activism? -
Habits of the Mind
Political pundits, media
talking heads, journalists, and bloggers
have been offering their take on the
republican loss in November and whether
the conservative moment, led by
(so-called) cultural neo-cons and the
evangelical right, has, at the most,
begun to recede, or at the least, just
hit a temporary block. In fact after
listening to hours—literally—of
conservative talk radio, I have
discovered that not all conservatives
like or approve of evangelicals.
Evangelicals are hated, railed against,
maligned, loathed, vilified, and even
laughed at by media. Non-evangelical
conservatives use evangelicals when it
suits their agenda. Liberals loathe
their very presence in the arena.
People and politicians are judged and
criticized based on their relationship
to evangelicals, evangelical leaders
(so-called and self-anointed [James
Dobson, Jerry Farwell, et. al.] and
anything that seems to cross that tall,
church-state wall of separation.
Despite the current rhetoric, I have a
different take on the matter worth
considering.
(full essay)
more Habits>>
March 1, 2007
John
Newton, his tombstone, God's amazing
grace
"My memory is nearly gone, but I
remember two things, that I am a
great sinner, and that Christ is a
great Saviour." ~John Newton
(1725-1807), former slave ship
captain, at the age of 82
"John Newton, Clerk,
once an infidel and libertine, a
servant of slaves in Africa, was, by
the rich mercy of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved,
restored, pardoned, and appointed to
preach the faith he had long labored
to destroy." ~John Newton’s
Tombstone (December 1807)
more Margins>>
February 24,
2007
Anna
Nicole Smith, William Wilberforce, and
Amazing Grace
When I started penning (typing) this
Margin, I originally entitled it “Anna
Nicole Smith: 1967-2007: A life
wasted.” Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t
attempting to suggest that Anna Nicole
was a waste. She was indeed a human
being, made in the image of God, marred
as she was, as we all are. She was
worth loving and had intrinsic worth as
a person. My reference to “wasted” is
not about Anna Nicole, the person. What
I was referring to is she did waste her
life. Or, at least it seems so to me.
When I heard that Anna Nicole had
collapsed and died, I immediately felt a
void—someone will be missing among us.
But, immediately my second thought: what
a waste of a life. At that moment she
became the type for every Anna Nicole
Smith, Paris Hilton, and anyone who has
wealth, time, and media exposure. You
see, I deal in capacities every day. I
work in a human service agency as the
Director of Finance & Planning Services,
a Connecticut Community Action Agency.
In my part of the business, I am always
asking, what is our capacity to serve,
to provide services? What is our
capacity to utilize what we have as an
agency to increase the assets and
capacities of those whom we serve? So
my mind went in this direction as the
wall-to-wall, Anna Nicole Smith all
channels-all-the-time media coverage
began the moment she collapsed. With
all the power at her disposal, she could
have made a difference, as well the
Lindsay Lohans, Britney Spears, Paris
Hiltons could also. The capacity Anna
Nichol was granted could have easily
been dispersed and leveraged for the
good, for some worthy cause, for the
benefit of those without such access to
power, wealth, and abilities to develop
their own capacity.
But then I saw the movie
Amazing Grace, a
portrayal and celebration of the 100th
anniversary of England’s law that
abolished the slave trade. William
Wilberforce spent twenty years placing a
bill before parliament to bring this
awful, godless practice to an end. He
had passion, and talent, inheritance,
wealth, civil and societal
status—capacity. And Wilberforce
leveraged and used this capacity for the
good of those without such access to
build their own capacity. I believe the
writer, the director, and the producers
of the movie were correct to have
juxtaposed Wilberforce’s’ spiritual and
political journey with John Newton’s
song Amazing Grace. Once lost, but now
found; once blind, but now seeing. This
made all the difference in Newton’s life
and as well his disciple’s, William
Wilberforce. Knowledge of God’s amazing
grace is what makes all the different—it
would have made a difference in Anna
Nicole’s life and it would make a
difference in Lindsay Lohan’s, Britney
Spears’, and Paris Hilton’s (and their
cultural offspring’s) lives.
Again, do not get me wrong. I do not
dislike, not think untalented, nor even
think them evil or malicious. But I do
think what a waste of lives. Lives with
such capacity to do well. Lives that
could be leveraged to bring benefit to
others less fortunate.
This started me thinking
about my own life, my own capacities.
Almost fifty and wondering what I have
left to allow my own passion, talent,
and capacities to harness and leverage
on behalf of others?
(The Amazing
Grace, the movie, website.)
more Margins>>
February 10, 2007
Imagining time
before time, and space before space
Every time I ask an
atheist, whether personally or through a
blog, group, or website, where did the
known, physical universe come from—how
did it begin? I usually receive no
answer, or the comment, “We’ve been
through this before.” But when I
say, “Can you explain it again,” no answer is
given. There is no doubt that there is
an element of “faith” for the atheist
regarding the origin (or dare say,
non-origin) of the universe, and
additionally, there is the lack of
scientific explanation for the origin of
the universe. I repeat, who has
determined that we live in a closed
universe where the only way to “prove”
things such as the existence of God,
origins of the universe, angels, heaven,
and hell must be scientific and not
logical? The very “logic” used by
atheists isn’t scientific (ironically), and seems to
betray their insistence that there are
no eternal, immaterial, non-changing
things in this universe. For the laws
of logic are indeed immaterial, eternal,
and non-changing. Furthermore, what was
before time began? What was there
before there was space? It is hard for
atheist to imagine what it was like
before time and before space, for such
imagining is indeed an almost impossible
(and I might add, implausible)
scientific pursuit that actually is a
faith statement about one’s worldview--not
science.
If the atheist stimulates, that
explaining what was before time and
space cannot be imagined, “chance” then
becomes, as Steve Turner once penned,
“the Father of all flesh.” Chance
brought this meaningless existence, rhymeless physical universe into being.
Steve Turner writes, so playfully, but
poignantly, in his poem called “Chance”:
If chance be the Father
of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of
man worshiping his maker.
The difficultly in
imagining the creation of our physical
and known universe where there is no
material becoming material, along with
no time and no space at one point
becoming time and space leads to an even more
devastating imagination of a universe
without an eternal, all-powerful, holy,
immutable Being. Steve Turner reminds
us what is left to imagine within an
atheistic worldview and the plague of living with an
atheistic faith in no-thing, just
chance.
more
Margins>>
January 28, 2007
Dawkins and his own supra-historical,
non-scientific first assumptions
What happens if we don’t
live in a closed universe? What happens
if we can’t prove everything through the
observable scientific method? What
happens if reason and logic and
philosophy (that is philosophical
questioning) are actually valid forms
for determining the validity of truth
and whether something is real, or
whether it is reasonable for something
to exist? Whoever told Richard Dawkins
et. al. that we live in a closed
universe? Whoever told Dawkins that it
is only the scientific method (and the
observable one to boot) is the only
method for determining truth or matters
of this universe? Dawkins in his The
God Delusion makes a remarkable
faith commitment to his assumptions
about time and space and science and the
universe. Dawkins makes a
supra-historical, ultimate,
non-scientific assumption: “Everything
that exists or has existed can be proven
and verified by the scientific method.”
Now, who told him that? How did he come
to that conclusion? Did he use the
scientific method to prove the
scientific method (sounds circular to
me). What happens if we live in a world
that is not closed and is not subject to
the discoveries made only though the
scientific method? What happens if we
live in a open universe that exposes the
limits of the scientific method? Even
if Dawkins and his kind of atheistic
worldview want to say, “You can’t prove
an open universe?” I’d respond at two
levels: First, why are we limited to the
observable scientific method? (Who made
that rule?) And second, that’s
fine, but your assumption that its the
scientific method or nothing else is an
a priori assumption that is just as much
a faith statement as my belief that
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth,” is a
true statement. (In fact, logic and
science seem to grant us that the
Genesis 1:1 statement is a reasonable
one even if one discounts the need for
revelation.) Dawkins must start with a
faith statement about the universe.
Just saying the universe is closed and
what exists only exist if it can be
verified it through science doesn’t make
it a true. It just makes it a worldview
statement that is a matter of faith.
Dawkins and his atheistic community
still must deal with first causes and
the matter of matter. And I love it
when they say there was no first cause,
we just exist, eternally. And for that
matter, we do have unchanging, eternal
laws in the universe that can’t be
tested through science—the laws of
logic. Ah, Dawkins, for all his verbose
in The God Delusion, still has a
problem with his own first
assumptions—they are, shall I be
polite—out of this world.
more
Margins>>
January 19, 2007
My
daughter’s birthday, a cross-cultural
event
About two weeks before my
daughter’s birthday (January 12th),
she asked me if it was all right to have
a sleep over and bowling for a few of
her friends (girls only, of course).
There was a little pause, and then she
said, “I want to invite some of my
church friends and some of my school
friends.” I was impressed, but
cautioned her, “You are taking a little
risk here, you know.” She understood.
But I was quite impressed actually. You
see, we attend a rather white, middle to
upper middle class suburban church with
relatively few urban (and fewer
African-American and Latino) in
attendance. And, Amanda attends a
middle school where she is most
definitely in the minority as a white
female. Her friends (her best friends),
nonetheless, at school, are mostly young
African-American and Hispanic ladies.
But still, she wanted both sets of good
friends to be a part of her Birthday
party. So there, right in front of my
eyes I saw my daughter attempting to
bridge ethnic, cultural, and demographic
barriers. I was so proud of my daughter
just to have thought of this—despite the
potential for conflict,
misunderstanding, and even a boring or
stressful (or uncomfortable) time for
the guests. Throughout the evening, I
watched in amazement as Amanda actively
made ways to bridge the two groups,
developed and played games that helped
each other learn about the others, and
was conflict-solver when tensions or
misunderstandings arose. I thought,
“What a missionary experience?” I
further thought, “What 14 year old young
girl thinks of things like this?” Where
did she learn this stuff? What gave her
capacity to even think of this and pull
if off? Despite the risks involved,
Amanda wanted this event to happen.
Personally, and I know she is my
daughter (and perhaps a little biased),
Amanda is a good model of God’s grace
that seeks to transcend cultural,
ethnic, and demographic boundaries—the
actually intent of God’s plan to have us
“Go into the world and make disciples.”
Something we can all learn from,
especially the church community.
If a young fourteen year old can take
such risks to do what is unexpected, but
right, why can't we, the adults?
more Margins>>
January 16, 2007
On
reading Dawkins and his
God
Delusion
Reading through The
God Delusion, I hear arguments
retold I have heard many times over the
28 years of my Christian life. In fact
I heard some of them before my
conversion to Christ in 1978. They were
the ones I used to argue my own form of
atheism. But, as C S Lewis once stated
in his The Pilgrim’s Regress, an
allegory of his own conversion to
Christ, “Reason came riding on a horse
and rescued me.” Now I can fully admit,
not everything was simple reason or
logic. But that opened the door for
faith to find a place to land. Dawkins
is attempting to kick the rider of the
horse and shake up the land so my
footing becomes shaky. He calls me
imbecilic, stupid, foolish, a believer
in fairytales. (I wonder why is really
won’t debate Christian apologists—I’d
love to see him take on Peter Kreeft or
Ravi Zacharias, or even Norm Geisler.
Yet, as I read Dawkin’s book, although I
can tell it will be attractive to
skeptics and utilized by American
atheists, and by many more as an excuse
for continued disbelief. He relies on
calling names and belittling believers,
and he shows his arrogance by crafting
out a God (really a god) that few people
actually believe in in order to make his
point. So the book, in the end, is not
to convince believers to abandon their
faith, but to sell his brand of atheism
to a market of starving atheists who
need a foundation (albeit from Dawkin
still a shaky one) to sustain their
disbelief in God, especially a disbelief
in the God of the Bible. I have been
paying attention to atheist blogs and
sites for some time now, and after
reading (even some of) Dawkin’s book, I
realize where they are getting their
talking points from. As a reasonable
person, I do read with interest. (I am
still quiet amazed at Dawkin’s lack of
knowledge of Christian sources, texts,
and arguments. His own bibliography in
the book shows his lack of interacting
with Christian scholarship, even at the
popular level. His references are
either of skeptics who state the same
thing he wants to say, or straw
man—quotes with no reference cited so we
can check it out.) I am so overwhelmed
by his hatred for Christianity and his
belittlement of Christians that I can’t
even appreciate the good and reasonable
questions Dawkins raises. I continue,
page after page, to be left with these
thoughts:
-
What is a scientific
defined basis for morality?
-
What is a scientific
definition of ‘good’?
-
How does science
produce a foundation for a moral,
good, and righteous society?
-
What kind of
objective guide or standard does
science give us to be good or moral?
In fact, these terms
(good, moral, righteous) lose their
definition and meaning as I realize,
through Dawkins, there is no objective
standard to give meaning or weight to
these ideas and words. Good has to
mean, by Dawkins’ own advocacy of
evolution (including his selfish-gene
theory) whatever passes on the most
genes wins—how do these genes know what
is good anyway? On the one hand Dawkins
tells us we are the product of long term
evolutionary progress and our gene pool
has determined—conditioned—our responses
to life; meanwhile he tells us we are to
be good for just being good. But our
genes take over and tell us what has to
survive to pass on. He expects caring
and selflessness even though are genes
as selfish. As Dawkins is amazed that
seeming intelligent people buy into
religious thinking, I am amazed,
dumbfounded that decent, thinking people
find his own arguments sound. On ever
page, I recall the Psalmist who said, “A
fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no
god.’”
more Margins>>
January 13, 2007
If there is no
God, would we be good?
I was letting my daughter
and stepson get some books at Borders
this afternoon—my mom gave me a gift
card to use, some of which was to be
spent on my kids. I started browsing
Richard Hawkins’ new book, The God
Delusions. Even after the first
page, I wanted to start replying to his
straw men, false assertions about
Christianity and the Bible, as well as
his horrible use of logic. I bought the
book—at least it was 30% off! So I
respond to the one area I find most
vulnerable to Western Atheists: the
question of a basis for morals, moral
assertions, and doing good. Richard
Dawkins entitles one of his chapters,
“If there is no God, why be good?” This
actually seems like a good question.
And he rightly sets up the debate,
really the potential answers to this
question: If you are being good to gain
God’s approval or reward or to avoid his
disapproval and punishment, that’s not
morality, that’s just sucking up. Silly
argument really. I taught logic and
debate and critical thinking at the
college level and one of the most
important things one needs to do is
define terms, and those definition need
to be agreed upon by all sides, and the
definitions must, obviously, work in
reality. Dawkins makes, an interesting
proposition, albeit not so original: We
do not need God to be good. But there
are so many problems, at so many levels
with this premise. Nonetheless, despite
its weaknesses, this premise is
re-worded to be a question, and then
used to smash Christians and their
beliefs. The question, at first glance,
even seems reasonable. So, if God
doesn’t exist, would we be and do good?
Here are some random thoughts to
highlight the weakness and logical
fallacies in what this question assumes
and seeks to imply:
The question itself is
used to set up the believer with a catch
22 dilemma: Be good to please God and
that’s sucking up; say no ‘I can be good
without God’ and the Christian then
defeats his or her own argument. But
the questioner must be questioned before
an answer is given. The question is
wrong from the start. It is not that we
need God to be good or do good.
Atheists do good all the time, as I
imagine that criminals, the insane, and
even cannibals do good as well. This is
one significant place—really only one of
many places in his arguments—Dawkin gets
it wrong: We do not need God or even a
belief in a god to do good. (That’s a
no brainer.) But we do need God to
define what good is. (I’d even say for
argument sake, we need some objective,
ultimate Being.) That’s the atheist’s
problem. The question is better put,
“If there is no God, is there ‘good’?
And to push it a little further, more
personal, more practical, “whose ‘good’
is Dawkins talking about—his own,
Hitler’s, Gandhi’s, Mother Theresa’s, my
eleven year old’s? Whose? I need God,
not just to have a reason to be good,
but to know what good to be or do.
Richard Dawkins is clever enough not to
develop his moral basis and foundation
for defining good because in doing so he
must borrow from his rejected Christian
worldview. Additionally, I’d even say,
what’s wrong with being good or doing
good for someone else? My daughter does
things to receive my affirmation or
approval or even sometimes for reward,
as I do for my wife, and my own mother
(sometimes). Such action does not
always imply a negative. I love my
daughter no matter what she does. But
what’s wrong with her loving me and
wanting to do things for reward or
affirmation? Dawkins will have to give
us some reasons why that’s so wrong
anyway—he does not offer one reason.
And maybe I want God’s approval. If
Dawkins is advocating a truly altruistic
human existence, he is delusional
himself.
more Margins>>
January 11,
2007
On earth as it is
in heaven: a realized eschatological
obedience
One would think that Jesus actually
meant, when He said, “Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done, on earth as it is in
heaven,” that we are praying for what is
real in heaven where God reigns to be
realized on earth now. Jesus’
prayer to His heavenly Father was a
summary of His eschatology. He
expected His followers to be disciples
of realized eschatology; obedience to
Christ is to mean that discipleship
means to intentionally do on earth what
is in heaven. The portrait of the
future, that is, the eschatological
reality placed before the believer in
the text of scripture, demands a
discipleship that seeks to bring that
future into the imagination and
obedience of the follower of Christ.
Over the next year, along with grant
writing and other personal writing
projects, I want to explore the
relationship between eschatology and its
impact on Christian obedience as it
relates to justice and activities that
serve, assist, and provide for the
economical and disenfranchised
vulnerable populations that surround the
church.
more Margins>>
April - December 2006
An obligatory
tithe?: Look who benefits from the tithe
of the Old Testament
An obligatory
tithe: Making a leap of faith in one’s
interpretation
An obligatory
tithe?: Questioning the Malachi 3
proof-text—Who is Robbing whom?
Another comment on
Missional Leaders
Anti-Christian
storylines (like The Da Vinci Code)
will always flop
Ask
for a reference
Church is messy
Church planting, a greater spiritual
return on investment
Deaf
to the judgments on the temple (Widow
story)
First Bush Veto: First principles first
Following up on my
tithing comments: redirecting the Good
Samaritan question
Getting a little dirty for God and His
Church this summer
In honor of
JFK, C.S. Lewis (okay, I'll include
Aldous Huxley, too)
It is reasonable
to believe the biblical account
Old ways: ‘build
it so they will come’; older ways: ‘go’
Our
best apologetic is our commitment to the
vulnerable
Outcomes, planned
or unplanned, determine who is recruited
Romans, a Baker Exegetical Commentary by
Thomas R. Schreiner
Rough Cut
exegetical essay downloads
Rough Cuts:
exegesis for dummies
Some thoughts
on fighting the cultural war
Still
Kicking—Doing something compassionate
for the Kingdom
The Da Vinci
premise, Part 2: Lord, liar, or
lunatic
The
Da Vinci premise, Part 1: It ultimately fails—always has
The externally focused church
The Insomniac blog
The
obligatory tithe: is it biblical?
The problem with
majorities on morality
The whole thing
stinks
There will always be poor in the land
Three excuses for
poor postings on this site
Two lost Margin
thoughts (on abortion and on morality)
Using pious language to maintain what
will be destroyed (Widow story)
Using the text of
Scripture to squeeze out bananas
Where should the church focus?
Widows in Our
Courts: My ETS paper, done and presented
Widows in our Temple Courts
Working MacDonald’s as Outreach
More
Margins>>
Previous Gemara
An obligatory
tithe?: the problem with the primary
prooftext
It is not about
the money, stupid
Sharing the tithe
with the poor (Malachi 3, the threat,
and distribution of the tithe)
Nonbiblical-bible literalists and
consumeric marketers on the same page
What
are you wasting? (Part Two)
What are you
wasting? (Part One)
He who has ears to hear—why I am glad I
wrote “The Sower who sows”
Answering the right question from
widow’s two small coins story
Turning curse into
blessing—to the ends of the earth
Taking the poor
and meek out of the poor and meek, Part
II
Taking the poor
and meek out of the poor and meek, Part
I
Jesus came to his
own, and we didn’t receive Him
Speaking for God when he is silent, very
dangerous
Have we heard?
What are we listening to?
Look
who Jesus is talking to
Our arrogant
misunderstanding of our insightfulness
The church isn't
98th and Vine
Redemptive
reversal: The 3000
There continues
to be famine in our midst
Is
it good for poor people?
How to find well-being in exile
Connecting the
dots and visiting prisoners (Hebrews 10
and Matthew 25)
No trivial pursuit
Previous
Commonplace Thoughts
Worshiping alone in a crowd
Defining leader in
the church—old or older way?
The
Missional Leader and some first
impressions
April Reviews & Resources...
Reviewing a new road to Rome
Some
Post-script
comments not in the review...click
What is
Words’nTone?
Words’nTone is an
online
Christian journal and weblog dedicated to promoting faithful
biblical interpretation, significant preaching, sound
Christian thinking, and demonstrating that the Christian
faith is relevant for our time, our culture, and our
lives.
The pulpit and Bible study are still
the central places where Christian discourse within the
Church occurs.
Words’nTone seeks to assist those who are
communicating God’s word from these venues by offering
interpretive insights, relevant cultural analysis, and other
resources for biblically sound and significant
interpretation, as well as, relevant application.
Amanda's Senator Shots...click a pic
See cat video>>
|
|
