Well dear friend I finally did it. STS-133, the final mission launch for the space shuttle Discovery, was inspiring to watch from up close and personal. My wife and I got invited to attend by some friends and we were 3 miles from ground zero at the Kennedy Space Center. It was a perfect launch right on schedule! We heard there were 150,000 in the Cape Canaveral area for the launch, but we had some of the best seats in the house just 3 miles from ground zero. It was 3, 2, 1 and then the bright flames ignited and off she went. It started out slow and seemed to simply levitate in place for a bit. Then the flash got brighter and we began to hear the sounds of ignition. Not more than a few seconds later and she had passed the launch tower. Smoke was everywhere. Then the shuttle started picking up speed and she lifted into the air heading out over the Atlantic with that huge plume of white smoke following her through the air. Then we started to hear a low rumble that grew in intensity in waves and in a few seconds it was louder than the finish line at the Daytona 500! The hot wind was blowing in our faces and the shuttle quickly reached speeds of over 2000 miles an hour. Then the external tanks dropped off and a few minutes later she was gone. At least gone to our view, but we still heard the communications with NASA as the Shuttle reached the "no return" point and was off to outer space! The whole thing lasted about two minutes but what a rush! God bless Discovery and may those brave men and women have fantastic success and a happy return. Hopefully, we'll catch the reentry in just over a week.
On another note - just finished a Biography of Jonathan Edwards by George Marsden that was superb. And, I also finished a book entitled Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development edited by David Wells. Both were excellent reads. The Edwards Biography was superb in its research and depth. Like the other Marsden books I have read, this one did not disappoint. Edwards is shown to be a man of brilliance whose absolute dedication to Christ is incredibly inspiring and humbling to this reader all at the same time. Edwards' ability to see through the bologna and hit the issues head on is impressive. His brilliance comes through at every level. His theological and philosophical insights are clearly discussed along with the great issues that proved challenging for him personally and at the family level. His wife is shown as the incredibly gifted woman and partner that she proved to be along with his wonderful children. Edwards' pivotal role in the Great Awakening is without parallel in America. His blend of heartfelt religious piety with a firm and consistent commitment to orthodox and historic Calvinism make him one of the last of the Reformers and Puritans to have such a powerful influence on the world stage. While we celebrate Edwards' contributions we mourn the liberalism that has eroded the church. We also mourn the basic departure from his legacy (and the gospel he loved) of the modern conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in an effort to "reach generation X". This not only should be seen as an insult to generation X (I guess the gospel is not quite good enough for this generation right?) but also an embarrassment for the modern leaders and pastors in the PCA and other conservative reformed groups.
The Wells' book was also very good. It has a an all star cast of contributors and covered three basic schools of Reformed theological development in America: the Dutch school, the Princeton theologians and the Southern Presbyterians. All of these groups are discussed in terms of their theological contributions and emphasis as well as their philosophical insights. The Dutch focus on engaging culture, the Princeton focus on doctrinal consistency and faithfulness, and the Southern focus on piety and church development are three key areas that the modern Reformed church is struggling to balance. My sneaky suspicion is that most pastors are hugely ignorant of the great heritage we have in all of these three traditions because most are busy trying to just get through their days as pastors. Few of the PCA pastors (my denomination) have much vision beyond their church doors and local communities. Unfortunately, those who do have a larger vision too often have drifted away from the roots that are inside the church doors (in its history and heritage) and as a result are drifting from the Gospel into the world. Don't get me wrong, we haven't abandoned the faith yet but we just don't believe it is the answer to the modern problems. So rather then deny the faith, the typical modern PCA pastor just ignores it and goes on with whatever program or fad happens to be the latest thing in vogue coming down from the denominational leadership. Perhaps if we as a denomination knew who we are and had any confidence in that old time gospel then, just maybe, we would be more faithfully engaged with our non-reformed and even non-Christian neighbors. The assumption of the book seems to be that when the Reformed churches depart from her roots it not only is bad for them, it is bad for the church at large, and bad for the culture. This book is helpful in bringing clarity to a number of great Reformed leaders in our history. The other great strengths of the book are the extensive footnotes and the superb bibliography for those interested in further study. I highly recommend this book!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
To Change the World: A Review
On the recommendation of a pastor friend of mine, I recently read To Change the World by James Davison Hunter. My wife and I have been discussing the book and I figured I would put down some thoughts for future reference.
First of all, I must admit, that in general, I found the book quite disappointing and uninspiring. In fact, it seemed to me a bit of a downer. There were, however, some helpful insights that I did appreciate, although from my perspective there are serious flaws with his argument and his conclusion. I want to be clear, though, that it is entirely possible that I misunderstood his intent, because I found the book at times burdensome to try to understand.
Hunter initially describes what he thinks is the main, conservative Evangelical Christian view of how culture changes, and then attempts to discredit such leading advocates as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Nancy Pearcy. Basically, he thinks this view is that the only and primary way to change culture is by changing peoples' hearts and minds so they could have an individual impact on changing the culture. As more and more people come to Christ, and individual Christians begin to think more Christianly, culture will automatically become more Christian. And, of course, the primary thing these Christians are supposed to do when they think more Christianly is vote for right wing conservatives. They will put conservative judges on the bench who will legislate Christian morality to a culture that used to be somewhat Christian, but has since rejected Christianity for secularism. In effect, he views conservative Evangelical Christians as sore losers who refuse to admit that they have lost the culture wars, and should give up fighting for a Christian America, at least on the political front. These Christians are also mean spirited in their tone, have unrealistic expectations on how to change culture, and are basically ignorant of our nation's history which was never in any way Christian. In effect, it is the typical liberal view of Conservative Evangelical Christians. That is, Bible believing conservative Christians are all ignorant, mean spirited, naive, and truth be told, not very Christian. Their motives are good, but they just simply don't understand They need to be taught by someone who understands culture and history (like Hunter for example) a more excellent way.
I am being pretty simplistic here but that is the gist. And, just for the record, I disagree with the accuracy of his description, although in some cases I think he is correct. However, I don't think Chuck Colson, James Dobson, or Nancy Pearcy are mean spirited ignoramuses who don't have a clue about culture. I think they are conservative, and Hunter doesn't seem to like the fact they actually take the Bible seriously on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. He also doesn't like that they believe we shouldn't just sit back, and let the libs ram their philosophy down the throats of the rest of America. In effect, Hunter is calling on CCs (Conservative Christians) to lay down their weapon of truth and begin anew practicing the Great Commandment "thou shalt be Nice!" (In liberal parlance, Thou Shalt do deeds of social justice and shut up!).
My critique here is that I think CCs are right on the issues, and right to be involved in politics, not only as Christians but as Americans. In fact, it is our responsibility to be good citizens of God's kingdom and this earthly one. And in a democracy where we have free speech we have a responsibility to not only vote, but advocate strongly for our position. Anything less than that is un-Christian and cowardly. I also think he has a wrong view of our history as a nation. The common belief that the founders were all Deists, and there was basically nothing Christian about our nation's founding is just nonsense. Some were Deists, but any serious historian will note that the Great Awakening coupled with our Puritan forbears, meant that even though not everyone was Christian the underlying culture operated on Christian foundations. Contrast our Revolution with the French one and you should get the point. Our founders believed religion should be protected and encouraged (by that they meant Christianity and not Islam, in case you were wondering). The French had a completely different mindset that turned into a blood bath. Hunter is just plain wrong in his understanding of American History and he should be ashamed of himself for not knowing his history, as well as for promoting an inaccurate view of history. Of course, he does this not by calling this the wrong view of American history, but by calling it one view or the CC story. I hate to say it, but once again Hunter displays an un-Biblical worldview and a rather post-modern view that all history is is just a bunch of stories told from different perspectives. He seems to assume that all historical perspectives are equally valid and there really isn't a true one, or at least you can't get to the true one. Well, I guess the Gospels are just one view of Jesus right? And since all views of history are equally valid we might as well look at the Gospel of Thomas too right? Hogwash!
The other thing that Hunter doesn't even mention in his book is the fact that for many CCs the issue is not just bringing out nation back to its Christian roots, but also bringing that nation back to the Constitution. You know, that thing that says the federal government has enumerated, limited powers and is not the Almighty? Most CCs I know don't want an establishment of Christianity in America but rather just simply want the government to let us live our simple, modest, Christian lives rather than trying to shove abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else, down our throats. It is respect for the Constitution and the Bible that drives most CCs. But, liberals like Hunter don't understand respect for the Constitution because they don't respect our nation's history. And, just as a side note, most of the libs out there have never volunteered for military service, because they don't really believe in America at least not enough to actually fight for her! The only thing they are willing to fight for is their communist worldview! Bill Ayers would be so proud of you Lefties!!
Hunter then makes some interesting points when he talks about how culture changes. He argues that it is those involved in the elite circles who really change culture. Since the CCs have abandoned high culture to the secularists, they have abandoned their ability to change culture. Therefore they are frustrated and work all the harder at making converts and being political. While I disagree with his characterization of CCs, I do agree that Christians should be more involved in high culture, whether it be the arts, academia, law, or any other arena that we have historically given over to the libs. It seems to me that Colson and the others believe this as well, and they too mourn the Christian abandonment of high culture. In fact, that seems to be the whole point behind their books. They want Christians to be involved in high culture. But, they also recognize that it isn't enough just to be involved in high culture. You need to actually have a Christian worldview to be able to play in the high culture game or you become just like the libs who control those places and institutions. I too mourn the anti-intellectualism of the church. But I refuse to believe that we have to give up the truth to be valid "intellectuals". In fact, I would argue with the likes of Machen and VanTil, that the only consistent way to be an intellectual is to be a serious Christian (and a Reformed one at that, for that is the most consistently Christian view). For Christianity is the only consistent worldview because it alone is a reflection of the God who is Truth.
But, I do get the point that Christians should be more involved in the Elite cultural arenas. We should, in fact, offer positive alternatives, instead of sitting back and criticizing all those in the seats of power. I agree with Hunter on this point at least.
I also found Hunter's discussion of Power to be a bit confusing. Like I said earlier, perhaps the fault here is with me. But, it seems rather fundamental to his argument that Power is at the center of the culture wars. He views CCs as basically trying to impose their view of truth on the rest of the world because they want to have the power. My issue here is that I think Hunter displays some communist presuppositions rather than Christian ones in this area. The communist worldview, that it is always between the haves and the have nots, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. The Biblical world view says it is Truth against lies, faithful followers of God against those who are hostile to God. While power can be abused, the issue in the Bible is about sin in general, not just the abuse of power. In other words, social injustice is not the cardinal sin, rebellion against God is! Hunter seems to agree with the CLs (Christians who are liberal politically) that the Bible is pretty much a book about social justice. In fact, this seems to be his fundamental view of the world. The problem is that this is not Biblical. Social justice is important in the Bible, but the fundamental issue is whether a person will believe and follow Jesus, not whether they are a social liberal or on the side of the poor. Jesus has followers who are rich, poor and in the middle. Our problem in America today is not one of social injustice but that we have a culture that has rejected Christ. CLs basically assume Jesus is the head communist and that to follow him means adopting the liberal political agenda. The problem is that I just don't see Jesus stealing from the rich to give to the poor (via taxes or any other way), or giving people welfare without holding them accountable for their behavior, or equating homosexual rights as part of his social agenda, or abortion rights, or any of the other leftist agenda items. Social justice in the Bible is not something forced upon people by the government, but is a voluntary act of faith done by people who love their neighbors because they love God. This is not the CL viewpoint though. For them, government has replaced Jesus as the Almighty deliverer.
The fundamental problem with Hunter's view here is that he fails to take into account that no matter how you slice it, at some point a Christian has the responsibility to confront his neighbor about his sin. And this, more often than not, is not seen as being nice or being Liberal. The assumption Hunter makes is that I don't have a right to impose my view on anyone else. And, of course, he is right, except for one problem. God does have a right to impose His view and standard on everyone. And, if I really believe I understand His standard I have a responsibility to proclaim His standard to the world, and pray they will repent and believe the Gospel. The call of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel and to live it out. Christianity is about truth first and foremost. You cannot have justice without Truth. Isaiah 59 and Romans 1 come to mind about how cultures deteriorate. Cultures (and individuals) reject Truth and then injustice prevails. Then they blame God for their problems and take it out on those who represent Him. God will either intervene to save His people (either through conversion, as in the case of Jonah's Nineveh, or in destruction, as with Sodom and Gomorrah) or He might just give the culture over to sin.
The other issue here is that Hunter doesn't seem to think there is any place or role for the Law of God in society. Of course, if you remove the Law, you lose the Gospel, but that is just one point. The other is that Hunter has rejected the Reformed view that the Law is useful in society in restraining sin, convicting of sin, and establishing a standard for Christian conduct. In fact, I am not even sure Hunter mentions the Law or sin in his entire book. Maybe I missed it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be a prominent part of his argument. So, if there was one fundamental flaw with Hunter's book is that he has completely mis-diagnosed the problem because he doesn't account for the sinful hearts and minds of those who don't know Christ. The doctrine of Total Depravity comes to mind, but it doesn't seem it did to Hunter when he wrote his book.
Also, Hunter completely discounts any room or place for the reality that God does work through individual Christians, and He does in fact answer prayer. For example, St. Augustine, who certainly was a culture warrior, credits his conversion and success to the prayers of his mother. Oops, there I go again with my Great Man view of history. Hunter doesn't believe history is the story of great men so we can't use any examples of great men anymore. But, my point is that, whether he believes it or not, great men have in fact had massive impacts on the history of the world and changing cultures. He says they worked through networks and that without networks none of these Great Men would have been successful. Well, I have no doubt that they networked. They also used language, wrote books, could read, etc. but that doesn't discount that they were Great Men, and God used them to change the world. Where would we be without Abraham, or Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.? Give me a break man!
My point is that God does work through individuals, God does answer prayer, and God is not dependent on networks or high culture or anything else to change the world. He normally works through means , but He is not obligated to do so. So, to mock those poor Christians out there who are praying for Revival and to discount them as bumbling fools, or at least nice, but seriously misguided, is a bit pompous and unspiritual. At the very least, it is completely uninspiring to the mom with three kids who is crying out to God to save her kids from being persecuted by God hating homosexuals who might want to rape them someday like the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. That mom's simple prayer of faith has more power than Hunter seems to believe. O ye of little faith!
All that being said, I did have a few good take aways from the book. I appreciated his three basic categories of Evangelicals, and how they have attempted to interact with Culture. He makes the case there is the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptist approach. He summarizes their views as "Defense Against, Relevance to, and Purity From". The CCs are trying to defend themselves from secularization by taking over politically. The CLs are trying to make the Church relevant by focusing on social justice and minimizing Truth. The Neo-anabaptists are trying to disengage the corrupt culture by "being the Church". I think there is some truth to his model and found it somewhat helpful , although it is a poor substitute for Neibuhr's views in Christ and Culture. But, I do appreciate the effort Hunter is making. His view, which he tries to paint as the Biblical alternative, is called "Faithful Presence In". I wasn't too clear on exactly what this means, but it seems to mean that Christians should stop trying to be political at all since that is not how you change culture. Instead we should take whatever calling we have in life, and interpret it through the Social Justice lens of Scripture. Then, we can find ways to help the poor, and be considered nice by all the liberals out there who run the culture. Rather than confronting the sins of the culture with truth, we should confront the culture with good deeds. In effect, he is submitting we should become moralists, and show the culture a better way. To me, this is basically a 21st Century recasting of the Social Gospel of the early 1900s. Only for Hunter, Christians shouldn't focus on moral issues like the Social Gospel did, but rather on changing your work space, or you company's business practices, etc. Don't talk about moral issues as long as you help the poor. That is the main thing. And, we really need to do it well and just shut up because that is the only way we will get back any credibility with the Liberal Elites. Once we get on good terms with them at least maybe then they will let us live peacefully in our country and they just might even be nice back to us. Then we can all sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after.
I don't buy it. The book did make me think about how politicized my own mind has become, and it did get me to think more about how to interact with the culture. I also learned a lot about the Christian Left mindset and the Neo-anabaptist viewpoint. But, in the end, I am a conservative because I believe it best reflects a Biblical worldview. Hunter may be an outstanding sociologist and in my humble opinion he should stick to that calling. However, he clearly misses the mark as a historian and theologian and should leave these areas to those who are more qualified to address them. Make me a Biblical argument and you will have a much better shot at "changing my world".
First of all, I must admit, that in general, I found the book quite disappointing and uninspiring. In fact, it seemed to me a bit of a downer. There were, however, some helpful insights that I did appreciate, although from my perspective there are serious flaws with his argument and his conclusion. I want to be clear, though, that it is entirely possible that I misunderstood his intent, because I found the book at times burdensome to try to understand.
Hunter initially describes what he thinks is the main, conservative Evangelical Christian view of how culture changes, and then attempts to discredit such leading advocates as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Nancy Pearcy. Basically, he thinks this view is that the only and primary way to change culture is by changing peoples' hearts and minds so they could have an individual impact on changing the culture. As more and more people come to Christ, and individual Christians begin to think more Christianly, culture will automatically become more Christian. And, of course, the primary thing these Christians are supposed to do when they think more Christianly is vote for right wing conservatives. They will put conservative judges on the bench who will legislate Christian morality to a culture that used to be somewhat Christian, but has since rejected Christianity for secularism. In effect, he views conservative Evangelical Christians as sore losers who refuse to admit that they have lost the culture wars, and should give up fighting for a Christian America, at least on the political front. These Christians are also mean spirited in their tone, have unrealistic expectations on how to change culture, and are basically ignorant of our nation's history which was never in any way Christian. In effect, it is the typical liberal view of Conservative Evangelical Christians. That is, Bible believing conservative Christians are all ignorant, mean spirited, naive, and truth be told, not very Christian. Their motives are good, but they just simply don't understand They need to be taught by someone who understands culture and history (like Hunter for example) a more excellent way.
I am being pretty simplistic here but that is the gist. And, just for the record, I disagree with the accuracy of his description, although in some cases I think he is correct. However, I don't think Chuck Colson, James Dobson, or Nancy Pearcy are mean spirited ignoramuses who don't have a clue about culture. I think they are conservative, and Hunter doesn't seem to like the fact they actually take the Bible seriously on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. He also doesn't like that they believe we shouldn't just sit back, and let the libs ram their philosophy down the throats of the rest of America. In effect, Hunter is calling on CCs (Conservative Christians) to lay down their weapon of truth and begin anew practicing the Great Commandment "thou shalt be Nice!" (In liberal parlance, Thou Shalt do deeds of social justice and shut up!).
My critique here is that I think CCs are right on the issues, and right to be involved in politics, not only as Christians but as Americans. In fact, it is our responsibility to be good citizens of God's kingdom and this earthly one. And in a democracy where we have free speech we have a responsibility to not only vote, but advocate strongly for our position. Anything less than that is un-Christian and cowardly. I also think he has a wrong view of our history as a nation. The common belief that the founders were all Deists, and there was basically nothing Christian about our nation's founding is just nonsense. Some were Deists, but any serious historian will note that the Great Awakening coupled with our Puritan forbears, meant that even though not everyone was Christian the underlying culture operated on Christian foundations. Contrast our Revolution with the French one and you should get the point. Our founders believed religion should be protected and encouraged (by that they meant Christianity and not Islam, in case you were wondering). The French had a completely different mindset that turned into a blood bath. Hunter is just plain wrong in his understanding of American History and he should be ashamed of himself for not knowing his history, as well as for promoting an inaccurate view of history. Of course, he does this not by calling this the wrong view of American history, but by calling it one view or the CC story. I hate to say it, but once again Hunter displays an un-Biblical worldview and a rather post-modern view that all history is is just a bunch of stories told from different perspectives. He seems to assume that all historical perspectives are equally valid and there really isn't a true one, or at least you can't get to the true one. Well, I guess the Gospels are just one view of Jesus right? And since all views of history are equally valid we might as well look at the Gospel of Thomas too right? Hogwash!
The other thing that Hunter doesn't even mention in his book is the fact that for many CCs the issue is not just bringing out nation back to its Christian roots, but also bringing that nation back to the Constitution. You know, that thing that says the federal government has enumerated, limited powers and is not the Almighty? Most CCs I know don't want an establishment of Christianity in America but rather just simply want the government to let us live our simple, modest, Christian lives rather than trying to shove abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else, down our throats. It is respect for the Constitution and the Bible that drives most CCs. But, liberals like Hunter don't understand respect for the Constitution because they don't respect our nation's history. And, just as a side note, most of the libs out there have never volunteered for military service, because they don't really believe in America at least not enough to actually fight for her! The only thing they are willing to fight for is their communist worldview! Bill Ayers would be so proud of you Lefties!!
Hunter then makes some interesting points when he talks about how culture changes. He argues that it is those involved in the elite circles who really change culture. Since the CCs have abandoned high culture to the secularists, they have abandoned their ability to change culture. Therefore they are frustrated and work all the harder at making converts and being political. While I disagree with his characterization of CCs, I do agree that Christians should be more involved in high culture, whether it be the arts, academia, law, or any other arena that we have historically given over to the libs. It seems to me that Colson and the others believe this as well, and they too mourn the Christian abandonment of high culture. In fact, that seems to be the whole point behind their books. They want Christians to be involved in high culture. But, they also recognize that it isn't enough just to be involved in high culture. You need to actually have a Christian worldview to be able to play in the high culture game or you become just like the libs who control those places and institutions. I too mourn the anti-intellectualism of the church. But I refuse to believe that we have to give up the truth to be valid "intellectuals". In fact, I would argue with the likes of Machen and VanTil, that the only consistent way to be an intellectual is to be a serious Christian (and a Reformed one at that, for that is the most consistently Christian view). For Christianity is the only consistent worldview because it alone is a reflection of the God who is Truth.
But, I do get the point that Christians should be more involved in the Elite cultural arenas. We should, in fact, offer positive alternatives, instead of sitting back and criticizing all those in the seats of power. I agree with Hunter on this point at least.
I also found Hunter's discussion of Power to be a bit confusing. Like I said earlier, perhaps the fault here is with me. But, it seems rather fundamental to his argument that Power is at the center of the culture wars. He views CCs as basically trying to impose their view of truth on the rest of the world because they want to have the power. My issue here is that I think Hunter displays some communist presuppositions rather than Christian ones in this area. The communist worldview, that it is always between the haves and the have nots, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. The Biblical world view says it is Truth against lies, faithful followers of God against those who are hostile to God. While power can be abused, the issue in the Bible is about sin in general, not just the abuse of power. In other words, social injustice is not the cardinal sin, rebellion against God is! Hunter seems to agree with the CLs (Christians who are liberal politically) that the Bible is pretty much a book about social justice. In fact, this seems to be his fundamental view of the world. The problem is that this is not Biblical. Social justice is important in the Bible, but the fundamental issue is whether a person will believe and follow Jesus, not whether they are a social liberal or on the side of the poor. Jesus has followers who are rich, poor and in the middle. Our problem in America today is not one of social injustice but that we have a culture that has rejected Christ. CLs basically assume Jesus is the head communist and that to follow him means adopting the liberal political agenda. The problem is that I just don't see Jesus stealing from the rich to give to the poor (via taxes or any other way), or giving people welfare without holding them accountable for their behavior, or equating homosexual rights as part of his social agenda, or abortion rights, or any of the other leftist agenda items. Social justice in the Bible is not something forced upon people by the government, but is a voluntary act of faith done by people who love their neighbors because they love God. This is not the CL viewpoint though. For them, government has replaced Jesus as the Almighty deliverer.
The fundamental problem with Hunter's view here is that he fails to take into account that no matter how you slice it, at some point a Christian has the responsibility to confront his neighbor about his sin. And this, more often than not, is not seen as being nice or being Liberal. The assumption Hunter makes is that I don't have a right to impose my view on anyone else. And, of course, he is right, except for one problem. God does have a right to impose His view and standard on everyone. And, if I really believe I understand His standard I have a responsibility to proclaim His standard to the world, and pray they will repent and believe the Gospel. The call of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel and to live it out. Christianity is about truth first and foremost. You cannot have justice without Truth. Isaiah 59 and Romans 1 come to mind about how cultures deteriorate. Cultures (and individuals) reject Truth and then injustice prevails. Then they blame God for their problems and take it out on those who represent Him. God will either intervene to save His people (either through conversion, as in the case of Jonah's Nineveh, or in destruction, as with Sodom and Gomorrah) or He might just give the culture over to sin.
The other issue here is that Hunter doesn't seem to think there is any place or role for the Law of God in society. Of course, if you remove the Law, you lose the Gospel, but that is just one point. The other is that Hunter has rejected the Reformed view that the Law is useful in society in restraining sin, convicting of sin, and establishing a standard for Christian conduct. In fact, I am not even sure Hunter mentions the Law or sin in his entire book. Maybe I missed it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be a prominent part of his argument. So, if there was one fundamental flaw with Hunter's book is that he has completely mis-diagnosed the problem because he doesn't account for the sinful hearts and minds of those who don't know Christ. The doctrine of Total Depravity comes to mind, but it doesn't seem it did to Hunter when he wrote his book.
Also, Hunter completely discounts any room or place for the reality that God does work through individual Christians, and He does in fact answer prayer. For example, St. Augustine, who certainly was a culture warrior, credits his conversion and success to the prayers of his mother. Oops, there I go again with my Great Man view of history. Hunter doesn't believe history is the story of great men so we can't use any examples of great men anymore. But, my point is that, whether he believes it or not, great men have in fact had massive impacts on the history of the world and changing cultures. He says they worked through networks and that without networks none of these Great Men would have been successful. Well, I have no doubt that they networked. They also used language, wrote books, could read, etc. but that doesn't discount that they were Great Men, and God used them to change the world. Where would we be without Abraham, or Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.? Give me a break man!
My point is that God does work through individuals, God does answer prayer, and God is not dependent on networks or high culture or anything else to change the world. He normally works through means , but He is not obligated to do so. So, to mock those poor Christians out there who are praying for Revival and to discount them as bumbling fools, or at least nice, but seriously misguided, is a bit pompous and unspiritual. At the very least, it is completely uninspiring to the mom with three kids who is crying out to God to save her kids from being persecuted by God hating homosexuals who might want to rape them someday like the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. That mom's simple prayer of faith has more power than Hunter seems to believe. O ye of little faith!
All that being said, I did have a few good take aways from the book. I appreciated his three basic categories of Evangelicals, and how they have attempted to interact with Culture. He makes the case there is the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptist approach. He summarizes their views as "Defense Against, Relevance to, and Purity From". The CCs are trying to defend themselves from secularization by taking over politically. The CLs are trying to make the Church relevant by focusing on social justice and minimizing Truth. The Neo-anabaptists are trying to disengage the corrupt culture by "being the Church". I think there is some truth to his model and found it somewhat helpful , although it is a poor substitute for Neibuhr's views in Christ and Culture. But, I do appreciate the effort Hunter is making. His view, which he tries to paint as the Biblical alternative, is called "Faithful Presence In". I wasn't too clear on exactly what this means, but it seems to mean that Christians should stop trying to be political at all since that is not how you change culture. Instead we should take whatever calling we have in life, and interpret it through the Social Justice lens of Scripture. Then, we can find ways to help the poor, and be considered nice by all the liberals out there who run the culture. Rather than confronting the sins of the culture with truth, we should confront the culture with good deeds. In effect, he is submitting we should become moralists, and show the culture a better way. To me, this is basically a 21st Century recasting of the Social Gospel of the early 1900s. Only for Hunter, Christians shouldn't focus on moral issues like the Social Gospel did, but rather on changing your work space, or you company's business practices, etc. Don't talk about moral issues as long as you help the poor. That is the main thing. And, we really need to do it well and just shut up because that is the only way we will get back any credibility with the Liberal Elites. Once we get on good terms with them at least maybe then they will let us live peacefully in our country and they just might even be nice back to us. Then we can all sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after.
I don't buy it. The book did make me think about how politicized my own mind has become, and it did get me to think more about how to interact with the culture. I also learned a lot about the Christian Left mindset and the Neo-anabaptist viewpoint. But, in the end, I am a conservative because I believe it best reflects a Biblical worldview. Hunter may be an outstanding sociologist and in my humble opinion he should stick to that calling. However, he clearly misses the mark as a historian and theologian and should leave these areas to those who are more qualified to address them. Make me a Biblical argument and you will have a much better shot at "changing my world".
Monday, December 27, 2010
On Being a Morning Person
Here it is on the morning two days after Christmas and I am entering another blog. As I was laying in bed I began to think about a gazillion things, and it dawned on me that the ability to blog is one way to get all those thoughts out of my head so I don't forget them. My first few thoughts were about America, and my intent was to blog on that topic. Actually, before that I was thinking about writing a book called On Christian Worship which then digressed into thoughts on America, and eventually morphed into thoughts on being a morning person, and being ADD.
So, I am definitely a morning person. What that means is that my mind is going at light speed when I first get up, but by the end of the day I am pretty much spent, intellectually speaking. Why is it that some people are morning people, and some tend to be more alive at night? It really is quite interesting if you think about it. There are lots of possible reasons, but all we really know is that God made us all different. (By the way, I am working on the whole comma thing, because one thing blogging has made me realize is how atrocious my grammar has become. I'll blame email and sheer laziness, but there really is no excuse.) Let's look at my own case as to why certain people are morning people, and we'll look at my wife as an example of a night owl. I think there are several indicators as to why I am an early bird. No, it is not that I like worms. I actually think that it is partly to do with my dreams. I don't generally remember my dreams, but my guess is that I am quite an active dreamer. I think it probably also has to do with my habit of picking up a book and reading a bit before I go to bed. And, for me, reading is all about thinking and connecting the dots (I think that is what we used to call reflecting, but I don't know if that word exists any more in the english language): ). So, when I go to bed and my body is tired, my mind is filled up with all these new thoughts. Thus, the reason I think I must dream a lot. Perhaps it is also why I am such a light sleeper. Regardless, it seems that when I get up in the morning my thoughts are running wild. It is sort of like ADD on steroids. (Maybe if more doctors, teachers, and parents took into account that some kids are just more active in the morning we wouldn't have all those kids running around on drugs to calm their happy butts down. Perhaps, instead, we should put the grumpy teachers on a happy pill instead of giving our kids downers. Once again, I digress.)
Just another thought here before moving on to night owls. I recently read a book called A Praying Life. I actually couldn't finish it. Not because the content was necessarily bad, although there was some questionable material. My biggest problem with the book was that I felt like the author was ADD in his writing. I mean, the book just kind of wandered along, and the lack of structure just drove me a bit crazy. Then, as I started this blog, it dawned on me that it is just so much easier to write a book these days. Anyone can get their material published. And, anyone can blog. I mean, after all, who would actually want someone with an english degree or a basic college education to write a book right? We live in the world of American Idol. Anyone can become a star. Solomon once said that "Of making of many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh". Imagine if he lived in our day and witnessed all the crappola that is put out in droves? I am tired just thinking about it too. Someone else gave me a book written by a Navy Chief on finding God in the desert. I have nothing against the chief, but his book was pretty much the same as A Praying Life. Only it left much more to be desired in terms of content. I guess people think that if they can blog, well, why not write a book?
I wonder if this has also impacted how we worship. After all, anyone can pick up an instrument and learn to play guitar, right? Anyone can sing? So, let's just get all these people who have these "gifts" (who cares if they actually worked at perfecting their skills or displayed the fruit of the Spirit in this regard) and put them in front of the church to lead worship. The same goes for crappy preachers, crappy elders, and on down the line. Anyone who wants to use their "gifts" come on up to the altar and give it all to Jesus! It never dawned on this modern generation that there are some things that even Jesus might turn down, like, for example, a lamb with blemishes! But, of all the "giftedness" of the modern church, the worst, in my opinion, is the American Idol Worship Leader. And we are not talking top ten week here, but rather more like week one of American Idol. You know, the weeks where they have people like "pants on the floor" man, and every person who absolutely can't sing but thinks they can. Talk about the human capacity for self-deception! I just can't imagine how God can be pleased with this American Idol trend in the modern church. I say fire all the American Idol Worship Leaders and let's just sing a cappella.
Okay, let's get back to night owls. My wife, being a night owl, just really doesn't want to talk too much first thing in the morning. I think she gets her energy throughout the day by observing life. That takes being awake and aware of your surroundings. The more she takes in throughout the day, the more energy she gets. Then, by about midnight, her mind is going a mile a minute. I usually don't get to witness this event, because I am already passed out in bed way before then. So, perhaps my wife is the more creative and observant one. I, on the other hand, have to get my ideas from books. So, what about you? Are you an early bird or a night owl? (I'll have to do another entry on America later): )
So, I am definitely a morning person. What that means is that my mind is going at light speed when I first get up, but by the end of the day I am pretty much spent, intellectually speaking. Why is it that some people are morning people, and some tend to be more alive at night? It really is quite interesting if you think about it. There are lots of possible reasons, but all we really know is that God made us all different. (By the way, I am working on the whole comma thing, because one thing blogging has made me realize is how atrocious my grammar has become. I'll blame email and sheer laziness, but there really is no excuse.) Let's look at my own case as to why certain people are morning people, and we'll look at my wife as an example of a night owl. I think there are several indicators as to why I am an early bird. No, it is not that I like worms. I actually think that it is partly to do with my dreams. I don't generally remember my dreams, but my guess is that I am quite an active dreamer. I think it probably also has to do with my habit of picking up a book and reading a bit before I go to bed. And, for me, reading is all about thinking and connecting the dots (I think that is what we used to call reflecting, but I don't know if that word exists any more in the english language): ). So, when I go to bed and my body is tired, my mind is filled up with all these new thoughts. Thus, the reason I think I must dream a lot. Perhaps it is also why I am such a light sleeper. Regardless, it seems that when I get up in the morning my thoughts are running wild. It is sort of like ADD on steroids. (Maybe if more doctors, teachers, and parents took into account that some kids are just more active in the morning we wouldn't have all those kids running around on drugs to calm their happy butts down. Perhaps, instead, we should put the grumpy teachers on a happy pill instead of giving our kids downers. Once again, I digress.)
Just another thought here before moving on to night owls. I recently read a book called A Praying Life. I actually couldn't finish it. Not because the content was necessarily bad, although there was some questionable material. My biggest problem with the book was that I felt like the author was ADD in his writing. I mean, the book just kind of wandered along, and the lack of structure just drove me a bit crazy. Then, as I started this blog, it dawned on me that it is just so much easier to write a book these days. Anyone can get their material published. And, anyone can blog. I mean, after all, who would actually want someone with an english degree or a basic college education to write a book right? We live in the world of American Idol. Anyone can become a star. Solomon once said that "Of making of many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh". Imagine if he lived in our day and witnessed all the crappola that is put out in droves? I am tired just thinking about it too. Someone else gave me a book written by a Navy Chief on finding God in the desert. I have nothing against the chief, but his book was pretty much the same as A Praying Life. Only it left much more to be desired in terms of content. I guess people think that if they can blog, well, why not write a book?
I wonder if this has also impacted how we worship. After all, anyone can pick up an instrument and learn to play guitar, right? Anyone can sing? So, let's just get all these people who have these "gifts" (who cares if they actually worked at perfecting their skills or displayed the fruit of the Spirit in this regard) and put them in front of the church to lead worship. The same goes for crappy preachers, crappy elders, and on down the line. Anyone who wants to use their "gifts" come on up to the altar and give it all to Jesus! It never dawned on this modern generation that there are some things that even Jesus might turn down, like, for example, a lamb with blemishes! But, of all the "giftedness" of the modern church, the worst, in my opinion, is the American Idol Worship Leader. And we are not talking top ten week here, but rather more like week one of American Idol. You know, the weeks where they have people like "pants on the floor" man, and every person who absolutely can't sing but thinks they can. Talk about the human capacity for self-deception! I just can't imagine how God can be pleased with this American Idol trend in the modern church. I say fire all the American Idol Worship Leaders and let's just sing a cappella.
Okay, let's get back to night owls. My wife, being a night owl, just really doesn't want to talk too much first thing in the morning. I think she gets her energy throughout the day by observing life. That takes being awake and aware of your surroundings. The more she takes in throughout the day, the more energy she gets. Then, by about midnight, her mind is going a mile a minute. I usually don't get to witness this event, because I am already passed out in bed way before then. So, perhaps my wife is the more creative and observant one. I, on the other hand, have to get my ideas from books. So, what about you? Are you an early bird or a night owl? (I'll have to do another entry on America later): )
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas 2010!
Well, Merry Christmas to anyone who might actually read this blog, even if you read it after Christmas 2010. We are celebrating this Christmas in parts as seems to be the custom of late. Our relatives are coming down from South Carolina, but not until the New Year, so we'll celebrate second Christmas then. We were planning on going to a Christmas Eve service last night at a local Episcopal church but by the time eleven o'clock rolled around we had lost all motivation so we ended up skipping out.
One of the reasons I always enjoy Christmas is because it is the one day of the year that my wife actually gets up early in the morning in order to open gifts! She is usually a night owl and I am the early bird. But on Christmas morning, we find unity, all because of the many presents that Santa leaves under the tree!! My wife received several books on Charleston, a toaster/convection oven, a New Orleans throw blanket, a box of Bignet mix from Cafe' Du Monde, and a 2005 commemorative stamp collector's book (along with all the commemorative stamps from 2005 of course!). The dogs received a new dog pillow and some wonderful bones they are chewing away on (actually, I think they are pork rinds). The cats have enjoyed hiding in the Christmas tree and chewing on ribbons now for several weeks!
So far I have made out like a bandit too. I received 14 books already, including: Decision Points by George Bush, Knife of Dreams by Robert Jordan, a commentary on the Psalms by George Horne, The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin, Generals in Grey (a list and short paragraphs on every one of the confederate generals), two Jeffrey Archer books (First Among Equals and Shall We Tell the President), Crimes Against Liberty by David Limbaugh, 7 Events that Made America Great, The Real George Washington, A Hero Found (about the greatest POW escape in Vietnam, made by a Navy pilot of course), the latest Bonhoeffer biography, and Annotations on the Pentateuch and the Psalms (2 Volumes by Henry Ainsworth). I also received the game Cranium (my wife and I love board games, we are way old school!). And, of course, I received lots of new T-shirts and undies along with a personal grooming kit! It is real easy to lose track of personal hygiene when you have to read all those books! So, I am quite excited as you might imagine. That is enough books to fill up another whole shelf (my wife is already upset about that one!). Well, I'll end this entry on a funny note I guess. When I looked at the jacket of the 2 Volumes on the Pentateuch and Psalms, it had a recommendation by Charles Spurgeon that says, "Thoroughly learned. Though old, not out of date." If it was old to Spurgeon, that must mean it is really good stuff right? My wife and I laughed at that one. No wonder I am such a dinosaur. Well, have a Merry Christmas!!
One of the reasons I always enjoy Christmas is because it is the one day of the year that my wife actually gets up early in the morning in order to open gifts! She is usually a night owl and I am the early bird. But on Christmas morning, we find unity, all because of the many presents that Santa leaves under the tree!! My wife received several books on Charleston, a toaster/convection oven, a New Orleans throw blanket, a box of Bignet mix from Cafe' Du Monde, and a 2005 commemorative stamp collector's book (along with all the commemorative stamps from 2005 of course!). The dogs received a new dog pillow and some wonderful bones they are chewing away on (actually, I think they are pork rinds). The cats have enjoyed hiding in the Christmas tree and chewing on ribbons now for several weeks!
So far I have made out like a bandit too. I received 14 books already, including: Decision Points by George Bush, Knife of Dreams by Robert Jordan, a commentary on the Psalms by George Horne, The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin, Generals in Grey (a list and short paragraphs on every one of the confederate generals), two Jeffrey Archer books (First Among Equals and Shall We Tell the President), Crimes Against Liberty by David Limbaugh, 7 Events that Made America Great, The Real George Washington, A Hero Found (about the greatest POW escape in Vietnam, made by a Navy pilot of course), the latest Bonhoeffer biography, and Annotations on the Pentateuch and the Psalms (2 Volumes by Henry Ainsworth). I also received the game Cranium (my wife and I love board games, we are way old school!). And, of course, I received lots of new T-shirts and undies along with a personal grooming kit! It is real easy to lose track of personal hygiene when you have to read all those books! So, I am quite excited as you might imagine. That is enough books to fill up another whole shelf (my wife is already upset about that one!). Well, I'll end this entry on a funny note I guess. When I looked at the jacket of the 2 Volumes on the Pentateuch and Psalms, it had a recommendation by Charles Spurgeon that says, "Thoroughly learned. Though old, not out of date." If it was old to Spurgeon, that must mean it is really good stuff right? My wife and I laughed at that one. No wonder I am such a dinosaur. Well, have a Merry Christmas!!
Friday, December 24, 2010
On Being Reformed and Presbyterian Part 2
After reading that previous post, I can imagine what you are thinking and you may be right. I was pretty much in a sour mood as I was writing and I am sure that was reflected in my entry. But, I struggle to not be sour when I look at the state of the modern church. It is especially distressing when I look at the state of the modern day Reformed churches. About the only Reformed churches that I have much positive to say about, in my limited experience, are the Reformed Baptist Churches. They at least tend to know who they are and why they are who they are. But, the PCA is so concerned about being "relevant" and telling "redemption stories" that we have forgotten our own history, and as a result, our own identity. So, we have become Baptist Light. I think the least we can do is just admit it, rather than causing our Reformed forefathers to roll over in their graves by claiming any connection to them, except as members of the Church Catholic.
One PCA church has this statement on their website: speaking of Biblical transformation it says, "In the Bible, such change isn't driven by personal moral or religious efforts but is empowered by God's Spirit through the gospel. He activates change in people not through guilt and law but through grace." Consider this statement for a moment. Does the Reformed faith really teach that the law and guilt have no place in bringing about the change/transformation that happens when one becomes a Christ follower and grows in sanctification? That seems to be exactly what this website is saying. How does that fit with the threefold use of the Law that the Reformed faith actually teaches? (The Reformed view is that the Law has three uses which are to show our sin and thus draw us to Christ, to guide us how to live, and to restrain sin in the culture allowing for the spread of the Gospel). How can one even understand grace without a knowledge of sin? Grace becomes meaningless because sin becomes meaningless. How can one understand sin apart from the Law? One can't and all one is left with is a vague awareness that we live in a "world broken by sin" which largely remains undefined as to what that means. Basically, it means we are all aware of being "unhappy" about our current situation and Christ is the answer to our unhappiness. Life sucks and Jesus can is the cure. (Do I see a comparison to Santa Clause here, again, I digress...) When one becomes a Christian is there no place for the Law in our now Christian lives? Dispensationalists answer "no" to this question because we are not under Law but under grace. But Reformed Christians see a third choice between the antinomianism of the dispensationalists and the legalism of the pharisees. That is, the Reformed faith teaches that there is a rightful place for the law in the Christian life, and that is to guide and direct us how to live (at least this is one purpose). In other words, thou shalt not steal still has meaning for the Christian and should not only invoke a desire to honor God with our possessions, but also drive us to realize the only way to do that is to depend on Him for the grace of forgiveness and the grace to obey. Forgiveness and obedience - two words that can't fit into a church's vocabulary when a church doesn't believe there is a rightful place for the Law.
By the way, just for the record, when is the last time someone became a Christian without guilt as a part of the process? Isn't understanding our guilt a prerequisite to embracing Christ as Savior? What did He come to save us from anyhow? The fundamental flaw in the statement of this website is the dispensational and un-Biblical assumption that Law and Grace don't work together but rather are enemies of one another. Paul is correct when he says "the law is good if one uses it lawfully" in 1 Timothy 1:8. See also Romans 7. These statements were not written to the Jews but to Christians, so take that you Dispensationalists (and Baptist Light PCA people!)
My point here is not just to argue for a Reformed view of sanctification and role of the Law, but to bring to mind the larger question of what, if anything, does it mean to be Reformed in the modern world. You see, it used to be that Reformed Churches didn't have to have their own particular statement of faith for their own particular church because they understood and subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That is what it used to mean to be Reformed (at least in the Presbyterian variety, I realize there are other Reformed confessions of faith). By having your own confession at your church that is not the WCF, you are making the assumption that somehow the Westminster Confession of faith either isn't accurate and true, or it just isn't relevant any more because the issues of our day are "new".
In other words, the assumption is that we need to reinvent what it means to be Reformed in the modern world because those stupid guys in the past just didn't really see clearly what the inherent issues were in the Gospel. In fact, who did they think they were to actually try to define the Gospel in a confession of faith? How proud of them!! How un "post modern" and all the more reason to reject their statement of faith. They probably are burning in hell for being so proud to think that they might have actually gotten the Gospel right! They got it wrong and their understanding of the Gospel is meaningless for today.
Well, you can reinvent the wheel all you want, but please just be honest about it and don't lay claim to being something you are not. In this case, you are not Reformed but something new (I was thinking maybe Deformed might be a better descriptor for your church). I would suggest that you just might have given in to that false god today that says "if it is new it is better, and if it is old it just won't do because history is inherently irrelevant". This is the tyranny of change for change's sake. To be post-modern is to embrace change after all! I would think that we just might have learned this lesson when we elected President Obama without really asking him to define what change meant. But then again, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was his campaign theme wasn't it? Don't ask me any hard questions (like defining who I am or what I am going to do to the country), and I won't tell you the same thing twice. I'll just tell whichever audience I am speaking to what they want to hear so I can get elected. Bush is bad...change is good. But I digress...
Once again the issue here regarding history is a fundamentally anti-Christian assumption that history really has no prominent feature in our Christian life. In fact, Christianity, of all the world's religions, rests on the basic assumption that history does indeed matter and demands the utmost respect. For, Jesus was born into history, lived in history, died in history, and rose again in history, all for our salvation. Any theology that doesn't respect history doesn't respect Christ and is fundamentally anti-Christian in that regard. In addition, to disrespect those great Christians who gave gone before us is to fundamentally deny their proper place in the Communion of Saints (there I go again bringing up those stinking confessions!)
Just one final thought. I have no problem with adding to the Westminster Confession of Faith to clarify issues that have arisen in our modern day. For example, a church might have to clarify its position on the onslaught of homosexuality, or women elders/deacons, or define its distinctive worship style. Although the WCF does address these issues, we can and sometimes should highlight them because of how significant and prevalent these issues are to the modern church. That is a far cry from reinventing the wheel. It is merely high-lighting the Reformed position on contemporary issues. So, are you Reformed or Deformed? Which version of Christianity will you embrace? Or does it even matter to you because all you want to be is nice to your neighbor and be happy? I don't want you to think too hard about these things, because that might actually cause some tension in your life. I wouldn't want you to have to actually put some effort into being a Christian for that is way too demanding! Go on, continue being spiritually lazy, because all that matters is that you are happy even if your happiness is really just good old self-deception. How many "Christians" will comfortably and happily descend straight into hell because they never took time to actually think about what it means to be a real Christian? Please don't be among them!!
On Being Reformed & Presbyterian Part I
When it comes to books I am usually reading more than just one at a time. Perhaps this is ADD, but regardless, I just can't seem to read one at a time. This is in addition to my almost daily Bible readings. I just finished the book of Ezra today and it brought to mind the question what does it mean to be Reformed? I am a member of the PCA but it seems that even conservative Presbyterians don't seem to be very Presbyterian any more. It used to be that Presbyterians were Presbyterian not because they were sectarian but because they actually believed that to be the best Christian was in fact to be Presbyterian and Reformed. At a minimum this meant subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms. So, what, if anything, does it mean to be Reformed or Presbyterian today? I have a few simple questions that I believe would go along way in answering the question "is my church Reformed or is it merely a Baptist church that baptizes babies?". In point of fact, most PCA churches are exactly that. So, I pose the following questions as a simple test of whether or not (or to what extent) your church is Reformed and Presbyterian:
1. What percentage of your church membership has actually read the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms?
2. How many in your church could actually give the Catechism answer in defining sin?
3. How many in your church could name the Ten Commandments) and can tell you where to find them in the Bible?
4. How many in your church can recite the Apostles' Creed (or even know what it is for that matter)?
5. How many in your church know the acronym TULIP, can explain what each letter stands for, and why it is important?
6. How many in your church can give any Biblical reason for why we baptize infants?
7. How many in your church know the difference between deacons and elders?
8. How many in your church know the three offices of Christ?
9. How many in your church know the threefold use of the Law of God? (I know I am pushing the envelope with this one but I couldn't make the test too easy, now could I?)
10. How many in your church can recite the Lord's prayer?
11. How many in your church can discuss any of the "Solas" of the Reformation and why they are significant in the Christian life?
I could go on, but believe this would be a good start to answering the question of whether or not your church is Reformed or Presbyterian. If the answer is no for most of your congregants (which I suspect it is) then I say you should not call yourself a Reformed or Presbyterian church, because if you do you are not only lying to yourselves, but lying to the rest of the world who might actually take english seriously. A good term for this used to be hypocrisy, or claiming to be something you are not. But, of course, lies no longer matter in the Christian life, or Truth for that matter, because all that matters is the story, right?
Finally, ask yourself the same questions above but about the leadership of your church. How many of the elders and deacons at your church (assuming you have them) could answer any of those questions? If they can't, then is it any wonder that our congregations are at a loss? The real question is not whether we claim to be Reformed (or Christian), but whether the label actual fits the reality in our heads, our hearts, and our hands. But it all starts with the head. For if Reformed means nothing else it at least means subscribing to the classic Reformed confessions of faith. Without that we may be Christian, but certainly not Reformed. And, to be Christian without being Reformed is to be a sort of "spiritual retard" if you will. That term is not meant to be disrespectful to retards, but simply to point out that if in fact to be Reformed is to be the most truly Christian (and I believe it is), then to be less than Reformed is to have a distorted understanding of Christianity, and thus to be something less than a Biblical Christian. Note, I am not saying non-Reformed Christians aren't going to heaven just that they have a distorted view of what it means to be Christian.
I realize that is not PC but I really don't care about being PC. I care about the truth, and the truth is what it is. So, before you go judging my conclusions it might be good if you actually took a minute and considered the merits of the Reformed faith for yourself. If the Reformed faith is true, then you have an obligation before God to believe it (uh, oh, there I go again using logic!). If not, well then you have an obligation to reject it. Either way, if this entry gets you to think a little about your faith then I have succeeded in bringing about some good. By the way, just for the record, the first commandment is not "Thou shalt be nice to thy neighbor" even though that is pretty much the only "sin" most Christians these days do seem to believe in. "Love your neighbor" and "being nice to your neighbor" are not the same things. If you don't realize that, then perhaps you need to stop blogging, and look up a few words in Webster's Dictionary. That is, of course, assuming you believe words have any meaning at all and that you actually own a dictionary. If not, add one to next year's Christmas list.
1. What percentage of your church membership has actually read the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms?
2. How many in your church could actually give the Catechism answer in defining sin?
3. How many in your church could name the Ten Commandments) and can tell you where to find them in the Bible?
4. How many in your church can recite the Apostles' Creed (or even know what it is for that matter)?
5. How many in your church know the acronym TULIP, can explain what each letter stands for, and why it is important?
6. How many in your church can give any Biblical reason for why we baptize infants?
7. How many in your church know the difference between deacons and elders?
8. How many in your church know the three offices of Christ?
9. How many in your church know the threefold use of the Law of God? (I know I am pushing the envelope with this one but I couldn't make the test too easy, now could I?)
10. How many in your church can recite the Lord's prayer?
11. How many in your church can discuss any of the "Solas" of the Reformation and why they are significant in the Christian life?
I could go on, but believe this would be a good start to answering the question of whether or not your church is Reformed or Presbyterian. If the answer is no for most of your congregants (which I suspect it is) then I say you should not call yourself a Reformed or Presbyterian church, because if you do you are not only lying to yourselves, but lying to the rest of the world who might actually take english seriously. A good term for this used to be hypocrisy, or claiming to be something you are not. But, of course, lies no longer matter in the Christian life, or Truth for that matter, because all that matters is the story, right?
Finally, ask yourself the same questions above but about the leadership of your church. How many of the elders and deacons at your church (assuming you have them) could answer any of those questions? If they can't, then is it any wonder that our congregations are at a loss? The real question is not whether we claim to be Reformed (or Christian), but whether the label actual fits the reality in our heads, our hearts, and our hands. But it all starts with the head. For if Reformed means nothing else it at least means subscribing to the classic Reformed confessions of faith. Without that we may be Christian, but certainly not Reformed. And, to be Christian without being Reformed is to be a sort of "spiritual retard" if you will. That term is not meant to be disrespectful to retards, but simply to point out that if in fact to be Reformed is to be the most truly Christian (and I believe it is), then to be less than Reformed is to have a distorted understanding of Christianity, and thus to be something less than a Biblical Christian. Note, I am not saying non-Reformed Christians aren't going to heaven just that they have a distorted view of what it means to be Christian.
I realize that is not PC but I really don't care about being PC. I care about the truth, and the truth is what it is. So, before you go judging my conclusions it might be good if you actually took a minute and considered the merits of the Reformed faith for yourself. If the Reformed faith is true, then you have an obligation before God to believe it (uh, oh, there I go again using logic!). If not, well then you have an obligation to reject it. Either way, if this entry gets you to think a little about your faith then I have succeeded in bringing about some good. By the way, just for the record, the first commandment is not "Thou shalt be nice to thy neighbor" even though that is pretty much the only "sin" most Christians these days do seem to believe in. "Love your neighbor" and "being nice to your neighbor" are not the same things. If you don't realize that, then perhaps you need to stop blogging, and look up a few words in Webster's Dictionary. That is, of course, assuming you believe words have any meaning at all and that you actually own a dictionary. If not, add one to next year's Christmas list.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Why the Title?
Well, here I am completing my first post on this new blog and I really have no idea what I am doing. Actually, my wife talked me into this idea in the first place. I am a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to technology and never imagined myself having a blog, but welcome to the 21st Century!
So, I thought I would open by explaining how I chose the title of my blog. I suppose the title has more to do with my interests than anything else. Books are certainly one of my interests. By that I mean not so much collecting ancient manuscripts or texts so much as the vast expanse of truth and experiences that can be found in the writings of others. I have loved books from my earliest days and I suspect my interest will continue on into old age if I should be blessed with four score years and the vision to still be reading. I used to read books to my grandmother who reared me from the time I was about 7 or so. I still remember reading to her Tales of a Fifth Grade Nothing and The Best Christmas Pageant Ever. I remember laughing hysterically at some of the crazy scenes depicted in these simple books. Perhaps my love of books was really a love of stories, at least initially. My family, perhaps like yours, is a story telling family. My grandma had so many amazing stories from her life that always enthralled me. And, of course, as I grew older I realized that I played a role in many of those stories and they became my own. We seem to never tire of telling stories. In fact, whenever the family gets together that is mostly what we do is tell stories. And, more often than not, those stories tend to be a little on the ridiculous and humorous side and they grow funnier and funnier the more they are told. So, early on I had an appreciation for a good story. Other early favorites included Where the Red Fern Grows, Watership Down, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Grapes of Wrath. I seemed to gravitate towards history a lot, so much so that at one point I remember simply reading through sections of the Encyclopedia at my aunt and uncle's house. How is that for nerdy? Eventually, my interest in books expanded and today my basic interests are history, theology, culture, and politics. But that is not to say that I don't have other interests as well, but my interests always seem to be coming back to the basic and profound questions of human existence and trying live a life pleasing to God in a world broken by sin. That is the challenge of every Christian of course and one that we are fools to believe we are the only generation to ever have to deal with. Which leads me to my choice of bologna in the title...
Bologna is not only a reflection of my love for food but is used primarily metaphorically for all the stuff you find out there that just doesn't pass the smell test or the common sense test. In my family we used bologna as a term for calling someone out on the carpet who was being less than honest. "That is a bunch of bologna" was a common saying in our home. Bologna can be a complaint regarding a perceived injustice as well. For example, you might say "I got a bad grade today on a test but the question was a bologna question that shouldn't have been on the test" or "the verdict at the O.J. Simpson trial was bologna". Of course, we also used more colorful terms growing up but not in the presence of adults lest we get scolded for bad language. So, bologna is a wonderful term for all the lies and injustices that we encounter living in this broken and sinful world and sometimes all we can do in response is call it what it is - BOLOGNA!
Then there is Buckwheat. Now, what in the world does Buckwheat have to do with bologna and books you might ask? Well, actually, not a whole lot, which is precisely why it is a perfect fit in the title of this blog. My intention is not just to write and post about books and bologna but any other random things that happen to come up in life as I continue along my pilgrimage. Buckwheat was not only perhaps my favorite Little Rascals character but I especially loved the Eddie Murphy rendition on SNL. So, perhaps adding Buckwheat to the title is a simple reminder to myself that while there is certainly much to be serious about in life God has also given us simple pleasures and laughter/humor is chief among them. Having fun, while it can become an idol and certainly is one of the many idols of our 21st century American culture, can still be an integral and essential part of our human experience. In my family, having fun and laughing are not optional. In point of fact, I think life would be quite boring and miserable without a little laughter every now and then. I have found it to be true that laughter is indeed the best medicine. So, for example, even though I can't stand the current liberal political philosophy that prevails in Washington and see it as the potential destruction of this wonderful republic that I love, I have to laugh at some of the ridiculous things that happen on the political front. Watching Robert Gibbs dance around questions can be quite comical while at the same time distressing because of the real harm that the policies he represents have inflicted and will inflict on the American people.
So, we'll see where this goes. You never know if you'll get books, bologna, or Buckwheat, but I hope this blog will at least be interesting and warrant a few people actually checking it from time to time.
So, I thought I would open by explaining how I chose the title of my blog. I suppose the title has more to do with my interests than anything else. Books are certainly one of my interests. By that I mean not so much collecting ancient manuscripts or texts so much as the vast expanse of truth and experiences that can be found in the writings of others. I have loved books from my earliest days and I suspect my interest will continue on into old age if I should be blessed with four score years and the vision to still be reading. I used to read books to my grandmother who reared me from the time I was about 7 or so. I still remember reading to her Tales of a Fifth Grade Nothing and The Best Christmas Pageant Ever. I remember laughing hysterically at some of the crazy scenes depicted in these simple books. Perhaps my love of books was really a love of stories, at least initially. My family, perhaps like yours, is a story telling family. My grandma had so many amazing stories from her life that always enthralled me. And, of course, as I grew older I realized that I played a role in many of those stories and they became my own. We seem to never tire of telling stories. In fact, whenever the family gets together that is mostly what we do is tell stories. And, more often than not, those stories tend to be a little on the ridiculous and humorous side and they grow funnier and funnier the more they are told. So, early on I had an appreciation for a good story. Other early favorites included Where the Red Fern Grows, Watership Down, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Grapes of Wrath. I seemed to gravitate towards history a lot, so much so that at one point I remember simply reading through sections of the Encyclopedia at my aunt and uncle's house. How is that for nerdy? Eventually, my interest in books expanded and today my basic interests are history, theology, culture, and politics. But that is not to say that I don't have other interests as well, but my interests always seem to be coming back to the basic and profound questions of human existence and trying live a life pleasing to God in a world broken by sin. That is the challenge of every Christian of course and one that we are fools to believe we are the only generation to ever have to deal with. Which leads me to my choice of bologna in the title...
Bologna is not only a reflection of my love for food but is used primarily metaphorically for all the stuff you find out there that just doesn't pass the smell test or the common sense test. In my family we used bologna as a term for calling someone out on the carpet who was being less than honest. "That is a bunch of bologna" was a common saying in our home. Bologna can be a complaint regarding a perceived injustice as well. For example, you might say "I got a bad grade today on a test but the question was a bologna question that shouldn't have been on the test" or "the verdict at the O.J. Simpson trial was bologna". Of course, we also used more colorful terms growing up but not in the presence of adults lest we get scolded for bad language. So, bologna is a wonderful term for all the lies and injustices that we encounter living in this broken and sinful world and sometimes all we can do in response is call it what it is - BOLOGNA!
Then there is Buckwheat. Now, what in the world does Buckwheat have to do with bologna and books you might ask? Well, actually, not a whole lot, which is precisely why it is a perfect fit in the title of this blog. My intention is not just to write and post about books and bologna but any other random things that happen to come up in life as I continue along my pilgrimage. Buckwheat was not only perhaps my favorite Little Rascals character but I especially loved the Eddie Murphy rendition on SNL. So, perhaps adding Buckwheat to the title is a simple reminder to myself that while there is certainly much to be serious about in life God has also given us simple pleasures and laughter/humor is chief among them. Having fun, while it can become an idol and certainly is one of the many idols of our 21st century American culture, can still be an integral and essential part of our human experience. In my family, having fun and laughing are not optional. In point of fact, I think life would be quite boring and miserable without a little laughter every now and then. I have found it to be true that laughter is indeed the best medicine. So, for example, even though I can't stand the current liberal political philosophy that prevails in Washington and see it as the potential destruction of this wonderful republic that I love, I have to laugh at some of the ridiculous things that happen on the political front. Watching Robert Gibbs dance around questions can be quite comical while at the same time distressing because of the real harm that the policies he represents have inflicted and will inflict on the American people.
So, we'll see where this goes. You never know if you'll get books, bologna, or Buckwheat, but I hope this blog will at least be interesting and warrant a few people actually checking it from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)