Three sides of balance

Philosophy usually involves deriving connections or making important distinctions. Bad philosophy is usually over simplifying things or trying to connect unrelated things. Hopefully this will be more of the former than the latter.

It has struck me that the church, in all her beauty, tends to find itself out of balance. Balance is a fun concept, because it presupposes that there is some sort of tension between two or more “poles”, and that it is very easy to teeter towards one or another.

One such area in the church I think is the balance between heart, mind, and action. A phrase that I’ve used a couple of times that I think gets at this is we need more churches with the heart of a charismatic, the mind of a reformed, and the action of an emergent. This is rather simple of a point, but I’ll still unpack it a bit.


A lot of good churches seem to be real strong at one of those three, but rather weak at the others. A really rare church might be strong in one, decent in another, but still weak in the third. I think it is a healthy and biblical goal to pursue a balanced strength in all three.

The heart of a charismatic is pretty straightforward. I naturally am a very reserved and introverted person, but I have experienced a lot of stretching and growth when in the presence of more charismatic corporate worship. There is a sense of passion, love, joy, and desire for God that is so thick and authentic it is almost palpable.

In the same way, the mind of a Reformed is often very developed and biblical. I have always been both humbled and impressed with the amount of biblical literacy in Reformed churches, and how deeply some of the average members can interact on theological discussions. More importantly, and uniquely, it seems that most people in the church have a strong sense of biblical literacy, and a well developed ability to think well within biblical categories.

The latter is an area I’ve experienced the least, but still cannot help but be impressed with and respect. The reality is that a lot of churches don’t “do” very much outside of their 2-3 services a week and a few small ministries. It is the younger, more emergent churches that seem to more often emphasize missional living. They often are the ones with a deep passionate heart for suffering, the poor, and social injustice in the world.

I need to qualify this last point some. I do not think that a majority of American churches have lost the call of the heart of evangelism or missions. In my limited experience, I haven’t seen evidence to this effect (although I have seen a few churches that invested more time and money into the church “experience” than these). What I am stressing is the deep heart ache for the suffering and injustice in the world. The Gospel isn’t just about spiritual salvation, but Jesus’ kingdom is about a holistic redemption of humanity: spirit and body. Further, the promised kingdom Jesus brought was inaugurated in the context of healing sickness and undoing injustice, both were two key areas of promise in the Old Testament. I think that there is a key aspect of living the Gospel is to have a real concern for these things, certainly Jesus did. Further, I do think many Christians (including myself) have fallen into the trap of thinking missions work is for the missionary, and evangelism is for the evangelist. Even though most of us know that these are both supposed to be regular aspects of every Christian’s daily life, at some sub-conscious level we’ve relegated these roles to the “professionals”.

These three absolutely must be the strength of the church, the biblical evidence should be clear enough. I don’t exactly see them as “in tension” with one another, nor can I think of a good structure to explain why these three seem to be opposed to one another, but in some way at some level I think they are.

Naturally having a lot of one and less of the others can lead to abuse. A lot of charisma and not a lot of action / mind can lead to very subjective notions of truth, to a “pick and choose” theology that has no internal coherence, and can also lead to some of the more sensationalized styles of worship where there is lots of visual/auditory production that has strong emotional impact, but very little substance.

If you know me at all, you know that I am very much not Reformed theologically. There are several strengths to it, but I don’t feel that they capture all of the biblical themes in a balanced way. The danger of only having a developed mind can result in a “dead” spirituality where there is lots of understanding, but little spiritual / practical benefit. It can also lead to a very detached theology, where one’s understanding of scripture and God only stimulates the mind and has no real relation to reality, nor does it really affect change in people. Another danger is that an singularly developed mind might try to impose “grids” of thought to bring exact definition to concepts in scripture that are less defined (such as the triunity of God and the relationship of sovereignty and responsibility).

Finally, only having a developed action can lead to good work without purpose. The social Gospel is a prime example of this. Doing the work of the Gospel as divorced from the Gospel is certainly not a good thing. Praxis is not an end in itself: action is how we can be beacons of light to the world, living the Gospel and seeking God’s kingdom. It is very easy to loose sight of this without the balance of the other two.


I’m not sure if there are other models that this triad can fit over, but in the end I think all churches need to always be undergoing the process of examining ourselves and pursuing growth and strength in all three of these. With a lot of things, balance can be difficult to achieve, but when it is found, not only can one be healthier, but fruitfulness and a more holistic outlook and self can be achieved. In both the corporate body and our individual lives we must certainly glorify God in the areas we are strong at, but I think we also glorify God by pursuing him and pursuing growth in those other areas we are week in.

Read more...

Christmas

Tis the season for gift wrap, large adorned trees, long lines, green and red, nativity scenes, church plays, and spectacular displays of lighting genius. Children and Hollywood dream of Santa Claus in many different renditions, Parents sneak away to hide presents, and people stand under mistletoe expectantly. For many Christmas has been special since childhood. It’s not just about receiving nice shinny new toys, but giving to others and good will. Even though we live in southern California most of us can appreciate the beauty and warmth of a white Christmas. Christmas is a time of beauty, anticipation, rejoicing, and time to share love with those around you.

But with so many positive symbols and feelings associated with this glorious holiday, we often can forget the true meaning of Christmas. We easily get buried in all the icing, and forget about the substance, the reality, the truth about why we are celebrating. Even for Christians, we sometimes get caught up in these “myths” about Christmas, and lose sight of the true real meaning of Christmas. As we prepare to celebrate this glorious holiday season, it is important to focus our attention on the truth of Christmas, and not just on the symbols and traditions that we are surrounded with. So what are some of our “myths” about Christmas?



1) The first myth is also one of the most popular symbols of Christmas in the western world: Santa Claus. It is doubtful that many adults would attribute the true meaning of Christmas to the fairy tale of Santa Claus, but he certainly does occupy the majority of our culture’s attention during Christmas. But was there a real Santa Clause? Or is it entirely myth?

Most likely, the story of Santa Claus begins with a famous Bishop of Asia Minor in the 4th century. St. Nicholas was widely renowned for his generosity and good works, for his kindness especially to the poor and children. As the stories about St. Nicholas passed through the ages, many churches were dedicated to his memory, and he became known in the western churches as the patron saint of children.

Although the stories surrounding St. Nicholas did develop some of their own mythology, (such as his ability to work miracles), the contemporary image of Santa Claus most likely began with the famous poet Clement Moore, who penned the classic work “Visit from St. Nicholas” (“Twas’ the night before Christmas”) in 1822. This began the mythos of Santa Claus, his reindeer, and his twinkling eye. This image was further developed in 1863 by the cartoonist Thomas Nast.
We can certainly see how the traditions of Santa Claus and St. Nicholas are rooted in the celebration of generosity and kindness. Unfortunately the popular conception has distorted this into “being good” in order to receive gifts that meet our wildest dreams. St. Nicholas was about giving, Santa Claus is about receiving.


2) In a similar vein, the second myth is that Christmas is that it is all about presents. This myth is all too commonplace, after all the Christmas season is the favorite of retail markets. The pressure can be overwhelming to find the right present for those special to you, especially worse for those who procrastinate till the night before. So much of what we focus on is about the gifts given, but what is the story behind this tradition?

The practice of gift giving certainly has its roots in the traditions of St. Nicholas, who’s generosity included giving gifts to children. The practice itself probably originated in the 15th century, and was commonly practiced by the end of the 18th century. A theological basis for gift giving is the reminder of God’s greatest gift of his son. There is also a possible allusion to the Magi who brought gifts from the east to Jesus’ birth.

One of the reasons the Puritans were opposed to celebrating Christmas was because gift giving tended to make Christmas more of a secular holiday about friends and family instead of about celebrating the birth of Christ. While protesting the celebration of Christmas is an extreme reaction, their critique is certainly deserving. In our materialistic culture, Christmas (or “the holidays”) is entirely about purchasing lots of gifts for others, and receiving lots of new “toys”.


3) Third, Christmas is full of traditions and symbols. But what is the origin of Christmas? Why do we celebrate on the 25th? Despite the limited data available in Scripture, early Christians chose to celebrate it on December 25th as early as the 3rd century.

One theory is that it was chosen to correspond with the Roman celebration of the winter solstice: “day of the birth of the unconquered sun”. This Roman festival celebrated the rebirth of the sun, as the sun reverses its southward movement, proving that it is “unconquered”. The reason early Christians would have chosen this date is the parallels with the significance of Christ:

"O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born" -Cyprian.
"They call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord...?"
-John Chrysostom.


A second theory is based on the early Christian association of the spring equinox with the date of creation. On the fourth day of creation God created light, and some early Christians possibly derived from this that Jesus was conceived four days after the spring equinox, on March 25. Consequently, he would have been born 9 months later on Dec. 25. Despite the ambiguity of the actual day of Jesus’ birth, the early Church chose to celebrate his birth on December 25 as an alternative to the pagan celebrations of the new sun: as a profound affirmation of the birth of the son who would bring light to the world.


4) Finally, what were the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth? Luke gives us the most vivid account. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem for the infamous census. Bethlehem was Joseph’s home town, and being in the line of David he certainly would have had a lot of family there. Unlike the popular conception, they most likely did not stay at an inn, but at a local family residence. Luke uses the term kataluma in 2:7, which more often refers to the place of lodging or dining area of a home, (such as in Luke 22:11, or Mark 14, note Luke’s use of a different term in 10:34 in the story of the good Samaritan).

Most Jewish homes at that time had two levels. People would sleep upstairs (usually the roof), whereas animals slept in the back of the lower level, (or a cave just outside). The image still evokes the humble circumstances of Jesus’ birth: Mary was in labor, but the upper area of the home was too full of relatives. The newborn Jesus was laid in a feeding trough in the back area of the lower level. These feeding trough’s were usually large hole’s dug in the ground.

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

As Christians, the true meaning of Christmas is about Jesus Christ. But even though we celebrate such a profound truth for this holiday, it is very easy to get side tracked by all the festivities, purchases, and gatherings. It is important that we remind ourselves that Christmas is about celebrating the birth of our savior, the God-man Jesus who is the Messiah Christ that brings the peace of God. Peace is an important message, especially in an era of conflict and sin. Peace is the promised King bringing his kingdom of peace on earth. Peace is the promised Prophet coming to announce God’s intensions to save mankind from sin. Peace is the promised Priest coming to restore a broken relationship between God and humanity.

So this Christmas, let us not get caught up in the traditions and gifts. These are good things in their own right, but let us keep Jesus and his mission of peace at the center. Let us celebrate as a community God’s work of peace on earth through his son, the promised Messiah and author of peace, Jesus.

Read more...

Music Influences

Just been listening to some different styles of worship music today....

Worship genre has always been a bit of an issue for me... I rarely like most stuff musically. This poses a bit of a challenge being on a worship team. It certainly has forced me to grow in many ways....

For this blog I want to reflect on some of our "boundaries" in what is appropriate and inappropriate styles of music for corporate worship.


I think my biggest influence growing up (and even still) is much heavier music. Growing up I listened to a lot of grunge/alternative and some metal, and the last 10 years I've listened to a lot of prog rock. I've always wanted to bring this influence to worship, but have found very few opportunities because there is a lot of unspoken (and some spoken) opposition to this, especially in a church environment. (I'm certain ppl who like rap are in the same boat).

I've been listening to some Hillsong United today, (realizing that a lot of Biola's worship is from them) and I envy them... I can sense a clear influence of emo / indie styles, and can see how they've avoided falling strictly into those influences, but still utilizing them. I wish I could do this w/ my musical influences!

Its weird how we have these "traditions" of sorts of how we define boundaries for "acceptable" corporate worship styles... For more contemporary churches, the goal is something more like Hillsong, for more emerging churches, Hillsong United. I can respect qualities in both, but I'm not sure where these come from. I mean, why is it that almost everyone in the congregation reacts at a song that is pushing the edges of "acceptable", when certainly there is hardly consensus among their individual musical preferences? Where do these "notions" come from?

We could also try to define worship in a Biblical way first.... something like "music that stirs the body to a heart of reverential, authentic, fearful, and submissive worship of God as a community". (This is very much shooting from the hip). But even with that sort of definition, we really aren't setting up any boundaries for genre.

I'm sure cultural values play a roll here, but even those are more ambiguous than some might at first think. For example, we could make the point that genre could be distracting. But I can speak from personal experience that if your desire is to worship God, you can get over it. In fact I've heard many times that people being exposed to worship music "outside of their comfort zone" was actually a growing experience. The first few times I was at a black gospel worship service, I was very uncomfortable and turned off. But as I started to develop an appreciation for it (both for the musical skill and the great passion that the music stirred), I've found it to be one of my favorite genres of worship music.

I think a good case can be made that one important boundary is the emotions that the music stirs up. Some genres naturally stir up anger, which really doesn't have a place in a corporate worship experience. Awe, love, praise, joy, humility, even sorrow all have a place I think, because these are all right responses to God. This doesn't necessarily exclude a genre of music as worship, but it definitely limits some genres more than others.

Another good boundary is the degree of performance. Prog rock is very technical music, and having a 10m long instrumental in the middle of a worship set may be stepping across the line of watching the musicians and worshiping God. But this certainly does not mean worship music must be simple: in fact, I've seen several examples of Latin, jazz, and gospel worship sets that were very technical, but still maintained a very real worshipful environment.

I can appreciate that another boundary for some is something that has the widest appeal, something that positively affects the greatest percentage of the body. The problem here is that, often this criteria only produces bland music. I also think that there is a good place for taking people a bit outside of their comfort zones. After all, if we only want to worship God corporately when we are comfortable, could this not reflect a similar attitude in our spiritual lives? I don't think there is a necessary correlation here, but definitely a point worthy of some reflection. After all, how many Sunday mornings are already uncomfortably bland and comfortable?

I'm not sure if I've really come up with any conclusions, more just rambled a lot in this blog.... but I think at the very least, as worship leaders we need to strive to pursue excellence. After all, we are attempting to lead part of God's church in the very important act of offering praise to Him. Music is a tool, a medium, and the worship that flows through it must come from a genuine heart of worship that is already present. This means we need to pursue authenticity in our own lives of worship, but also excellence in wielding the tool of music.

The reality is our culture is saturated with media in all forms, and perhaps that is the reason that we respond so half heartedly to "bland" worship. Its a delicate balance, because its important to teach a true biblical heart of worship, but also use music to stir people's emotions to a point of worship. I'm not entirely sure what this looks like, but I suspect that challenging some of our assumptions about worship music and challenging people's comfort zones (in moderation) can help, at least they've helped me. Certainly finding a place where we can express worship to God through a wide variety of music is a good thing too. God is the source of diversity in our creation, and I doubt that he ever planned for there to be only one, exclusive form of response in musical worship.

Read more...

Approaching Theological Difficulties

Good theology is a difficult endeavor. After all, it is the assimilation of inferences from occasioned documents, (not to mention the historical distance involved). The authors themselves make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of their respective audiences. It is understandable then that there are several important “tensions” that arise in theology between the various emphasizes of authors.

Today, I want to reflect on thinking more seriously about these tensions in our formulation of theology.


One great and classic example is our doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture is strongly monotheistic, and there is little evidence that the early church saw themselves diverting from this core Jewish belief. Yet, in the New Testament there is a clear distinction between the members of the Godhead, both in their action and in how they relate to one another. Another good example is the relationship of Christ’s humanity and divinity. The church recognized these as tensions early on, (as can be seen by the numerous councils and debates). With such central definition about the nature of God, the church took great care to preserve both “poles” of such tensions. In fact, whenever a particular theology would loose sight of this balance, it was quickly refuted as heresy.

Despite the countless pages of thinking recorded on these questions, no real solution is ever offered. No theological grid is able to be imposed on the poles of the doctrine of the trinity. The truths of scripture are taken at face value, and using principles of logic and reason within the context of scripture, boundaries are placed around these truths. The only theological “structure” that works seems to be the one that doesn’t actually solve how God can be both three and one, but only defines as closely as possible the barriers around those two truths that scripture allows. This isn’t an elegant process, but it really is all we have to work on.

The reality is that most doctrines about the nature of God fall short, because a finite being is attempting to define the infinite. God is beyond our perceptible logic. This does not mean he defies logic, because I believe that our notion of reason and logic are derived from the existence of God. After all, God did choose to reveal himself through scripture so that we might at least taste the smallest portion of his infinite nature, certainly enough to know Him and worship Him.

But what bugs me is this whole methodology seems to fall apart when we approach the sovereignty vs. responsibility question. Instead of taking the truths of scripture and trying to zero in and build boundaries around those truths, we try to contort those truths into one of several structures. What should remain “mystery” is fitted into something that is thoroughly logical (to a finite mind). These aren’t arbitrary (though sometimes they seem to be), but rather start with one set of propositions in scripture (such as God’s sovereignty) and work outward.

The reality is that just like the modalist or the docetist, the Calvinist has to redefine freedom in order to preserve his notion of sovereignty. Freedom is more an illusion created in order to meet their interpretation of several key passages about God’s sovereignty. Likewise, the Arminian tries to follow an interpretation of several key passages about the consequences of man’s free choices, but often has little to say about God’s sovereignty, and certainly there is not always a clear distinction made between actualized responsibility and merit.

This is a bit of a different question than the nature of the trinity, because it is inherently personal. It defines our relationship with God, and has far reaching implications. The doctrine of the trinity or the nature of Christ, while very important to our faith, do not have such radical personal effects. They are abstracted, only insofar as they deal with God himself and not specifically us, (though certainly they can affect how we view God and how we approach him).

The problem is further complicated by the fact that a lot of the discussion concerning sovereignty vs. responsibility includes a lot of basic questions to humanity: what is the nature of freedom, i.e. do we really make free choices, and to what degree to outside causes influence us? Even questions such as purpose and existence come into play here.

Here is my thought: is it possible to discard a lot of these structures and instead approach the issue in a similar way to that of the trinity and the nature of Christ? Can we take at face value the fact that God is fully sovereign over creation, but humans remain responsible for their free choices? Carson made the point that any Bible believing Christian must be a compatibalist, and in one sense I agree. If we define compatibalism as that God’s sovereignty is compatible with human freedom then absolutely, (this is not the philosophical definition of compatibalism).

But is it possible to operate this way? Can we begin the same way we begin with the Trinity: take the “basic” assumption of sovereignty being compatible with responsibility (after all both are assumed in scripture) and proceed to narrow in on how scripture limits these two? As attractive as this sounds to me, I seriously wonder if this is even possible with the issue of sovereignty and responsibility for several reasons.

First, there is just so much history of thought influencing our categories. It seems many inherently fall into one of the two camps in their thinking, in how they approach God, and in how they read scripture. This issue affects so much of what we understand in scripture that it can be difficult (if not dangerous) to radically rework the whole system. Great care must be taken to evaluate our own presuppositions, but also to make sure we aren’t throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Second, this is dealing with a question of degrees of emphasis, whereas the doctrine of the Trinity was usually polarizing (at least in my understanding of things). I am not certain if this distinction changes the methodology, but it is certainly worth noting.

Third, such a method would be very hard to teach. People need answers that are relatively straightforward, but this method ends up asking more questions and avoiding neat distinctions. This is the greatest appeal of the Calvinist system of theology: it is relatively comprehensive, and it is very neat and organized.

Finally, it might be easy to end up with no real theology, just a collection of unconnected propositions. In an age when logical coherence is already a low priority for most people, this might just foster another grab bag of theological ideas from which people can pick and choose as they please. The reality is that there is no such thing as a Calminian, because both systems have directly opposed propositions. I heard one professor say once he thought that some biblical writers were more Calvinist and others more Arminian. This certainly is attractive, that both systems in some way describe God, but it is also disturbing because it certainly redefines (if not undermines) our understanding of Scripture’s unity.

All these problems are important, but I still wonder if such a method could ever work. Certainly there are important questions that would have to be resolved for it to work, and it would take a lot of work to resolve the implications of any results. But I think what is most important is that in however we do our theology, we always allow scripture to refine us. If even a few verses clearly teach something outside of our theology, then we must rework things. After all, all scripture is inspired and authoritative, and whatever theology we come up with should do the best justice to all of it, not as much as our system allows.

Read more...

Why is Thinking so important?

I’ve come across many Christians who have a very negative view of Christian thought. They quickly cite passages from 1 Corinthians or Colossians that declare philosophy and academia as not only vane and empty, but purely human and contrary to God. After all, God calls us to a Gospel that is nonsense to the pagan, desires childlike faith, and is constantly reversing human expectations.

But even more dangerously, thoughts can change people’s minds about core issues like the divinity of Christ or the inspiration of scripture. And certainly we have seen a host of examples through history of this very phenomena taking place. Certain ideas pollute, corrupt, confuse, and sidetrack people from the life of faith that God calls us to.

So instead, many propose that we be more concerned about things like love, faith, and evangelism, and much less concerned about becoming better thinkers and studying the world of thought and ideas.

But if you’ve read any of my blogs, or heard any of my rants, you know that thinking Christians is very important to me. I’ve covered some of this in other blogs (most recent blog especially), but I thought I’d compose a list of reasons why Christians should pursue maturity in their thought life as well as spiritual:



1) How we think affects how we act
The reality is that our actions are not just spontaneous creations. Our worldview, our beliefs, and how we think affect the choices and actions we make. Even the most impulsive person still operates within a set of beliefs and perceptions.

This is more deep than “think right and act right”. We study scripture, it says to do something, and we try and fail. Certainly our own sinful impulses play a roll, but I think a lot of times there are deeper beliefs at play that we refuse to acknowledge. This isn’t just about “self help”, but about deeply analyzing what we believe and why. Becoming better thinkers helps in this process, and it also helps in diagnosing errors and inconsistencies, and hopefully changing them.

2) How we think affects our presentation of the Gospel
Some may believe that God just wants us to sit on street corners and boldly proclaim the Gospel as it was given to us in scripture. But the reality is we don’t see Paul or even Jesus doing this. They are engaging those around them, attempting to refute wrong presuppositions, and attempting to undo and barriers to the truth of the Gospel. I’m certain the Holy Spirit can help here, but I think we are also responsible for becoming better thinkers to actively engage such barriers with our minds.

3) Brings strength to our faith
Faith isn’t just about blindly believing a proposition. Otherwise scripture wouldn’t be full of examples of why God is trustworthy. God is revealed in creation, there is order and rationality to how the world works. There is also merit in secular philosophy when it attempts to understand this order and rationality. The Gospel confronts this in certain assumptions, but this does not mean the two are entirely opposite. Otherwise, the God revealed in creation would be a lie.

This is pretty important for Christians because as we assimilate the God revealed in creation with God’s self revelation in scripture, our faith is strengthened. We begin to approach a holistic truth about God and his world. This does not necessarily mean compromising and arriving at things like theistic evolution, (as an example), but does mean that in some rational way, the God of scripture should fit the God of creation, as long as we begin with the presuppositions and foundation of scripture.

On a practical level, I think this simply means that the better thinkers we become, the more rooted we’ll become in our grasp of truth. We won’t be swayed by arguments from nature which supposedly contradict scripture, because we’ll be able to begin to assimilate the revelation from nature into the revelation of scripture. Christians should not have to live in a world of contradiction. The law of gravity is not contradictory to the Gospel of Christ.

4) Combats error and heresy in the church
Going hand and hand with the last point, becoming better thinkers means we can better avoid mistakes and error in the church. Despite some people’s oversimplifications, the reality is that good, solid, and true Christians have had a number of disagreements on key doctrinal points. I think the all time biggest one for the church (inside the church) is the relationship of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. This issue arose relatively early in the church, and has endured without resolution to this very day (in fact, this relationship of the divine and human resonates even outside of the church in the problem of evil). Becoming better thinkers won’t solve all of the questions of scripture (after all we are finite being attempting to grasp the Infinite), but it will certainly help us stay more centered on the truth revealed in scripture. Error almost always comes from misunderstanding a passage, or over-emphasizing an aspect of a theological truth.

5) Pursues a better knowledge of God
Our concept of “relationship” is primarily defined by “experience” (viz. romantic relationships = sexual experience). There certainly is truth to this, no relationship can be void of experience, but relationship is about something much more than this. A real relationship includes a significant portion of knowledge.

It goes without saying then that the better we can think, the more we can know about God. This means not only the better we can accurately conceive him, but also we can avoid and remove wrong expectations of him. (It is interesting that many of those opposed to Jesus were opposed because their wrong expectations, and certainly this is still true today). This will radically affect how we relate with God, how we pray to him, how we trust him, and how we submit to him.

One common response about becoming better thinkers is that it expects too much of God’s people. It assumes that everyone must “become a scholar” to know God, or to be pleasing to him. But this is not what I am arguing. I’m instead trying to make the case that Christian maturity is not just about spiritual growth, but growth in all our facets of being. Spiritual, emotional, and mental. This means that the farmer who has known nothing but planting and harvesting still can grow in how he thinks. He may never think the thoughts of a scholar like C. S. Lewis, but the point is that he is pursuing a better mind along with a better soul and heart. The Christian walk is not so much about the end as the process towards the end. We know the end will only be achieved when God’s Kingdom comes in its fullness.

6) Glorifies God with all that he has given us
Finally, becoming better thinkers allows us to glorify God with our mind. Glorifying God need not be argued for. It is all over scripture, and an assumed reality of being a Christian. But glorifying God is not just something we do with our actions, with our choices, with our hearts, and with our souls. We can and should glorify God with our minds. Becoming better thinkers can accomplish this. The more we pursue truth about God and his world, the more we can glorify God by understanding this world.
Read more...

Out with the Old

As a culture, we are not too found of old things. Old books, old ideas, and old things have a distinct impression of decay, being out of touch with reality, and disconnected from our lives. First I must say that any criticisms I am making here are directed at myself as much as anyone else. I see these trends in my own thoughts and values, as well as those around me.

In any case, this can be seen in many ways. One prime example of this is technology. Technology is a defining aspect of our lives, it can point to one’s social or economic status, or be a center badge of trends. For example, college students are the ones walking around with ear buds, a small iPod (or knockoff for those with financial constraints), and probably a sleek new cell phone (iPhone anyone?). But technology is only as cool as its age. Devices that are have been out for 6 months are “standard”, not quite as cool as cutting edge toys. After a piece of tech’s 1st birthday, its only okay. After its 2nd it’s all but retired, left only for the poor and un-cool to endure.

I’m speaking with a bit of hyperbole of course, but I notice this “notion” we have about tech all the time. After a couple of years, its history, no longer able to compete with the cutting edge.


This same trend can be seen in our appreciation of movies. Movies that were cutting edge 10 years ago, even 5 years ago, no longer are appealing for no other reason than their “out of date” visual effects. How many have felt that tinge of hesitation when somebody wants to put on a video from so long ago? (Unless it’s a comedy). It is certainly odd that even the ability to act has improved drastically, (or at least our sense of it), despite the fact that the art of acting has been around for much longer than we conceive.

But even more seriously, this can be seen in the world of thought. In an age of “change”, we pay more attention to “progressive” ideas and cutting edge thought. Nobody is terribly concerned with the fact that there truly are very few new ideas because nobody is willing to study the thoughts of our predecessors and their’s. Again, there is this notion I detect of “foreign”, “disconnected”, “decay”, “out of date”, and so on. We seem to be more concerned with making history than studying history, to the end that we’ll more than likely repeat history.

The end of this is that notions such as "passing the test of time" now mean passing consumer review with flying colors over the last few months, as opposed to standing up against rebuttal and being refined in thinking circles over the course of many years. This certainly is wrong, and dangerous to our minds and the worldviews we come up with. We must be humble to the mistakes and corrections that our predecessors can offer insight into. We don't have access to as much new and life altering data as we may think.

Where this is especially damaging to Christians is our love and appreciation for scripture. A book with a beginning many millennia ago, and an end nearly two millennia ago, is the epitamy of “old”. When we open the text, do we fall in love with the beauty, both its literary beauty, its spiritual truth, and the sheer fact that it reveals God to us? Or do we struggle with how ancient and foreign it is? How often when we open the text do we have that same hesitation (or possibly revolt?) as with an old movie?

I know when I was in High school, the Bible was very hard for me to read. I had a good NIV translation, but the language was still very unlike the language I speak. In a way, even the values were very unlike the values I had and saw around me. This is not a criticism of my family, or the church I was raised in. What I mean is that whatever church tradition we stand in, we tend to have our own set of emphases, and we use our own language to describe scriptural truths. Modenr “hot topics” apply here, but even some of our language of worship and gathering is foreign to scripture. The ideas are certainly based out of scripture, but the language is different, (one big example is our language surrounding our “relationship” with God. The concept is clearly in scripture, but our language is different).

So there are lots of barriers that prevent scripture from penetrating our lives in a transformational way. Barriers that hold us back from falling deeply in love with God’s word, and barriers which make it difficult for us to feed off of it the way Christ talked about in John 6.

I myself have an advantage over many because I had the privilege of over 6 years of biblical training, both at the undergrad and graduate level. This has given me many tools to approach the text exegetically, theologically, philosophically, etc. These are all certainly good, and do help break down some of those barriers. But even with my “advantage”, (even though some would call these a disadvantage), I still struggle in allowing the text speak to my life, allowing God to transform my mind through his Word.

Certainly this is a good example of where our knowledge of a problem can make us aware of prejudices and presuppositions, and hopefully this awareness can begin to help us overcome these barriers. Certainly we must try, because if we really believe the truth of scripture, then allowing God to shape and mold us through his Word is one of our highest priorities. And even more, learning to fall in love with God’s word more can and should be an important part of our relationship with Him.

Read more...

Thinking Christians

I rarely do this anymore, but I decided to read some of the long stream of posts on Biola’s BBS about recent political happenings. This often is both frustrating and enlightening, though usually more frustrating, (which is why I do it so rarely).

In any case, much of the discussion was concerning prop 8. Now I personally voted yes on it, and it was after some thought and reflection. I feel I came to an informed decision and voted with confidence and pride. After all, this is what a democracy is about, yes?

But I’ve come across several discussions within the church where people see this as entirely black and white. Some say that you can’t be a Bible believing Christian in submission to Christ and vote no. Others seem to imply that you can’t be an intelligent, enlightened person if you vote yes, and if in fact you do, you are in favor of “legislating morality” or worse yet, are in favor of discrimination and promoting inequality.


I’m not as interested in breaking down my points pro-8, but more in reflecting on how Christians handle discussions such as these. It rightly should strike us as alarming when we see Christians pandering so far to the secular that they have diluted (at best) their core faith, but it is equally disturbing (to me) to see Christians who refuse to actually engage an issue. I’m thinking specifically of those who would rather cite a passage from Leviticus or Romans 1 and think that essentially closes the case on an issue like prop 8. This is essentially a refusal to engage an issue intellectually, but also a painful oversimplification of God’s truth.

Certainly the morality of an issue such as homosexuality is clear enough from scripture. But issues such as how Christians should engage society and government, how Christians specifically should reach out and bring the Gospel to the homosexual community, and how the church and state relate are certainly not. These types of questions cannot be solved by simply quoting a passage from scripture, or citing truism.

Instead what is needed are things such as actively engaging such questions, spending arduous time thinking through these, and honestly engaging the discussion. It’s not that we really don’t think, or are incapable of thinking. Instead, we’re more interested in thinking about straw men and not actually engaging issues. What this should look like is instead of mischaracterizing, we need to first accurately portray. For example, when we can accurately reflect why a certain Christian voted no on 8, or voted yes for Obma, only then we can begin to engage and formulate a reasoned disagreement. The need is for Christians to actually use the mind God has given us. Certainly the Holy Spirit is involved here, and certainly Scripture is too. But the reality is that if God is the rational being we believe he must be, and if truth is truly based on his character and person, then we not only can but must engage such questions with our minds.

Instead, I have recently come across several who not only discourage such engagement, but nearly condemn those who try. Instead of promoting healthy discussion, the realm of ideas is portrayed as something dangerous, something that regularly is leading Christians away from Christ. Is our foundation of the Gospel as true this unstable? Are we this susceptible to corrupting influences?

The reality is that if ideas are this dangerous to the body, then Christian leaders should try and strengthen the body instead of protect it. If the church remains in this pattern, things will only get worse. And if we are afraid of having godly Christian thinkers, then this will only further damage the mind of the church. The reality is that Christian thinkers will rightly challenge the world, but they also raise challenges for the church. They fight against falling into easy patterns of oversimplified thinking, they can reveal holes in our popular ways of thinking about issues. This is frustrating, and it is very easy to respond in anger or hyperbole (or worse, condemn them as supporting the opposition), but the reality is that if we all listen to such men and women, and seek to become greater thinkers ourselves, then we will grow as Christians and as people. I certainly have fallen into this trap. After all, it is very annoying to think you have a simple and water tight argument for an issue, and find out it’s a ship full of holes sinking fast.

This isn’t just about becoming stronger Christians, but about having a more balanced perspective on truth. God is truth, and the more our thinking is oriented around truth, certainly the better we can know him, right? If Christians truly reclaim our grasp of truth, certainly this will spill over into how we engage culture and evangelize, right?

But more importantly, the more tightly we grasp truth, the stronger we will stand against attacks. The church should be an impenetrable fortress when it comes to truth. Because we know the one true God who is the source of truth, we should be beacons of light, intelligent thought, and truth. This certainly is proven true when it appears one of the more successful attacks by the enemy has been the stereotype of the church in the western world as an unthinking mass. This is bad, not as much because of how others see us, but because we’ve bought the lie.

We’ve degraded truth and thought as something entirely man made, and produced a false dichotomy between our minds and the Spirit. We hear Paul’s condemnation of the wisdom of man in 1 Cor 1, or his condemnation of the philosophies in Col 2 and we apply it far more broadly than the philosopher / theologian himself intended. What we see in scripture is not a mass of uneducated, unthinking men and women, but both the educated and uneducated, acting, thinking, and speaking with a greater grasp of truth and wisdom that humbled even the most educated in their society. This is what Christianity is about: its not the dichotomy between mind and spirit, but the reality that with a grasp of the Truth, both our mind and spirits can excel. Spiritually this means we have access to the one true life, and mentally because we have the foundation of Truth himself. This does not negate general revelation, but puts it in its right context.

So, Christians we should think more. :)

Read more...

Job Hunt

Ugh. I'm really hating looking for a job... its not just the rejection letters, but the whole process. I can imagine it is a lot easier when you have a specific profession in mind with a solid resume full of experience. But when you only have a vague notion of the profession, and have a woefully lacking resume, it can be downright depressing to even get started.

But this isn't just a blog to whine about the hunt.... but to reflect on the importance of work and being productive.


The last 2 months have been some of the least productive in my adult life, and I can honestly say I don't know how people endure it. I remember growing up around people who were on welfare, or people who had been retired for a number of years, and I don't know how people can get by with that. There is such a lack of purpose, such an emptiness, and such a sense of failure as a human being. Its not just the male role of being the bread winner, but some sense of purpose as a part of the human race. This is a very biblical principle after all.

I remember thinking fondly of this type of time off, and I know for sure that most would look on my last 2 months with envy. But the reality is that in a nation that is suffering financially, jobs being cut, and being a young married couple with lots of bills and loans, it is overwhelming and difficult not to panic.

But I don't want this blog to be all dark and whiny...
Having such a sense of emptiness and useless has caused me to notice all the more those things that I should value the most. Not only small things like ministry and friends, but most importantly my beautiful and loving wife. She has been so patient with me, has yet to nag me about the job thing, has yet to complain when she goes to work each morning and I'm sitting at the computer, and has yet to show any jealousy over my responsibility-free life.

But even more important than her is the fact that I know God will provide. He has already provided, and I know he will continue. More than that I know I need to keep relying on his strength and guidance. That can sound cliche, but it is certainly times like this when faith is challenged, and what we /really/ believe shines through, not just the propositions we half heartedly affirm. So I hope that I can look back on this time in my life and praise the Lord that I held firm to the faith, and continued to follow him and trust him.

Read more...

Religious

For those (very few) who happen to stop by here, I apologize for not posting anything in a long time. I wrote several blogs and just haven’t posted them because they didn’t seem worth the time. I also started several more, but out of fear of breaking the fear of breaking the patterns in my life, I restrained from finishing them.

What I want to write a note about is our notion of “religion”. I’ve been asked several times “are you religious”, and that term is so weighted with the expectations and assumptions of our society. Religion is something that people cling to in order to bring meaning and order to a chaotic life. Religion is a group of people usually along socio-economic lines who meet together and try to make themselves feel better about themselves. Religious people are ones who bicker over inconsequential details about abstract concepts such as God and faith. But the most important assumption is that religions are all basically the same, even though they package the same basic philosophy in different flavors. Its almost like stopping by to buy ice cream: everyone has their own personal tastes, but we’re all eating ice cream.


I honestly hate this definition. Its impossible to answer, because I know that by the popular definition, I fit into the category of religion (I got to church regularly, I believe these things to be true, I talk about them, etc.) But I do not believe I fit that category because in order to accept it, you are accepting the full load of responsibility for all of these assumptions.

Lets just take a step back and examine these assumptions. First, lets just assume there is some transcendent being God who does in fact exist. If he does exist, then he has to have characteristics, first of these being the fact that he is in some way transcendent. Now whatever other characteristics are true about him, we can at the very least say they are his attributes. In other words, they are true attributes. We cannot just say that everyone’s concept of God is true, because if he really exists then he must have a specific set of attributes. There is no such thing as a being which is the catch all for everyone’s list of qualities.

But lets take it a step further. Lets assume this being God decided he wanted to reveal himself in some way to humanity. If this being has a specific set of attributes, then at the very least we could say it would be odd for him to reveal himself in a variety of ways. It seems odd that he would want one group to think he was white, and another black, when in fact he was truly orange. This means that if he exists, and if he chose to reveal himself, then how he revealed himself would be important to really know who he was.

But even more, if he exists, having a specific set of attributes, and if he chose to reveal himself, then it is likely that he would want some kind of response. Very few people do things just to be seen, they want a response, whether it be acceptance, money, encouragement, love, or whatever. But if all of these assumptions were true, then the response he wanted would be important to know who he is.

All of this is to say that it is impossible for the popular notion of religion to be true. God cannot encompass all of people’s beliefs about him, because each religion has very different beliefs about who God is. It is impossible for all religions to be different avenues to the same God, because each religion has very different definitions of God’s response. And for both of these, it is not just different, but outright contradictions. Is God triune as the Christian says, single as the Jew says, or are there really only many gods as some Asian traditions believe? These can’t all be true. If God exists (or the gods), then only one of these is true.

So “religious” is not fair, because it tries to lump together things that must remain separate. But even more so, “religion” in the popular sense attempts to trivialize the whole notion of believing in God. If he really does exist, and wants to reveal himself to humanity, then this is worth paying attention to. I can’t help but think that if aliens existed and had contacted humanity, most people would be very interested in their expectations and what they have to say. We would want to know the truth of their message and intentions. We could not have a plethora of interpretations, and be satisfied with “well they are all each person’s view” and leave it at that: especially if they had giant space ships that could do serious damage. More than that, we would not just be satisfied with the fact that “aliens do exist and want to talk to us, but each person has his own view”. This news would impact everyone’s lives, we would put everything on hold because of how huge it would be. It would be the most important thing on everyone’s minds, and it would change how we view our universe and how we live our lives.

Part of this is our own fault though. Because many have bought into the lie of pluralism, even though we might not believe it. Whenever we say we believe in God and trivialize it with the pop-psychology / neo-pagan / new age / whatever notions of faith and feeling better about ourselves, we’ve admitted defeat to the notion that God really doesn’t exist, or at the very best, does not matter. If God exists, then religion is not shopping for ice cream: It is the attempt to learn who God is, what his message is, and what he wants, and if this is true, then everything else is secondary: this is the most important thing we can know, and it changes everything.

Read more...

My Camp Experience.

I had the privilege of serving as camp staff for my churches youth summer camp over the last week. This was probably the most overwhelming experience I have had since my wedding.


First, going into the week I was uneasy. Even though I have been teaching for a year with the High School, I knew only a small portion of the High School group, and many of them graduated this last semester and weren’t going to be at camp. So I knew I would be forced into making some new friendships and trying to connect with students in a new way. I was also worried because I have never been staff at a camp, and I knew there were many things I would have to learn along the way. But more than this, I was concerned that I would not be able to impact students lives spiritually.

But despite all this, God really did some amazing things this week. I never imagined that camp could be more intense and more fun as staff than as a student. The intensity is obvious enough, leading a bunch of young students, keeping track of them, and always engaging them and keeping them interested in what is happening can be very challenging and exhausting. But more than this, it is a blast. As a student, I remember how fun all the activities were, and how exciting it was to be around friends and having the “camp experience”. But as staff, I think not only were the events fun, but being able to connect with several different kids and in many ways be the center of their attention for a week only added to the fun.

I definitely felt that God gave me the strength to set aside some of my inhibitions and introversion in order to engage the students (especially the guys in my tent). I’m sure I made many mistakes as a staff person, but I know God carried me through the week there too. The other staff were so talented and things moved along so smoothly, that there was room for my mistakes so that things kept moving smoothly.

Did I make an impact on their lives spiritually? I really do not know. I had a group of good guys, and I raised several (what I think are) important and deep questions. I can only hope that they will continue to pray over and pursue these, and with God’s help grow in that. I do know that whether or not I individually had an impact, that I was a part of a team that as a group impacted several students. Being a part of that team, and helping out in whatever ways that I did were a blast and totally worth the sacrifice of time and energy.

I’m very excited about youth ministry now, at least much more than I was. I made several new friends, and many of them are just starting high school, so I look forward to getting to know them more over the next few years. I feel very dumb for not having been more intentional in the youth ministry over the last year. I feel convicted for not having taken it more seriously, and set aside more time for events so that I could really connect with the students.

Although the intensity and fun were greater as staff, I think saying goodbye was also harder. I remember that as a student, when camp was over it was sad because the week of fun and friends was over, and I got to return to my home and the boring routine of life. This is certainly true as staff too, but there is an added negative. This was the fact that I got to see kids that I had gotten to know (even if superficially) and love and having to watch them return to broken homes and painful lives. It was sad to see a few of the kids flourish in a loving environment, and knowing that their home is anything but that. Fortunately most of the kids I know I'll still have opportunities to interact with during youth meetings, and many of them are in solid discipleship groups.

The group is made up of solid, mature kids, but there are some that I worry for. All I can do is pray and trust that God will continue to work in their lives and protect them from circumstances outside of their control, and hope that they will continue to pursue God.
Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 4

The 4th thing I hate about SoCal is the big city life. This is literally directed at the fact that LA and its suburbs cover so much land that SoCal is mostly made of concrete. It is ugly, smoggy, dirty, and busy. But more so, LA is a large city, and with that comes all of the blessings and curses of a large city. Traffic, fast paced life, impatience, frustration, and so on. There is also the culture of the big city, where everyone pursues extravagance, and everyone tries to cram as many things (whether productive or entertainment) into their days.

But I also love the big city. There are so many opportunities that I missed in Ga. that the big city offers. Not just shopping opportunities, but also music and culture. There are lots of fascinating events that take place, fancy movie theaters, concerts, and a great diversity of people. Since I came to California, I’ve seen over a half dozen amazing concerts that would not have stopped anywhere near where I lived in Ga. There is also a lot more talent in this area. It is just mind boggling how many kids are talented in some form of art or production, whether college or high schooled aged. Back east, I do not remember anywhere near this degree of talent. Further, there are so many unique and interesting people. So many varying backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives on life. It can be overwhelming and exhilarating at the same time.

So that is part 4 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

Things I forgot to take to summer camp

Inevitably, I always forget to take things on trips. This year for summer camp, I did alright, but I still forgot a few important (funny?) ones:

• Money for a shower (results in interesting smells)
  
• Extra pair of shorts (also results in interesting smells)
• Beach towel (fun times drying off after shower with a sandy towel)
• Chair (I like to sit on ground anyway)
• Watch (because phone doesn't get reception)
• Sunscreen (yay for blistering sunburns)
• Real sleeping bag (Marcy's kid sized one just can't cut it)
• Audio adapters (Needed for sound system, fortunately we were able to rig up an alternative)
• Hat (also helps with sunburn, and keeps hair from whipping eyeballs while riding the buss)

So lessoned learned... maybe....
Read more...

Back

I'm back from a crazy fast paced week with Bridges youth camping out at the beautiful Lake Lopez.

It is so disorienting being back, trying to figure out whether or not I want to fall back into the inevitable "routine" of life.

It is also annoying because for whatever reason, all of my sunburns from the week decided to start hurting the moment I got home. Most of them are your standard "oops I forgot to put sunscreen there" burns. However, my feet are the most impressive: they are bright red on the tops from Tuesday @ the beach. Because of how bad that burn was, I decided to stay barefooted for most of the week (so my feet collected a nice layer of dirt). The dark brown and bright red were rimmed with the pale white where neither burn nor dirt had touched.

The best part though was Friday, during one of the games one of the staff accidentally tripped over my feet several times. This ripped off a few layers of skin, adding to the already beautiful collage that is my feet.

Fun times :)

I'll write more about this week tonight at work.
Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 3

This probably should have been my first blog. After all, anyone who knows me knows I complain about LA weather almost on a daily basis. Its so ugly. Its all the same. Always warm, sometimes hot. It never rains, and when it does, it is the most pitiful excuse for rain. Californians thrive in boring weather, and they run in terror at interesting weather (and make sure to complain about it too). I love a little bit of snow each year, lots of rain, and especially 4 distinct seasons. In California the seasons are:

Summer: Hot
Fall: Hotter, with fires
Early Winter: Warm
Winter: Warm (some days cool), with a little bit of rain
Spring: Warm, getting hot

LA is also a desert, but we have artificially made it green. I remember hiking up a mountain, and seeing a big yellow valley, with square patches of green. It was very ugly and sad.

What do I love?

Summer’s aren’t as humid as in Georgia. It can get very hot, but it is no where near as miserable as I remember on the east coast. The consistent weather can be nice, because it is easier to plan outdoor events. Although I miss rain and thunderstorms, I do not miss those 6 week stretches of rain. I have a feeling I probably enjoy the constant “paradise” temperatures more than I realize. I am sure I will miss it (only a bit) if we move.


So that’s part 3 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

Analogy of Scripture

I want to talk a bit about the analogy of scripture. This is also known as the principle of scripture interpreting scripture. The reasoning behind this goes something like this:
God is the source of truth and is unified without contradiction
Scripture is God’s revelation, so it to reflects his character of truth and unity
Because of this, we can use scripture to interpret scripture
Because of this, the more difficult passages should be interpreted by the clear passages


However, I think there are a number of dangers with this reasoning.

1) This reduces the theology of scripture to basic formulas of logic. We must assume that the Bible in all its diversity (of authors, times, etc.) results in a perfect mathematical unified picture of theology. The reality is that this simply is not the case. Good biblical scholarship rightly recognizes the tension of various themes. For example, we presently experience the kingdom and its blessings in Christ, the promises of God have been fulfilled in the present. Thus, we have a realized eschatology -- the future is now. But in tension with this is the reality that things are not all right, the promises are not fulfilled entirely. We still wait for the return of our king and fullness of his kingdom. This is a future eschatology. The New Testament clearly points to both. We cannot reduce this tension to a simple philosophical formula. Any understanding of the Trinity or incarnation of Christ clearly reflects this tension. Any good study of the issue of divine sovereignty and human freedom should reflect this.

There is fundamentally a difference between biblical tension and biblical contradiction. The Trinity might be construed as a contradiction, but biblically it is a tension. There are themes that stress both the division and unity of God. The reality is that God’s truth is complex and infinitely surpasses our finite human understanding. This does not allow for God’s truth to be clearly a contradiction, but it does mean that there are aspects of God’s character and action that we cannot fully break down and understand. This is a very difficult line to walk, as there are plenty of theologians who affirm tension, but for all practical purposes describe contradiction. This is also difficult because there is a lot of ambiguity as to how to avoid affirming contradiction without “ironing out” a tension.

2) It is difficult to decide what “clear” and “difficult” passages are. There are no biblical criteria. The reality is that there are biblical themes that lie in tension. It seems as if there are no checks and balances for the exegete in deciding what passages are clear. It is all to easy to instead reduce passages which contradict one’s theological system as the “difficult”, and the passages that are in harmony as “clear”. The best example I can think of is Hebrews 6:4-6. This passage brings out some of the worst of some of the best exegetes. Calvinists come up with a number of different options for how to understand this apparent “difficult” passage (because they reject that believers can fall away) and appeal to John 6:37-39 (one of the strongest affirmations of Calvinism). Arminians likewise stumble over this passage, not because it apparently teaches that believers can fall away, but because if it happens it is permanent.

3) This principle can circumvent the basic principles of exegesis. Unlike #2, some theologians will simply rule out some interpretations while exegeting a passage based on prior theological conviction (which in turn is based on certain passages). It is unfortunate, but these same theologians will describe how “the whole testimony of scripture” stands against this interpretive option, so it cannot be allowed. But this is not good exegesis. If the option is reasonable within the bounds of literary and historical context, then it should be given a fair hearing.

4) This reverses the exegetical process. The process of exegesis begins with the smaller parts and works towards the whole. This means you have to start with each sentence, putting together what it means. This then is interpreted in the context of paragraphs, chapters, and books. (This is essentially Osborne’s hermeneutical spiral: the spiral from small units of thought to context and back again, ideally ever spiraling closer and closer to the truth). Once one has a good grasp on the themes and meaning of a book, then we can gather together all these themes and build the big picture of scripture. We cannot start with a theological system, because this will impose meaning on exegesis.

Of course, nobody actually can function this way. We all have a theology even if we do not think we do. The point is that we must always be letting the text itself challenge our theology, so that in the same we the hermeneutical spiral uses context to interpret words, and words to interpret context, the text will shape our theology, so that our theology conforms to the text and not our presuppositions.



What are the benefits of this principle, if the above cautions are heeded? First and foremost, it is necessary to achieve the “big picture” of scripture. Each book has its own set of themes, and each author has a purpose and intended shape for these themes. But these themes also build off of each other. For example, Sailhamer argues that all of scripture is essentially a commentary and exposition on the Pentateuch. That the themes of the Pentateuch are repeated, expanded, and commented on by every biblical author. This means that if Paul’s doctrine of justification is such a commentary, then we first need to understand the themes of sin, grace, debt, redemption, forgiveness, etc. in the Pentateuch. Once we have a grasp of how those themes operate there, then we can move through the rest of scripture and observer those same themes, ultimately arriving at Paul and seeing how Paul maneuvers these themes. In a sense, this process is just that: the text interpreting the text. But it is more watching how later authors comment and manipulate (in a positive way) prior biblical themes.

This is not an easy task. It requires a lot of work, and requires a solid comprehension of scripture. I would love to see somebody approach systematic theology in this way. Instead of repeating the questions, grids, and debates of the last 2000 years, they would assimilate the biblical themes and paint a systematic theology of biblical theology. Something like Ladd, something like Grudem, but something altogether different.
Read more...

Dream Theater’s Compositional Style

I have loved Dream Theater's music for a long time, over 10 years now. I've watched an amazing band explore new territory, and mature musically far beyond most. Many people I've talked to find the band revolting. They either can't stand the vocalist's style (which was difficult for me at first), comparing it with 80's hair bands. Or, because some songs are heavy and have fast solos, they instantly put it into the mindless shred category. Most will recognize their talent, but add the qualifier that its just not "my style".

I can respect this, but I think that if you can get past the vocal style, there is a lot every musician can learn from the band. Its not the crazy time signatures, or how fast they can play, but their compositional style. I thought I'd collect a few of my thoughts here on what currently is impressing me about this.

1) First, they use repetition and restatement creatively. In a lot of ways, Dream Theater's music demonstrates many of the qualities of good classic music. This means that a given song might only have a few themes, but throughout the song these themes are not just repeated mindlessly (like so much other music would with just 1 or 2 themes), but develop them. This can mean different instruments will play the theme each time it is repeated, or the theme is changed slightly, or there will be radically exposition on the theme. Sometimes a vocal theme from early in the song will make up a lot of the exposition in the instrumental section.

2) Second, they incorporate a lot of themes into one song. In contemporary worship, all too often songs only have 2 themes, with a possible third as a bridge. The better recording artists will often have a creative intro for some songs, and might even have a pre-chorus. However, Dream Theater songs rarely have less than 5 different themes.

For example, a normal song probably has something like:

Intro > Verse > Chorus > Verse > Chorus > Bridge > Chorus

That's 3-4 themes (depending on the intro).

However, with that structure, Dream Theater would do something more like this:

Intro > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Bridge > Riff 2 > Riff 3 > Chorus

The point is that they repeat riffs, but they have a lot of other creative riffs added. This brings an inexplicable depth to a song. There is enough repetition that the song is memorable, and the themes are related enough that the song flows. This is the hardest part. Coming up with a series of 5-6 riffs that connect in an obvious way can be very tough.

3) They don't get overburdened by a typical "full" sound. This is especially pointed towards worship music again. I just can't get over how so many worship bands think that they need 1-2 people on acoustic trying to do all the jobs of the entire band (rhythm, bass, soup, lead, etc.). A lot of Dream Theater songs are actually very simple. Some riffs are only one chord, but the melody and riff are strong enough to carry the riff. I've heard several professional worship bands that sorta get this. Now, undoubtedly there are appropriate times when you want such a huge sound that it just smacks people in their faces, but this must only be used for effect. So many worship teams have 1-2 people over-playing on their acoustics, + 1-2 on electric, piano, etc. This results in a very messy, overlapping sound that is just ugly.

This really means separating out the rolls and keeping it that way. Percussion takes care of the rhythm, "soup" instruments provide the necessary filler, and melody instruments drive alongside the bass. Keeping these rolls tasteful and distinct really gives a riff character.

4) They have very interesting chord progressions. So many songs just rely on the basic I IV V chords, and only use open voicings. This is beyond cliché, for me personally it is to the point of sickening. First, you don't need to fill empty space with chords, you can simply have a riff that builds off the chord in an interesting way. Second, Dream Theater often only uses simple chords, but uses very tasteful filler chords like secondary dominants. Very simple theory, but they know just the right spots to throw a sweet substitution in.

5) Dynamics. This simply cannot be overstressed. Dream Theater songs build, fall off, and weave through a storyline. So many other songs follow very simple patterns, or just maintain throughout. This is boring, and very unmusical. Music is supposed to tell a story, and it does that through dynamics, who plays what where, the intensity, the fullness, etc.

6) Riff length. This falls under a couple of the above, but it has always fascinated me how Dream Theater almost never repeats a simple 4 measure progression as part of a riff. Many of there riffs are 8 measures long, and if the riff repeats, there will usually be substantial variation on the last few measures of the repeat. This again requires a lot of work and creativity, but it pays off in having very original material, and again, the music tells a story.

Anyway, I could probably rant all day about this, but I'll stop for now. I might add more later though.

Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 2

The second reason why I hate SoCal is its culture. I remember watching TV as a kid, and shows like “Saved by the Bell”, while interesting, just seemed odd. The kids ideals, the problems they struggled with, and their culture were so foreign and unattractive. Living out here for 8 years has not changed that perception. I will never understand the “surfer” cult, nor find its lifestyles and aspirations (what few there are) appealing. I cannot stand the “indi” cult. It is ugly, encourages bad art, and reminds me all to much of my adolescent attitudes. Further, the Hollywood cult is equally repulsive. Seeing what extravagant lifestyles these people live is sickening. It is not because I am envious and want that life, but because they have so much and are so empty. Further, they really do not produce much of anything of lasting value. So much of what comes out of Hollywood is filth, either because it is immoral, but mostly because it lacks any substance and is so commercialized. There are very few films or TV anymore that are genuinely good art.

Finally, I am tired of being uncomfortable because I cannot speak Spanish. I have no problem being a minority in SoCal, but it bugs me so much how so many people out here refuse to assimilate. This is America, English is our language. It is frustrating to know that if I have to find a retail job, it will be difficult just because I am not bilingual. It is frustrating to realize that there is at least a chance that if somebody hits me on the road, they might drive off because they do not have a license. But more than that, it is frustrating to be around people who have so much they do not know what to do with it, and seeing so many more who have almost nothing and are content with the scraps they do have.


I do however love SoCal because it is a great place to do ministry. There are so many strong churches in the area. I have a friend back east who cannot find a good church. His criteria are like mine, and are very basic. Biblically centered teaching, authentic worship, and a heart for ministry and discipleship. These are so basic, but so few churches get it right. For whatever reason, (perhaps the number of good Christian universities?) there are a number of very solid churches out here.

Additionally, there are a plethora of ministry opportunities. Back east, our ministry outreaches were washing people’s cars. Out here, there are so many opportunities to serve people in real need. I am at a church that gives me plenty of opportunities to teach (and to fail at it so that I can learn and grow), opportunities with music, leadership, discipleship, mentorship, and so on. One of the biggest problems with larger churches is they have a large enough congregation to recruit only the best for ministries. This seems counter intuitive, there should always be enough opportunities for available talent, but for whatever practical reason, this is not always the case. But it is exciting to be a part of a church that values its entire body, and pushes hard to get everyone involved. I have grown so much as a result of this, where if I had been in another church back east, I might not have grown at all.

So that’s part 2 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

On Chomsky

I cannot say I’ve read much Chomsky. But, I recently read this interview.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18257

He is a very interesting fellow. I find it a bit humorous that he is “America’s greatest intellectual”. From what I understand, I do not know if he is really academically qualified to be an expert on politics, (I thought his field of study was linguistics), but really in our society today, this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it is far too common for somebody to speak with “authority” outside their sphere of expertise.

Chomsky’s article is interesting, humorous, and infuriating. He has a lot of insights, but draws a lot of wrong conclusions in my opinion. Chomsky certainly thinks himself a scholar of popular thought. He seems to pride himself in identifying with the vast majority over against the oppressing powers. This dichotomy already is difficult. I am not convinced that such a clear oppressive power system is in place in America. Certainly public opinion of the government is extremely poor (and Congress has been far less popular than Bush for a long time now).

I think part of the problem is two fold. First, everyone thinks that the world around us is not right. We think and recognize that policies are wrong, we realize that others are using power to take advantage of us, we see injustice, we experience powerlessness, and so on. I cannot help but think that this recognition of the wrongness of the world goes beyond politics and to something more profound. Chomsky would not like this (I imagine), but I think he is hitting on our innate, spiritual recognition of sin in the world and our need for God. We all recognize that the world is flawed, we see injustice and oppression, and even if we do not like the term, evil in a variety of forms. No political philosophy will solve this problem, only the Gospel. Though, I do think that conservative politics ultimately are built on a recognition of evil and are thus more effective at properly (and Biblically) restraining it.

Second, just because we recognize oppression and evil does not mean that there is an “establishment” that is doing this to us. It seems a common thing to try and explain this evil in the world by vilifying an organization and imbuing it with almost divine like qualities (which in itself could be significant of the real issue at stake). Of course there are not extraterrestrials controlling the world secretly, nor is there (likely) an evil government conspiracy to subdue the population. These are simple explanations, but are far from plausible. After all, if the government was capable of that level of organization and efficiency.... well, it obviously isn’t. I’m not saying Chomsky is Fox Mulder, but he definitely has his Mulder moments.

It is very easy to idealize the situation into “bad guys” oppressing the “masses”, but this is unfair. Part of this is because it will be very difficult to decide who is in these different classes. Further, humanity cannot function without leaders, and leaders will always have to make decisions. Chomsky rather seems to idealize a “pure” democracy, where popular opinion dictates everything. I am not a historian, but I do not think there is evidence that this actually works. Even at the smallest level, leadership is always needed in order to provide organization and direction. Further, leadership is about seeing the big picture in a way that might not be possible for those who are in specialized roles. Of course human nature corrupts leadership, and we have far more examples of bad leadership in history than good, but I sure hope Chomsky does not really believe that removing all leadership and making every person on the planet have equal say in decisions is really a good thing. But it definitely appears that is his opinion.

Chomsky also seems to assume a lot of the American public. He points out that if it were up to the public, we would have had a universal healthcare system 20 years ago. I think at the heart of this is he believes Americans are liberals, and although this sounds unfair, I get the impression he feels that businessmen and politicians are the ones who are pushing foreign ideas on the people. This certainly is not fair at all. Chomsky likes quoting statistics, but I do not believe this accurately reflect people’s opinions. People will respond to attractive promises like “free healthcare”, but they might not be informed to understand the drawbacks.

Chomksy sees an uninformed society that makes decisions based on attractive images that convey no substantial content. He is insightful in realizing that people are attracted to superficial images, and I think he really hits the nail on the head with Obama. Obama is a “blank slate” of sorts that people can easily project their ideals on. He is charismatic, and is full of short and simple platitudes that convey no content at all. “Change” is not always a good thing after all, the real question is not “change” for change’s sake, but “change to what?”.

This gets at one of Chomsky’s biggest weaknesses (at least in this interview). Its the whole chicken and egg question. Is the society uninformed because of the (oppressive?) business powers and their propaganda, or are businesses and politicians able to get away with such superficiality because people no longer know how to think and are saturated in an entertainment driven society?

I recently read in a WoW forum an application for one of the better guilds on my server. Because this guild is very good, the applicant recognized that he needed to make a strong case for his commitment to weekly raids. He pointed out that he plays the game 8-12 hours every day of the week. He was in college (now he’s 27), but he dropped out partly due to the game. He currently only works a basic retail job so that he can play the game the rest of his day. This is horrifying! This person has gave up any real productive future in order to play a video game seemingly for the rest of his life.

This is not what humans were meant for. This is not a meaningful life. But this is our society: we work 8 hours a day, and then try to cram as many forms of entertainment into the rest of our free time. We are not interested in thinking, studying, or engaging in philosophical discussions. We are cynical of “scholars” and possibly even afraid of them. Is this because of an oppressive propaganda machine, or is the propaganda a result of a fading society? I think it is the latter. This is partly due to the quick rise of technology and the resulting forms of entertainment. It is also due to our entitlement attitude towards a life of luxury. I think we can also put some blame on our educational system for loosing sight of the value of a real education in place of themes of “tolerance” and a post-modern epistemology.

A final critique of this interview is Chomsky’s liberalism. One of the scariest things about liberalism is its forceful equality. This is the heart of socialism. It is scary because it is so counter human nature. Our differences are what drive us to improve on ourselves. Chomsky uses terms like “free market” which I would think imply this principle. But, I’m pretty sure for Chomsky “free market” means a market where all players are made equal. This simply does not work. My definition of free market is where hard work are rewarded. Humanity is not productive when we are not allowed to work for our own greed and ambition. This is not a pretty picture, but we cannot “fix” humanity with a political system. At least this approach works, and under the right checks and balances can work very well.

Chomsky is a very insightful man. I should read more of him, because I know he is popular in many circles. He is challenging because his conclusions and perspective are so entirely foreign. He is humorous because at times he becomes overly sensational viz. Michael Moore. (Like in implying that Europeans are healthier than Americans because they are taller, or that America orchestrated our victory in WW2 in order to have global power). He is also frustrating because he does get at real issues and real problems. Guys like Chomsky will always be good to break misconceptions about leaders. Bush is not God’s gift to man, he is a flawed leader, and has made plenty of mistakes. I still think the man has done far more good than evil, but history will have to be the judge.
Read more...

A love/hate thing with California

I've decided to do a 5 part series on things I love and things I hate about living in SoCal.

The first reason why I hate living in SoCal is the drivers. I'm sure every big city has its host of bad drivers, but in my mind drivers out here are the worst. I have to admit, it is kind of nice that there is the unspoken rule (well, not quite so unspoken) that everyone drives 10 over. I still get nervous around police, but when they are obviously cruising at 15-20 over, I guess its not that big of a deal. But SoCal drivers are some of the most arrogant and reckless drivers around. I get overwhelmed with the most powerful anger whenever I am cutoff by somebody weaving through dense traffic, or think its just funny to drive on the shoulder to pass you on an on ramp.

Its not just that people are arrogantly pursuing the futile goal of getting just one more care ahead, but its the fact that their doing so not only slows down traffic (as everyone breaks to avoid an accident), but also endangers lives. And worse, when there is an accident (which is very frequent), that slows everyone down even more. And all of this is for the sake of getting someplace faster, which in the end this kind of recklessness only shaves seconds off of your arrival time. I'll be addressing this more later, but it is an attitude of entitlement, an attitude of selfishness, and an attitude of... stupidness. :)

I've been in so many close calls where somebody was acting foolishly, and its only by the grace of God that I have yet to have an accident out here. My wife can attest to this though, every time I get in any kind of traffic, I am a very angry person. Such emotions of frustration and even hatred wash over me, and it really surprises me how intense these can get.

Although this is unrelated to the drivers, stop lights definitely do not help my attitude. It seems like you hit almost every one when you are running late, and many of these are for old ladies to cross the street, or one car to make a left turn.

The first reason why I love living in SoCal is family, friends, and church.

Right now, I only have an uncle out here (who I really wish I made a greater effort to get to know better), but most of Marcy's immediate family is still only a short drive away. I still have not grown as close to them as Marcy has to my family, but they are my family, and I do love them. If/when we move, I will miss being close to them, even though I do not always take advantage of their close proximity.

I also have a number of good friends out here. I'd wager that I have more close friends out here than I ever did in Ga. I've also plugged into a church that I feel is unique. It definitely has its share of problems, but the leadership seems to really "get it" about some of the more important things, and it is a solid community that is ministry focused, and biblically centered. These are such basic qualities that should be a part of the church, but many churches fall short today.

I've often been afraid that if/when we move, we'll be hard pressed to find a church as strong and vibrant. Its such a great balance where we are at, the community is small enough that you can easily know many people in the body, and large enough that we are able to undertake some ambitious ministry and missions tasks. It is also nice (and frustrating) to be in a community where you do not have to be an expert in your field to be needed / used.

So that's part 1 of what I love and hate about living in SoCal.

Read more...

Perversion and Culture

I am utterly amazed at the acceptable perversion in our culture. I get the privilege of listening to kids 8-12 play in the pool and not only use some of the vilest language, but also comfortably navigate all types of sexual innuendo. I know this is no startling revelation, but I have been coming across teenage girls more and more that seem innocent enough, but will match any boy of equivalent age in sexual and coarse joking.

It seems our American culture is at an impasse of sorts. We want to be open and free with all forms of ..I've heard it said in the good tradition of European sexuality). But we still have some remnants of a previous age's morality. There is an invisible line that dictates acceptable standards of content for broadcast material, yet all forms of media are not trying to walk that line, but significantly push it. After all, some of the "best" television is "edgy", "pushing the standards", etc. This might be all in the name of a freer sexuality, but the end result is always a more blatant sexuality.

We could lament our culture and predict that this is the worst humanity has ever gotten, and the parousia must be around the corner. I do not think this is the best line of reasoning. A friend of mine once argued that it is almost better the way things are now, because apparently people still thought the same way 50 years ago, they just were forced to act and think in hiding. It was a sexually repressed culture after all.

I do know whether this is true or not, but I definitely cannot agree that it is better with "everything out in the open". First and foremost, a culture that is so openly vulgar and perverse can only move in one direction. Western civilization has lost any conscience, and all that is left is only the most minimalist morality. It is sad that children are growing up in a society where they experience not only peer pressure to have premarital sex and unheard of young ages, but also that they are quickly conditioned into the mindset of unrestrained freedom and entitlement to acting in the most degraded ways. This "open" and "free" environment might seem ideal because depravity isn't being hidden, but I think it is worse because its not only encouraging, but I think forcing many into bad lifestyle choices. Its like we're trying to socialize ourselves into thinking that whatever we want is okay, kids should be having sex, and if you are a guy with even the slightest bit of effeminacy you should rightly choose a gay lifestyle.

Of course humanity is naturally depraved, and this isn't just about sustaining an empty idealist facade. But it is sad to see a society fall as low as we have, especially one that was built on Christian virtues. Perhaps no society is immune to this, but we certainly have made a lot of progress in falling over the last 50 years. Just because this does not relate to salvation does not mean it is acceptable, it is still a sad state of things, and I think at some level something we should try to reverse.

Christians are called to endure evil societies, and live as lights in them. This does not mean that Christianity is about Christendom, but it does mean that if the church is functioning, one would hope to see a positive effect on society. At some level, it is hard not to wonder if the church has failed rather miserably, and the quick degeneration of Western society is the result. Sinful humanity will always be sinful outside of Christ, but shouldn't we see progress in the church instead of regress? I am no historian, but I can easily think of a few areas where this has been clear.

First, the enlightenment and later modernistic movements brought some terrifying blows on the church. It seems especially in the early 20^th century that many Christians took a defensive stance rather than went on the offensive. We "turtled" up, removed ourselves from society, and did everything we could to protect our children from the world. The more extreme side of the fundamentalist movement clearly demonstrates this, though the original movement was itself a good thing). It is almost as if, as soon as some powerful and dangerous ideas entered society, we quickly gave up and tried to hide.

They tried to kill God, and we surrendered. Again, this is only my impression from a limited knowledge of history, maybe I'm horribly wrong. But it deeply bothers me that some of the most profound thinkers during this same time period were shunned by many Christians (Lewis immediately comes to mind). In all honesty, it seems like the church is only recently beginning to recover from the initial attack of the enlightenment, and only now beginning to get together a counteroffensive. It only took us 200 years.

I think the battle against wrong ideas is important. It won't save people, but it will help affect the world for better, and who knows what kind of seeds this will sow? In the same light, I think we need to fight the battle for American culture. We cannot continue with an attitude of retreat. I doubt we will be able to transform culture, but I think we can at least expect to make an impact. There is no excuse for Christians giving into the cultural peer pressure on issues like morality. As Christians, we should never be ashamed of Paul's words in Phil. 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Christians who are in the film industry should not give in to compromising their morality in order to be "edgy". Nor should we sacrifice ideals of purity and righteousness in the name of not being legalists. Legalism and righteousness are very different things: one is an attitude of doing what's right for credit, another is doing what's right out of love. We need to stop acting like rebellious children who want to act in whatever way they want. We need to spiritually grow up, start being men and women of God who stand up for truth and purity.

I'm speaking as much to myself as to anyone else. I tolerate far too much, and have become desensitized to things that should be revolting. I've bought into the lie that "its not really that big of a deal", I've succumbed to this childish attitude of rebellion against all standards, and trivialized purity.

------

So, a bit of a harsh blog, and a bit random… perhaps I'm randomly connecting things that shouldn't be connected, I dunno.

Read more...