|
"Anyone wishing to save humanity
must first of all save the Word."
~ Jacques Ellul
~ |
|
|
|
|
|
Restoring the weightiness of preaching - Raising
Christian discourse above our fading culture |
|
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
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... |
|
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)
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 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.)
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
| | | | |
