On Episode 13

Joss’ strength certainly is in dealing with stories that are epic in proportion.

I have to confess that I was not that into the idea of Dollhouse, at least initially. Besides the philosophical problems with the core premise (whole mind/body issue being skewed in a pop-scifi way), the story just wasn’t that interesting. Of course the characters showed their potential of being fascinating and lovable, but the story just wasn’t there. The first half-3/4 of the season just felt like they were dragging along. However, towards the end, they really started to pick up more speed (like swimming to the surface) and develop different characters and continue previous arcs.

Despite this, I still wasn’t super crazy about the show… but episode 13 finally broke through to the surface, in all its nice shinny, epic proportioned Joss-ness, (ironically enough because his brother and sister in law wrote it).


This strikes me as the pattern for Joss in storytelling, and certainly his strength. This certainly was the case with Angel, and to a lesser degree Buffy. He begins the story by introducing the characters in “normal” circumstances, spends half a season or so there, and then begins to unfold the real story he wanted to put those characters in: and it’s always epic in scale. Joss simply doesn’t do “small”. For Buffy, this usually got resolved at the end of the season, and most episodes would deal with the larger arcs. That being said, the show still felt more episodic (though certainly to a lesser degree in the latter seasons). For Angel, someplace in season 2 it started and it didn’t really stop until the end of season 4, and that was only for a short breather for it to pick up again in the end of season 5.

I wonder if this pattern isn’t more common for a lot of TV. It seems like the “smaller” scale stories usually are sitcoms, and most anything else (to be taken serious at least) has to have some kind of largeness to it, especially those shows that are more serialized. But even a lot of popular network shows still find success in not being as “large” in scale as others. For whatever reason, Joss really seems to gravitate towards the everyday characters in earth shattering (sometimes literally) stories.

The one possible problem to this theory is Firefly. But I think this isn’t the case. Firefly begins in the wake of an epic, system wide battle, so it’s already different from the beginning of Dollhouse. But more than that, it did follow the pattern for Angel and begin to build towards a huge story, and unfortunately Joss had to tell the Season 2 – Season 4 scale story in a 2 hour movie, (don’t get me wrong, Serenity was still amazing). I think Firefly, though not literally as “large” as Angel, still maintained a lot of the same core elements to work.

All in all, episode 13 has me real excited for season 2 of Dollhouse. There is so much potential… it is so exciting to watch a TV show that every twist and turn makes you just get excited for more. Every new page of each arc is just cool and interesting, and also feels significantly and worthy of being called good art. I’ve only had that experience with a few shows before, and outside of the new BSG and B5, Joss was responsible for all of them.


Read more...

Initial thoughts on Poythress' Symphonic Theology

So I've finally made my way (mostly) through the short monograph by Poythress called "Symphonic Theology". My dad bought me a copy several years ago because he was so thoroughly impressed with the work. This was one of those books he read nearly a dozen times, and filled every white space in the book with notes. For whatever reason, I never really took this as a positive cue to read it for myself.

Anyway, so I just finished it.


Poythress unpacks (briefly) a hermeneutic based on the principle of "symphonic theology". At its core, this hermeneutic is concerned with understanding the variety of perspectives behind the language of the biblical books, and the value in discerning this variety in building one's interpretive method and ultimately theology.

Its hard for me to really define what distinguishes "symphonic theology" from "biblical theology", even though the latter has meant several different things in academia over the last 100 years. Biblical theology started as basically a movement towards a more historical approach to biblical interpretation. While at Talbot the hermeneutic I was trained in, which was called Biblical theology, was essentially the same as Poythress' "symphonic theology". I think the difference here was between a more historical approach and a hermeneutic that was historically inclined that also takes advantage of modern linguistics. For this reason, a lot of what Poythress was taking about was very familiar.

In fact the few authors I have read on modern biblical linguistics are regularly quoted by Poythress (Carson, Silva, and Barr). This understanding of linguistics has made a very positive (in my opinion) impact on biblical studies because it challenges prior mistaken understandings of how words work, in contrast to more traditional systematic approaches.

Overall I was very impressed with Poythress' work and enjoyed it thoroughly. My one complaint is that several times Poythress' use of words (ironically enough) was not as nuanced as I would have liked. A few times, I was unsure if he was leaning more towards a relativistic hermeneutic. However, after finishing the majority of the book, this is clearly not his goal, in fact he's very intentional in not letting this hermeneutic fall into relativism.

Finally, I think one area that needs better development (or I just need to think more about it) is his approach to bringing perspectives and questions to a passage. One the one hand, this seems like a very dangerous hermeneutic, but on the other I can see the legitimacy of trying to approach passages from different perspectives. In the former case, you are in danger of interpreting a passage by a preconceived idea. However, I think Poythress' intention was to simply challenge our assumed perspectives on a passage by seeing if other perspectives shed any light on the meaning. There is certainly a need for care in one's exegesis here as it seems like a precarious balance to maintain.

On the whole, I would highly recommend this book to a wide range of people. I'm not sure how accessible it is to those with less biblical training, but the perspective he articulates ultimately is important for all Christians in our humble quest for truth from God's Word.

Read more...

The Gospel in the Bible's Language

Lately I've been reflecting on the Gospel, and what the true significance of being a Christian really is. What is core? In some respects this is a very simple question, in others its been a challenge.

I'd like to say I've shared the gospel with others so much the whole thing is second nature, but that's simply not the truth. One thing that bugs me a bit is that usually our concept and presentation of the Gospel is so thoroughly defined by systematic theology. This isn't wrong per se, but I'd imagine it can make the Bible a bit hard to understand for new believers. After all, the language of the Gospel they accepted is just very different from the story of redemption in the Bible. So what would the Gospel presentation look like if we just used biblical language?

I've been trying to think of ways to present the Gospel using the language and categories of scripture, that would still make the Gospel accessible but at the same time be close enough in proximity to the key themes and points of the Bible that a new believer would have a "head start" of sorts.

I'm certainly not there yet. What follows is a working "rough draft" of sorts. It's also a lot longer than what a practical presentation would have to be. Some details need to be cut out (like the part about covenant), others are already cut (such as details concerning the atonement). I included some examples of passages that seem to reflect certain points, but please don't treat these as "proof texts", as they certainly aren't intended that way, and since they are mostly off the top of my head, they certainly aren't exhaustive.

Thoughts / comments / ideas / critique / whatever would be great

What is the Gospel about?

• The problem - Our world isn’t right; it has a lot of problems
  
  
  
  • Why was man created?
    
    • Bible begins story in Garden pointing that man was created for fellowship with God
    • Man uniquely created in God's image, man uniquely entrusted with stewardship over creation
    • Man freely chose to break this fellowship, bringing sin into creation
    
    
  • According to the Bible, Sin is the root of the world’s problems
    
    • Sin is fundamentally an anti-God perspective (Rom. 1)
    • Because of the fall, sin entered the world and everything was affected (Rom. 5, 8)
    • More importantly, because of fall all people are now slaves to sin (Rom. 1:18-19; 5:12-14; 6:23; Jam. 1:15)
    
    
  • What's so bad about sin? Sin brings death:
    • Physical -- we weren't created to die
    • Spiritual -– Sin breaks down our fellowship with God, and so we are considered spiritually dead
    • Eternal -- Because of sin, everyone is in danger of spending eternity in a place of separation, judgment, and condemnation
    • God is equally just and loving, and so although he loves people, he cannot tolerate sin and must condemn those who are sinful
    
    
  • The problem then is:
    • Creation has been corrupted due to sin
    • Humanity, created to be in fellowship with God, is now in danger of eternal condemnation and separation from God
    
    
• The Climax of God’s story of redemption
  • God’s love and mercy for humanity drives him to act in history to bring redemption (Rom. 5:8)
  
  
  • God’s Kingdom is pictured as invading the earthly kingdom of evil (1 Cor. 15:23-25)
  
  
  • Redemption: rescuing from kingdom of this world and transferring membership to God’s Kingdom (Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Eph 5:8)
  
  
  • God's redemption is centered on covenant:
    
    • Covenant is God's promise to people to bring redemption
      
    • Old covenant was:
      
      • God's establishing of a people to be a nation that drew people to God
        
      • God revealing his standard of righteousness through law which is an important part of covenant faithfulness
        
      • Failed because people were not faithful (Heb. 8)
        
      
      
    • New covenant is:
      
      • Not "separate" from the old, but rather a natural progression and fulfillment of the old
        
      • Establishing a people without national distinction to now proclaim God's message to the world
        
      • Succeeds because of Jesus' faithfulness (Heb. 8)
      
      
  • Jesus is the fulfillment, center and climax of God’s story of redemption:
    
    • His life: proclaiming and living the Kingdom, and fulfill the expectations of the coming Messiah King
      
    • His death: sacrifice necessary to redeem us from condemnation (John 3:18; Rom. 8:1)
      
    • His resurrection: bringing life and restoring our fellowship with God (Rom. 5:12, 15, 18-19; 6:4-11)
      
  
  What does it look like to be redeemed?
  
  
  
  • Our new identity
    
    • Dead to sin, alive to righteousness (Rom. 6; John 1:13)
      
    • This life includes our minds/hearts/attitudes/etc being continually transformed, renewed, and reoriented towards God (Rom 12:1-2; Col 3; Eph. 4:15)
      
    • This life includes an identity marked by pursuing righteousness (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 4:22-24)
      
    • This is a fundamental reversal of the effect of sin: instead of being anti-God because of the fall, we are now pro-God
    
    
  • New Life includes:
    
    • Peace (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14-15)
      
    • Joy (John 15:11)
      
    • Hope/Confidence/Assurance (Rom. 8:23-24; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 4:16; 6:17-19)
      
    • Membership in God's family (Rom. 8:15; John 1:12)
      
    
    
  • Enduring trials today for rewards in eternity (Rom 8:18)
    
  
  What is required to get in?
  
  • Not by works (Rom 3:20 etc)
    
  • Repentance (Mark 1:15)
    
    • Turning from sin to God (Rom. 6:12-13)
      
    • Obedience
      
    
    
  • Believe (Mark 1:15)
    
    • Faith is the only basis for salvation (Rom 4:5)
      
    • Trusting in God
      
    • Submitting our unique gift of free will, desires, and expectations to God
      
    
    

Read more...

A review of Sam Harris: A Letter to a Christian Nation

Recently I began an interesting journey. I decided to start surveying some of the better (or at least more popular) anti-Christian literature. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but rather literature that challenged my world view, and hopefully would challenge some of my presuppositions. I had two basic reasons for this: one was I was beginning to assemble a basic apologetics curriculum and another was I’ve long felt a need to engage literature “from the other side”. When apologetics is done “safely”, (as in, no real interaction with the other side), it often results in straw men.

So I made a journey (literally) to the local bookstore and picked up a number of best sellers / recommended texts. My first entry into this interesting territory was a short little book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.


Sam Harris is a student of neurology, and often appears in debates and interviews concerning his atheism. In front of an audience, Harris appears articulate, quiet, restrained, and thoughtful. However, in Letter to a Christian Nation, he takes out quite a different tone. He is clearly very upset with religion in the western world, especially America. Although a good deal of his attack is focused on Christianity, especially the Christianity of the pew, he often lumps together most religions into this same boat, so more accurately his attack is against God believers.


Before moving into a critique, I want to begin by pointing out some important strengths of this book. First, Harris wants to direct the majority of his attack against more conservative Christianity (and by implication more conservative forms of religion). He dismisses more “liberal” Christianity by rightly pointing out that these questions are about black and white, and not the "greyness" of liberal Christianity. The Bible is true or it is false, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are true or they are false. This is a very honest and helpful beginning point for these discussions. It sounds like Harris does spend some time interacting with liberal Christianity elsewhere, but it does remove it from this “battlefield”.

Another strength of Harris’ work is his approach to morality. I have not read much in philosophy, but I do know that the question of morality is one of the most important of the atheist. It is not just that a purely Darwinian ethic is severely lacking, but it can quickly take on a clearly immoral structure rather quickly. After all, survival of the fittest is most certainly not a gentleman to species. Harris attempts to build a moral system that is entirely objective. From other interviews, I know that as a neurologist he is especially interested in defining morality at the level of the brain. In A Letter, Harris does briefly outline his (at least current) view of morality. It is really just a form of utilitarianism: morality is the pursuit of real happiness in self and others. If your actions promote happiness, they are moral.

The biggest problem here is that Harris’ morality is subject to the same basic critiques of a utilitarian ethic: how do you define happiness? How can a finite being know what actions will really and truly lead to happiness (such decisions require some form of omniscience). In any case, it is still encouraging to see Harris investing a lot here. It demonstrates a clear recognition of an important weakness of atheism, and he certainly does his best to find a solution.


Harris is very upset. This much is clear, if not from the title of the book, then from the first paragraph. He is responding to what he sees as a “moral and intellectual emergency”. He sees conservative Christianity as something that is contrary to the pursuit of a civil society, something that is contrary to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, something that is contrary to any kind of critique and discussion, and something that is fundamentally contrary to any sense of reason. At a basic level though, Harris is reacting to the classic “problem of evil”. This problem basically stated is how can God be all powerful and all good, yet he can allow such rampant (and seemingly pointless) evil to exist? I’m pretty sure this is one of the most powerful arguments against the Christian God, (both as a polemic and conviction). Harris not only sees the Christian God as evil, but possibly any god as evil, and those who follow him as either evil or very close to it.

I am pretty sure Harris is focusing his barrage not at the Christian academy, but at “popular Christianity, the religion of the pew. It is here that he sees rampant ignorance, blind faith, and moral indifference to both suffering that presently exists, and suffering that is a result of Christianity. The problem is, Harris is not really interested in dialogue, but with simply describing what he sees as a dangerous absurdity. Harris is venting at the Church, there is no charity here towards the other side. If you believe in God, you clearly are happy with the thought of genocidal piety, you clearly promote ignorance, you are clearly opposed to science and would rather sustain a blind faith, and you are only a few steps away from the logical conclusion of conservative religion: radical Islam or Nazism.

I do not mean to be equally unfair to Harris, but I did not walk away from this book with a perception that this was a fair entry in the dialogue over various issues such as ID vs. Darwinism, religious tolerance, the ethics of stem cell research, or any other issue that was touched on. Instead, he presents only the barest amount of evidence for his side, and then proceeds with a barrage of accusations on how absurd the conclusions are of the Christian. This isn’t a letter about discussion religion, but a letter about his perception of the logical conclusions and implications of Christianity. This point cannot be overstated. Harris is not trying to make the case that you should convert to atheism, (although I’m sure it would make him happy), but rather is making the case that western civilization is in serious danger because of theism. If we want to continue growing as a rational species, then we need to discard the destructive, intolerant, and profusely ignorant institution of religion.


How does a Christian respond to this?

I think the beginning of a Christian response requires a number of things. The first is the humility to admit that yes, there are plenty of professing Christians (whether real or not) who believe a lot of stupid things. Illiteracy and ignorance is not a problem that is unique to the church, but is something that is running rampant in the entire western world.

A second beginning point is to make some important distinctions. The first is that not all faith is blind faith. In fact, a good number of Christians talk about faith more in the sense of reasonable faith. There is a big difference between believing in the tooth fairy and believing in God. One is pure fantasy (encouraged by deceitful parents); another is the result of personal experience and rational argument. (Note: rational does not = materialist).

Another important distinction is between different religions. You cannot lump together all “theists” into one category. Islam is very different than Christianity, and both are very different than the eastern religions. Harris made such a distinction between conservative and liberal Christianity, but seems to have little problem treating the conservative Christian and the radical Muslim as the same. This isn’t just a point of doctrine, but worldview and what rational arguments are used.

A third distinction is within the church: there are moderate Christians in the pew, and radical Christians. The latter might be willing to blow up an abortion clinic, the former find that appalling. In a similar vein, there is a distinction between the educated Christian scholar and the average Christian in the pew. Many Christians are very concerned with educating the church better. There are a lot of important movements within the church. It is unfair to judge the church by the reductionism or misunderstandings in the pew, just as it would be unfair to judge atheism by a high school level education.

A final beginning point is recognizing our need for better dialog. One of Harris’ primary points is that Christians do not tolerate some important questions being asked about their belief. This is not a unique claim to Harris, Dawkins and others love to use this as a trump card. After all, the epitome of ignorance is a blind refusal to listen to a challenging question. But if the debate over ID in the last few years has revealed anything, it is that many atheists are in the same boat. Positing the limits of science, or questioning its all-inclusive rule is clearly not allowed. So we both need to listen to some of these arguments.


But those are just a beginning. A Christian response must include a defense of what we do believe. Christianity is not about intolerance, oppression, ignorance, or promoting suffering. The Bible is most certainly not about this. You can quote a few passages out of the Old Testament and try and make that case, but with further investigation it is abundantly clear that this is not true. Even if many Christians today have some wrong understandings of faith, one only has to look at history to see that when Christianity is done right, it produces a bountiful crop.

But further even is that there are a lot of very rational reasons for why Christianity is true. In fact, this is why Christianity stands apart from other world religions: we are primarily a historical faith. We are not concerned with people adopting arbitrary doctrines that must be accepted by blind faith. We are concerned with a divine man in history. Paul put it best in 1 Cor. 15: If Jesus did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain. This is a bold claim. This means that if the historical basis of Christianity fails, then the whole house of cards collapses.

Harris’ critique looses a lot of its force when one is simply confronted with the basic facts of what Christianity does stand for. And I certainly do not blame him for misunderstanding, because there are a lot of “Christians” out there muddying the water. Further, throughout history people have done a lot of bad things in the name of religion, even in the name of Christianity. I do not like hearing how one side or the other is responsible for Nazism: Hitler had his own agenda and used science, religion, and principles of atheism to serve his own purposes. Because people abuse a position does not mean that position is wrong or should be avoided.

The question then should be does Christianity make sense of reality? The problem for Harris is that he limits the boundaries of what is knowable to the realm of science. Only those things we know from our five senses and only those things from a naturalistic science are considered “fact”, “reasonable”, or “true”. This is an important philosophical conclusion that must be examined further: are there things that are true and real that are outside of science? Does reason extend beyond science? Does a purely naturalistic view of the world even make sense? These are not questions Harris addresses, but rather assumes. And these are key questions where Christianity and atheism diverge.


More importantly though, in reading this book I realized that both atheists and theists are guilty of “preaching to the choir”. We may walk away having felt better about ourselves, and although our sales might be up, very little is accomplished. Others aren’t educated, because they weren’t really exposed to the real arguments of the other side. Further, little if any dialog takes place because we weren’t interested in dialog to begin with.


But hopefully what we are all interested in is truth. At some basic level, this must be rational truth, (because any other truth simply doesn’t make sense). The pursuit of this truth is not helped by name calling and drawing wild and unlikely implications from one view. We need to examine the arguments and see what makes the best sense of the world around us. It is interesting and ironic that the beginning of my journey started with this book. I was hoping to better educate myself, but I encountered something very different. I had to look elsewhere to find a better presentation of Harris’ views.

Read more...

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...