Previous Margin Musings>>

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).

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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>>

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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>>

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

March 6, 2007

American atheism invading public life

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.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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)

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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)

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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 100^th 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.)

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

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.

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.

January 19, 2007

My daughter’s birthday, a cross-cultural event

About two weeks before my daughter’s birthday (January 12^th), 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?

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.’”

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.

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.

Previous Margin Musings>>