Friday, March 28, 2008

Tool for Apologists

I have made the point before that faith is not a religious concept: I think faith is a univeral characteristic of human beings.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see [NET Bible]
All human beings who are not suicidal or otherwise terminally pessimistic share that – but faith has an object. To talk about someone's faith (or calling someone a "person of faith") - a universal - without talking about the object of their faith - the specific - is to say nothing really except that they, like nearly every human being, has faith in something. It is only the "in what" that gives meaning.

The word "hope" above is not "I hope I get a pony for Christmas" - this is elpiß: "joyful and confident expectation". As Peter said about hope:
1 Peter 3:15 . . . always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.
That is apology - regardless of what the object of the hope, and faith, is.

However, there are good ways and bad ways to do that. I signed up yesterday at Stand to Reason for a series of email lessons from Greg Kourkl on "Tactics in Defending the Faith" that seems like it might be a good tool for "thinking clearly and engaging discussions effectively."

I have included the first email below the fold - but I am not going to publish the rest. I think if you want their lessons you should sign up at their site
Tactics in Defending the Faith Part 1: A More Excellent Way

Greg Koukl

Many friends of Stand to Reason use our materials because they agree that Christianity, when properly understood and properly articulated, can take its place in the marketplace of ideas. They want to be able to effectively communicate the message of the Gospel to those who don’t understand or agree. This series of e-mails will help you learn tactics that, when used skillfully and winsomely, will make you a more effective ambassador for Christ.

Let me offer you a word of encouragement. I’ve been defending the faith actively and “professionally” for over two decades with people who oppose evangelical Christian views and are professionals in their own right atheists, skeptics, Mormons, Jewish rabbis, and secularists.

When I started, I wasn’t sure how I would fare in public against the pros with thousands of people listening. But what I discovered was that the facts and sound reason are on our side. We don’t have to be frightened of the truth or the opposition if we do our homework. After all, even people who don’t like tests don’t mind them much when they know the answers.

The truth is this: The Gospel can be defended if it’s properly understood and properly articulated by a winsome ambassador. If we take our time and think through the issues, we can make a solid defense. If we have the truth, there will always be a flaw in the opposing argument. Keep looking for it. Sooner or later it will show up.

The right tactic will help you discover the flaw in your opponent’s argument and show it for the error it is.

Remember that some of the most intelligent people make the most foolish mistakes in thinking when it comes to spiritual things. The tactics you learn in this series of e-mails will help you identify those mistakes. You will see that people don’t give much thought to their objections. How do I know? I’ve listen to lots of objections.

Apologetics has a questionable reputation among non-aficionados. By definition, apologists “defend” the faith. They “defeat” false ideas. They “destroy” speculations raised up against the knowledge of God.

Those sound like fightin’ words to many people: Circle the wagons. Hoist the drawbridge. Fix bayonets. Load weapons. Ready, aim, fire. It’s not surprising, then, that believers and unbelievers alike associate apologetics with conflict. In their view, defenders don’t dialogue; they fight.

In addition to the image problem, apologists face another barrier. The truth is that effective apologetics in the 21st century requires more than having the right answers. It’s too easy for post-moderns to ignore our facts, deny our claims, or simply yawn and walk away from the line we’ve drawn in the sand.

I’d like to suggest a “more excellent way.” Jesus said that when you find yourself a sheep amidst wolves, be innocent but shrewd. This instruction calls for a tactical approach. Even though there is real warfare going on, our engagements should look more like diplomacy than combat.

In the emails you’ll receive over the next several weeks, I’ll share lessons I’ve learned from years of engaging critics of Christianity. These are practical tactics that can make a real difference in equipping you and building your confidence to engage non-Christians in conversations about the most important topic possible their relationship to God.

Next time: Why tactics?

For more extensive tactics training go to
www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

There are at least two types of folks who may read this who may wish to "[think] clearly and [engage] discussions effectively"; and do that by engaging in dialogue - and not fighting:
  1. People with a religious faith they find under attack, and who wish to defend it
  2. People with a political faith they find under attack, and who wish to defend it
In either case, the skills taught may be useful. Obviously the second group may not be interested in the stated goal of the series
equipping you and building your confidence to engage non-Christians in conversations about the most important topic possible their relationship to God.
but there may be information that can be generalized. Heck, I do not know - I haven't read them yet

Read more!

27,000,000 in Bondage

I will be writing next week on modern slavery as part of The Listening Heart series. In the meantime, Aaron Krager has picked up the topic at Street Prophets with "1 in 250, enslaved around the world "

Please go read it.

Read more!

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Here's a Meme Buster

One of the criticisms of theologically conservative Christianity from at least the left is that we are a rich group of folks hoarding our money and allowing the poor to starve - while keeping the government conservative so it doesn't take any of it away.

Oh, those rich mega-churches . . .

Well, I have never seen that in church - but I haven't been in every church. However, there is some evidence that my personal experience is accurate

Oh, those poor mega-churches . . .

"Faith an Asset, Not a Liability"

If getting rich is your goal, steer clear of a conservative Protestant church. That's the absurd conclusion of a study by Duke University professor Lisa Keister, who authored "Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Poverty" in this month's American Journal of Sociology. Keister suggests that wealth is "among the most fundamental indicators of well-being" and, according to her, the church is sorely lacking it. When comparing net worth in the year 2000, conservative Protestants (CPs) averaged $26,000 compared to $66,200 for the wider population. "[The findings] are consistent with the argument that long-term exposure to CP values, particularly during the critical childhood years when people learn to save, adversely influences asset ownership..." Keister tries to validate the liberal stereotype of Protestants as poor, uneducated people who force their women to stay home barefoot and pregnant. She claims that biblical teachings are hostile to the accumulation of wealth and cites people who say that it "prevents one from knowing God." Unfortunately, Keister ignores the obvious explanations, which are that believers are more inclined to give sacrificially and place less priority on material things. In fact, as Arthur Brooks notes in his book Who Really Cares, one of the best things that could happen in the fight to reduce poverty would be for Americans to become more religiously conservative. Brooks writes, "Religious people are, inarguably, more charitable in every measurable way." In contrast to Keister's theory, most Protestants don't have an objection to riches but refuse to be defined by them. As our Dr. Pat Fagan has pointed out, men and women of faith place a higher priority on producing human capital than financial capital. Keister's report seems to feed into society's notion that that success is determined by what you accumulate, rather than what people accomplish or how they serve. In the end, wealth is no more an indication of success than it is of happiness. -- Tony Perkins
The religion blog at the Dallas Morning News also noted the report - and drew three interesting comments:
  • In her conclusion, Keister says:

    "CPs [Conservative Protestants] have low wealth regardless of family background and that low educational attainment, early fertility, large family size, and limited female labor force participation are partially responsible."

    Three out of the four factors deal with women. By making sure they keep women "in their place", they also make sure their families will continue to fall behind.

    It would be funny if the results weren't so tragic.


  • My wife is a physical therapist and I home school our two high school children. Our son graduates, with national accreditation, in May and his GPA is 3.83. He was pre-accepted to a top college as of last year. Our daughter graduates next year and thus far has a 3.78 GPA.


  • Let a statistic speak! I was a young and successful electrical contractor. After becoming a Christian, I closed my business in 1985 to attend school for seven years to become a CP pastor (graduated college summa cum laude). My present income is two-thirds (actual dollars, not adjusted by inflation) of what it was in 1985. Would love to provide a detailed report but will conclude with a challenge to the examiners -- I’m not as poor as you might think. Things aren’t always what they seem (read Matthew 6:19-21).
    [“Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.]

Well, at least I know why I am broke. So, what do you all think:

Is wealth one of the "most fundamental indicators of well-being"?

Read more!

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Touring the Net

Here is my (sorta) weekly tour of the internet - and some things that struck me as interesting:

  • Christian Carnival CCXVII (217) is up (or soon will be) on the other side of the Cascade range from me in eastern Oregon at Diary of 1. The three that caught my attention this week:
    1. "Can an Atheist be a good Person". Starving Econ Student researched what atheists mean by "good" in that question, found a couple of examples
      I googled around and saw two atheist answers:
      1. A person who does more good deeds than bad deeds
      2. A person who has empathy and compassion towards others.
      and then he addressed those well.


    2. Translation does some funny things. "Do You Love Jesus?" - well there are some different words for "love" in scripture; and Chad examines the use of two of them in the same passage of scripture:
      John 21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. -- NET
      Read the notes to the NET Bible text - those translators disagree - but I am not sure what I think. How about you?


    3. David at Boomer in the Pew talks about "Growing Up as a Disciple of Jesus Christ":
      Here was our opening question:

      Are you a sinner working on your salvation or are you a child of God (a disciple of Jesus) working on your sin? Talk amongst yourselves!
      and goes on to talk about the concepts of justification, sanctification, and glorification based on passages from Romans and 1 Corinthians


  • At Stand to Reason:
    • As an apologist, I get to deal with the "shellfish" and "mixed fabric" questions with regularity. Here is a great answer to "Why Is It Okay to Wear Mixed Fibers?":
      To believe the Old Testament Law literally is to believe that this was the covenant God made with the ancient nation of Israel--a set of instructions for running their nation. To believe the New Testament literally along with the Old is to believe that when we were joined to Christ, we died with Him and were raised with Him, causing us to be released from the Law.
    • Melinda points to a new book Why We're Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) :
      They explain why objective, propositional Truth (not just lower-case t truth) can be taught and preached and still communicate with Gen-Xers. Both speak from their practical ministry experience.
    Last week I pointed to Scot McKnight's multi-part review of The Case for Civility by Os Guinness. This week had:
    • "Civility 4" which
      could be called a “civil screed” against the Religious Right. It is not too harsh; it never falls for the uncivil, but the chp univocally calls the RR to the bar for a civil warning.
    • and "Civility 5":
      If Os Guinness, in his attempt to call the nation to public civility, can call the Religious Right to task for its rhetoric, he can do the same to the Left . . . “We are closer,” Guinness states, “to the wild atheism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, back to barnyard debating, with ungrounded assertions, irresponsible accusations, ad hominem arguments, and reasoning that repeatedly slumps into ranting”
  • Sarah at Intellectuelle in their "Apologetics 101" series talks about "Faith vs. Values?:
    It's unfortunate that he has come to think of the Bible this way--as merely a handbook for morality. Do unto others should not be approached independently of no one comes to the Father except through me. But is he all that different from many Christians who regard the moral propositions of Scripture above the saving power of the gospel. Perhaps we could helpfully understand the gospel call as one of many moral appeals, yet is the one that lacks political correctness.
    It is also the one theologically conservative Christians can ignore as they preach morality to non-Christians instead of bringing people to salvation in Christ.


  • Joe Carter's "Thirty-three Things (v.55)" series always has interesting stuff. Some highlights this week:
    • "Designed for Sex", by J. Budziszewski:
      I said that we’re not designed for hooking up, that we’re designed for our bodies and hearts to work together. We human beings really do have a design, and I mean that literally—not just a biological design, but an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual design. The human design is the meaning of the ancient expression “human nature.” . . .
    • An attack ad on Thomas Jefferson by the "Re-elect John Adams Committee":
    • D.A. Carson, as quoted by Mark Driscoll in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World:
      Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.

      To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.
  • Jan at The View From Her is one of my favorite bloggers. She is an Evangelical woman who simply writes about some neat things. This week, besides saying nice things about McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy - she adds something to the complementarian vs. egalitarian discussion of men and women's roles in the Body of Christ. She reviews Saving Women From the Church: How Jesus Mends a Divide where she picks the story of the Samaritan woman at the well out to discuss.


  • WorldMagBlog had some interesting stuff:
    • First, they have carved out a respectful community of differing opinions - and so their voting on the community's favorite movies is interesting. They have both top 5 category rankings and a top 25 overall. The top five overall:
      1. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
      2. The Princess Bride
      3. The Sound of Music
      4. Indiana Jones films
      5. The Incredibles
    • "Pronounced dead, man takes ‘miraculous’ turn":
      Just before Thanksgiving, the 21-year-old was pronounced brain-dead following an ATV accident. As family members gathered to say good-bye before his organs were harvested, Dunlap’s grandmother, Naomi, began praying for “a miracle”–and that’s just what she got.
    Jeremy Pierce at Parableman:
    • pointed to a piece written by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:
      for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.

      But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous.
    • and deepened the discussion about "Racism Charges and the Clinton Campaign" as well:
      I had to take interest in the first two comments [to Kevin's piece] mentioning Geraldine Ferraro, who didn't come up in the post. What interested me most about their appearance is the assumption that that's a genuine case of racism that they must be taking to undermine his whole argument. First of all, if it's genuine racism that doesn't undermine his argument. His point is that many of the accusations of racism are going way too far. One case that is racism doesn't undermine that claim.

      Second, I don't think it's fair to describe that as racist.
    Enjoy

    Read more!

    Tuesday, March 25, 2008

    Modern Slavery I: Alienation and Isolation

    [Number seven in a series. Resumes discussion of slavery started in number one]

    A couple of times I have mentioned A.J. Conyers' contention in The Listening Heart that - in the return of slavery to Europe and its colonies that accompanied the rise of modernity's exploration, trade, and conquest - the chattel slave

    is the ultimate autonomous individual. Stripped of every human tie, he belongs to no community but to a stranger. It is no accident, then, that the rise of modern slavery coincided with the Enlightenment itself.
    Of course, every time this is mentioned folks freak a bit about the use of the word "autonomous" in the same breath with "slave". As one commenter said it does not mean "free" - it means "alienated or isolated" from family, community, culture, and support.

    Indeed, Conyers points out
    We have already seen how the modern, increasingly urbanized, technologically sophisticated, society had become organized in a way congenial to the uses of power and material acquisitiveness. The usefulness of human beings in this relationship was made more feasible when they were understood as equals in the modern sense - that is, as interchangeable units in a machine - and fundamentally alienated from natural associations, "belonging" only in the new, modern sense.

    This new relationship is only adequately articulated, as we shall see, by the master-slave language, though this language - thanks to the pre-modern influence of Christianity - is highly offensive, causing modern people to reject the system of slavery when it is visibly evident (as in the plantation systems of the early U.S.) and to submerge it in forms that are less visible . . .

    Two features of slavery - its transforming of a human being into an instrument for use, a resource for the masters of the larger society, and its destruction or at least neglect of natural relations within natural groups such as the family and clan and leaving in its place the alienated individual - are also features of modernity. Within the history of slavery we shall always find these two features prominent; it is no wonder that early modern leaders of the Enlightenment nearly always defended and promoted slavery. They were above all promoting the instrumentalizing of the individual and the individualizing (that is, the alienating from natural relations) of the human instruments of labor.
    The previous parts in this series have looked at the way modern society seeks to break all ties except to the company, the military, and the state.

    Conyers traces some pre-modern definitions of the slave:
    for most of history, and among most peoples in history, the slave is one who specifically did no longer belong to the family, or to his own people, but belonged to a stranger. It might be said without exaggeration that everyone was thought to "belong" to someone, or to some family or group. But when one belongs to strangers, the misfortune is described by the status of "slave."
    Some examples:
    • "Early Hebrews were restricted from making slaves of their own people; and if one of them had become so indebted that they sold themselves into slavery to foreigners, their next of kin was obliged to buy them back, to 'redeem' them."


    • "in early Saxon law 'the 'autonomous' stranger who had no family or clan to protect him was automatically regarded as a slave.'"


    • in most African nations, where the opposite of slavery is not '''freedom' qua autonomy but rather 'belonging.'''

    David Brion Davis (as quoted by Conyers):
    "the salient characteristic of slavery was its antithetical relation to the normal network of kinship ties of dependency, protection, obligation, and privilege, ties that easily served as a model of nonkinship forms of patronage, clientage, and voluntary servitude." [and] the "'modernity' of the slave lay in his continu¬ing marginality and vulnerability, in his incomplete and ambiguous bonding to a social group:' -- Slavery and Human Progress
    Conyers makes the final tie between the relations of large masses of people to modern society and slavery thus:
    when some populations are living sumptuously at the expense of others who are barely able to feed their young, is that not also slavery, one might ask? Or when large populations live as "alien residents" - which was a biblical term practically equivalent to "slaves" - then are there not some remaining signs of the institution? When so many people are heavily in debt, and some third world nations as well, can they truly be said to work for their own living? Or do they, just as in any ancient slave system, work for the primary benefit of others-even for others they do not know? This latter-day slave system has the convenience of remaining out of sight, and thus inoffensive to a sensitive bourgeois population.
    Earlier, Conyers has said that Marxism has made us sensitive to the expansion of the word "slave", but the alienation Marx saw as making us "wage slaves" was alienation and isolation from our own labor; whereas Conyers traces it as alienation and isolation from vocation: from ties to family, church, tribe, etc. that make us part of an organic community. His presentation is that that severing of ties to organic community and reattaching them to modern organizations like the state, the company, and the military leaves us in exactly the same isolated and alienated position - working for the benefit of another with whom we have no real ties.

    Read more!

    Sunday, March 23, 2008

    "He is Risen . . ."

    1 Corinthians 15:1-8: Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. -- NET Bible
    That was the teaching of the 1st Century church well within 20 years of Christ's death.

    And its meaning was also clear to Paul, used to (as a Pharisee) arguing with the Sadducees (and apparently the Corinthians) over the resurrection of the dead:
    1 Corinthians 15:12-19: Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone. -- NET Bible
    That, of course, has been the view of the vast majority of the Body of Christ over the last 2000 years until now. The "Enlightenment" brought us those who just cannot believe in the supernatural, or God reaching into His Creation through miracles. Even most of those, like Walter Wink, still need, and want, to find meaning in the Resurrection, even if they want it to be lore, myth, or something spiritual; and even if they believe that while the witnesses above were experiencing "something", that "something" was not the Risen and Glorified (corporeal) Christ.

    Still, nearly all Christians outside the west, and most of them in the west, have staked their beliefs - like Paul above - on the Risen Christ; and Christ, of course, said we are blessed because we can believe this, even in this "Enlightened" age, without - like Thomas - having to put our fingers into the holes on His hands in order to believe.

    So, whether it be Mahanoy or myself, Wink or Wright: we all come together on Easter - Resurrection Sunday - for the holiest day in the Christian calendar. Not the day He was born, not the day He died - although most celebrated both of those - but on the day He rose. And, around the world, someone will say to the assembled crowd: He is Risen . . .

    And we will all answer: He is Risen indeed

    Happy Easter

    Read more!

    Thursday, March 20, 2008

    Appropriate Smallness: Part 2

    [Number nineteen in a series]

    I am continuing to look at Chapter 7 ("Appropriate Smallness: The Practice of Servanthood") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

    The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life.

    Appropriate Smallness

    If you want to be your own god, you have to settle for living in a tiny universe where there is room for only one person. Your world could grow infinitely bigger if you were only willing to become, in the words of a friend of mine, "appropriately small." -- John Ortberg

    IV. A Life of Servanthood: How do we enter a life of servanthood?
    1. The Ministry of the Mundane
      Jesus took a little child in his arms and said, in effect, "Here's your ministry. Give yourselves to those who can bring you no status or clout. Just help people. You need this little child. You need to help this little child, not just for her sake, but more for your sake. For if you don't, your whole life will be thrown away on an idiotic contest to see who is the greatest. But if you serve her - often and well and cheerfully and out of the limelight - then the day may come when you do it without thinking, 'What a wonderful thing I've done.' Then you will begin serving naturally, effortlessly, for the joy of it. Then you will begin to understand how life in the kingdom works." -- John Ortberg
    2. The Ministry of Being Interrupted
      Another form of service might be called the ministry of availability. In the Russian church certain people called poustinikki would devote themselves to a life of prayer. They would withdraw to the desert (poustinia) and live in solitude, but not in isolation. (The Russian word for solitude means "being with everybody.") By custom, "the latch was always off the door" as a sign of availability, according to Tilden Edwards. "The poustinik's priority at any time was his neighbor's need (which might stretch beyond prayer and counsel to physical labor, as at harvest time)."
    3. Embracing Our Weaknesses and Limitations
      "Why do you choose to be so busy?" he persisted, which made me uncomfortable because then I had to think about it. The only honest answer was that, more than anything else, I was running on grandiosity. I was afraid that if I declined opportunities, they would stop coming, and if opportunities stopped coming I would be less important, and if I were less important, that would be terrible . . . As a result of this encounter I developed a small "personal schedule group," with a covenant that we would not take on any added commitments in life without discussing them with each other and with our families first. The covenant also gave us full permission to talk not only about our schedules but also the motives behind our activities.

    4. Question 6: John talks about how we can be swept into busyness and get our motors running too fast. Respond to one of the following questions that apply to you:

      • If your RPMs are too slow, what needs to happen to help you pick up the pace?


      • If you feel your RPMs are at a good place, what can you do to be sure you maintain health and balance and not get revved up too fast?


      • If your RPMs are hitting the red line and danger zone, what can you do to slow down and find restored health and balance in your life?

      Question 7: If you could form a personal schedule team made up of people who care about you, know you, and would speak honestly to you, what kind of evaluation do you think they would make if they reviewed your schedule from the past month? What might they tell you to stop? What might they encourage you to begin?


    5. The Ministry of "Holding Your Tongue"
      Perhaps the least practiced form of servanthood today is what Bonhoeffer called "the ministry of holding one's tongue."
      Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if we absolutely refuse to allow them to be expressed in words . . . It must be a decisive rule of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him.
      This behavior flies in the face of the conventional wisdom today, when saying "everything that occurs to you" is taken as an essential component of mental health. But sometimes this "ministry of the closed mouth" is a victory for the kingdom
    6. The Ministry of "Bearing"
      We are called to bear each other's burdens. Sometimes this may involve praying for another's need, or trying to comfort someone in pain. But at times it may feel as if an entire relationship is burden¬some. I may need to "bear with" people until I learn to love them. . . The ministry of bearing with one another is more than simply tolerating difficult people. It is also learning to hear God speak through them. It is learning to be "for" them. It is learning that the difficult person I have most to deal with is me. . . . "Bearing with them" does not require becoming best friends, but means learning to wish them well, releasing our right to hurt them back, coming to experience our common standing before the Cross.
    Group Prayer Direction: Read Mark 10:45 again. Pray for God to give each of your small-group members a growing desire to serve in humble secrecy. Pray for the heart of Jesus when it comes to your acts of service.

    Living the Life: What is an example of the ministry of the mundane that you can offer in one of the following areas this week?
    • In a friendship

    • In the work place

    • In your home

    • In your neighborhood

    • In your church
    Take a moment and identify one or two simple chores, tasks, or jobs that you know (and others may know) you really don't enjoy. What might you learn if you commit to one of these tasks on a regular basis for the coming months, seeking the Spirit's leading in your life as you enter into these simple tasks?

    Personal Reflection:What can you do to keep the latch off your door and make yourself more available to others in how you do the following:

    • Schedule your day

    • Project approachability and availability

    • Set up your home, office, and other places people connect with you
    Additional Small Group Questions:
    1. Not only can vanity strike in the secular parts of life, it can hit at the core of our spiritual life. What are some signs or indicators that spiritual pride is creeping in?


    2. Read Luke 18:9-14. What is Jesus teaching us about the condition of our heart in relation to our actions?


    3. Have a member of your small group read the possible responses to a sincere compliment (see Part 1). What does genuine and authentic humility look like? What does false humility look like and how can you tell the dif¬ference?


    4. Read the Bonhoeffer quote above. Tell about a time you should have held your tongue, but failed to. What were some of the repercussions? Tell about a time you did hold your tongue and had the wisdom and self-control to be silent. What did God accomplish through your silence?



    Read more!

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008

    Touring the Net

    What did I find interesting in my normal haunts this week?

  • "Christian Carnival CCXVI (216)" is up at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.


  • Different views on Obama's "Race in America" speech:
    • Rick Moran at Rightwing Nut House with "Rethinking 'The Speech'":
      Take an issue that Obama did not specifically confront yesterday. In a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”

      This accusation does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an “occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy.” It makes Wright a dangerous man. He has casually accused America of one of the most monstrous crimes in history, perpetrated by a conspiracy of medical Mengeles. If Wright believes what he said, he should urge the overthrow of the U.S. government, which he views as guilty of unspeakable evil. If I believed Wright were correct, I would join him in that cause . . . The remarks in question were not “controversial” which implies that there is room for disagreement contained in Wright’s arguments. Only a loon believes the US government created the AIDS virus to kill Black people.
    • WorldMagBlog looks at the responses/reactions to Wright's statements in "Blacks’ dilemma with Wright and wrong":
      In a Rasmussen poll released Monday, 29 percent of blacks said Wright’s comments “made them more likely to support Obama.” . . . Slate posted a MediaCurves.com survey where respondents’ reactions were charted in real time as they watched snippets of Wright’s inflammatory sermons. When sorted into different groups, respondents all reacted negatively in varying degrees — except for blacks, whose responses hovered around at least 20 percent positive (sometimes as high as 60 percent), even after the reverend said, “God damn America.”
      and, again, the HIV comment is mentioned.
  • Scot McKnight examines conservative Evangelicalism and post-conservative Evangelicalism in a series titled "Reforming"


  • Letitia at Intellecuelle responds to this inquiry
    "Christians always say that it's important to follow the 10 Commandments! But you don't observe the Sabbath. Sabbath is from Friday night to Saturday night. You still think 'Do not murder' is nonnegotiable, don't you? Jesus never told anyone that they could change the day of Sabbath. He never did. Paul never did. Then why don't you follow the fourth commandment? Why don't you eat kosher?"
    with "Christianity is Incomprehensible"


  • Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark
    Green is the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, where Ruark is a research fellow.
    write "AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right" at First Things
    The list of countries that have seen both changes in sexual behaviors and declining HIV prevalence is growing and now includes Uganda, Kenya, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Thailand, and Cambodia, as well as urban areas of Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Malawi. Many countries that have not seen declines in HIV have seen increases in condom use, but in every country worldwide in which HIV has declined there have been increases in levels of faithfulness and usually abstinence as well.
    [HT: WorldMagBlog]


  • Rick Moran tries to come to grips with "Is Capitalism and the Conservative Rationale For it Dead". He admits his ignorance of economics, but follows are very good article in trying to come to grips with the government bailout of the financial markets.
    Rewarding stupidity or ignorance is not the way of capitalism. In a perfect capitalistic society, those who make their own bed should lie in it – even if it means a company goes belly up or people have their houses foreclosed on.

    But what kind of capitalistic society would allow a multi-gazillion dollar corporation who may have overextended itself because its risk assessors got it wrong, collapse and take the entire financial system with it?
  • A few people reported on this story in the Times Online: "Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness".
    The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. “Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information,” it says.
  • Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost points out Cracked's "7 Insane Conspiracies That Actually Happened"
    People love a good conspiracy theory. The JFK assassination plot, aliens crash landing at Roswell, the 9/11 truth movement and charges of government surveillance are all an indelible part of our pop culture landscape and are by and large, total bullshit.

    So where does your average conspiracy buff go to learn about shadowy plots that aren't pure tinfoil hattery?

    Look no further

  • Iraq at Five Years: Rick Moran with "Iraq 5 Years Gone":
    There’s no other way to say it except Bush blew it. And his incomprehensible decision not to change strategy sooner while sticking with a secretary of defense whose lies about how well things were going in Iraq echoed the worst of what the government was telling the American people during the Viet Nam war was a monumental error in judgment.
  • Read more!

    Tuesday, March 18, 2008

    Text: Obama on Race in America

    Senator Barack Obama is probably not going to get my vote - although he may. If he does get my vote, the speech he just made on race in America is going to be one of the reasons. I am not saying it is perfect - but it is nearly perfect.

    How do we talk about the divisions by race in America - and yet transcend that division to look for unity and a vision for the United States? How do we understand that race has been used to oppress people, without making every white person an oppressor? Well, other than look to Christ as a transcendent focus to overcome our divisions - this speech is the best thing I have ever read from a political candidate.

    I give you Senator Barack Obama:

    "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

    Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

    The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

    Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

    And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

    This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

    This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

    I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

    It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

    Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

    This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

    And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

    On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

    I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

    Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

    But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

    In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

    "People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

    That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

    And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

    I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

    These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

    Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

    But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

    The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

    Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

    Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

    Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

    A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

    This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

    But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

    And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

    In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

    Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

    Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

    This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

    But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

    For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

    Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

    The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

    In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

    In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

    For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

    We can do that.

    But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

    That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

    This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

    This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

    This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

    I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

    There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

    There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

    And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

    She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

    She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

    Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

    Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

    "I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

    But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

    Read more!

    Why This Friday is so Good

    [This is a re-working of a post from June of 2006 - and I may put it up before every Good Friday in the future.]

    The book is John Piper's Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. The conversation around the atonement, and the various views of whether it happened (or not) and what it meant (or not), seems to digress into us trying to find the main reason - the proper theology - when all of the reasons matter. Or, worse yet, talking about who was at fault . . .

    The death of Jesus is of foremost importance for the world. And the central issue of Jesus’ death is not the cause, but the meaning—God’s meaning . . . John Piper has gathered from the New Testament fifty reasons behind the crucifixion of the Christ. Not fifty causes, but fifty purposes—in answer to the most important question facing us in the twenty-first century:
    Why did Jesus suffer and die?
    A book review/bible study

    These are the chapter titles, and the key verses.

    1. To absorb the wrath of God: Galatians 3:13; Romans 3:25; 1 John 4:10
    2. To please His heavenly Father: Isaiah 53:10; Ephesians 5:2
    3. To learn obedience and be perfected: Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 2:10
    4. To achieve His own resurrection from the dead: Hebrews 13:20-21
    5. To show the wealth of God's love and grace for sinners: Romans 5:7-8; John 3:16; Ephesians 1:7
    6. To show His own love for us: Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25; Galatians 2:20
    7. To cancel the legal demands of the law against us: Colossians 2:13-14
    8. To become a ransom for many: Mark 10:45
    9. For the forgiveness of our sins: Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:28
    10. To provide the basis for our justification: Romans 5:9; Romans 3:24; Romans 3:28
    11. To complete the obedience that becomes our righteousness: Philippians 2:8; Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9
    12. To take away our condemnation: Romans 8:34
    13. To abolish circumcision and all rituals as the basis of salvation: Galatians 5:11; Galatians 6:12
    14. To bring us to faith and keep us faithful: Mark 14:24; Jeremiah 32:40
    15. To make us holy, blameless and perfect: Hebrews 10:14; Colossians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 5:7
    16. To give us a clear conscience: Hebrews 9:14
    17. To obtain for us all things that are good for us: Romans 8:32
    18. To heal us from moral and physical sickness: Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 8:16-17
    19. To give eternal life to all who believe on Him: John 3:16
    20. To deliver us from the present evil age: Galatians 1:4
    21. To reconcile us to God: Romans 5:10
    22. To bring us to God: 1 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 2:13
    23. So that we might belong to Him: Romans 7:4; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Acts 20:28
    24. To give us confident access to the Holiest place: Hebrews 10:19
    25. To become for us the place where we meet God: John 2:19-21
    26. To bring the Old Testament priesthood to an end and become the eternal High Priest: Hebrews 7:23-27; Hebrews 9:24-26; Hebrews 10:11-12
    27. To become a sympathetic and helpful priest: Hebrews 4:15-16
    28. To free us from the futility of our ancestry: 1 Peter 1:18-19
    29. To free us from the slavery of sin: Revelation 1:5-6; Hebrews 13:12
    30. That we might die to sin and live to righteousness: 1 Peter 2:24
    31. That we would die to the law and bear fruit for God: Romans 7:4
    32. To enable us to live for Christ and not ourselves: Hebrews 7:23-27; Hebrews 9:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:15
    33. To make His cross the ground of all our boasting: Galatians 6:14
    34. To enable us to live by faith in Him: Galatians 2:20
    35. To give marriage its deepest meaning: Ephesians 5:25
    36. To create a people passionate for good works: Titus 2:14
    37. To call us to follow His example of lowliness and costly love: 1 Peter 2:19-21; Hebrews 12:3-4; Philippians 2:5-8
    38. To create a band of crucified followers: Luke 9:23; Matthew 10:38
    39. To free us from bondage to the fear of death: Hebrews 2:14-15
    40. So that we would be with Him immediately after death: 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Philippians 1:21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:8
    41. To secure our resurrection from the dead: Romans 6:5; Romans 8:11; 2 Timothy 2:11
    42. To disarm the rulers and authorities: Colossians 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8
    43. To unleash the power of God in the gospel: 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 1:16
    44. To destroy the hostility between races: Ephesians 2:14-16
    45. To ransom people from every tribe and language and people and nation: Revelation 5:9
    46. To gather all his sheep from around the world: John 11:51-52
    47. To rescue us from final judgment: Hebrews 9:28
    48. To gain his joy and ours: Hebrews 12:2
    49. So that He would be crowned with glory and honor: Hebrews 2:9; Philippians 2:7-9; Revelation 5:12
    50. To show that the worst evil is meant by God for good: Acts 4:27-28

    Again, these are the chapter titles in the book, and the key verses for each chapter. The book has two pages for each chapter heading; and much more discussion and analysis. Pick up a copy and enjoy.

    Read more!

    Saturday, March 15, 2008

    Appropriate Smallness: Part 1

    [Number eighteen in a series]

    I am beginning to look at Chapter 7 ("Appropriate Smallness: The Practice of Servanthood") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

    The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life.

    Appropriate Smallness

    If you want to be your own god, you have to settle for living in a tiny universe where there is room for only one person. Your world could grow infinitely bigger if you were only willing to become, in the words of a friend of mine, "appropriately small." -- John Ortberg


    I. The Oldest Sin:
    "The writer of Genesis states that it was through pride that the serpent tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden: 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.'" -- John Ortberg

    Question 1: Read Genesis 3:1-7. How did Satan use the human tendency for vanity as leverage in his temptation of Adam and Eve? How does the enemy still use this same tactic for temptation in the world today?


    Starting with the lesser versions of pride:
    • Vanity
    • Stubbornness:
      "One who is often reproved, yet remains stubborn, will suddenly be broken beyond healing," says the writer of Proverbs. Stubbornness is the pride that causes us to shun correction. It renders us unable to stop defending ourselves. When someone points out an error or flaw, we evade or deny or blame someone else. (This is difficult to penetrate. Defensive people rarely thank us for pointing out their defensiveness.)" -- John Ortberg
    • Exclusion:
      "At the deepest level, pride is the choice to exclude both God and other people from their rightful place in our hearts. Jesus said that the essence of spiritual life is to love God and to love people. Pride destroys our capacity to love. . . . pride is a form of antilove. Pride moves us to exclude instead of to embrace. Pride moves us to bow down before a mirror rather than before God. Pride moves us to judge rather than to serve. Pride means not only that we want to be smart and wealthy, but also that we will not be satisfied until we are smarter and wealthier than those around us. Pride is essentially comparative in nature"

    Question 2: How does comparing ourselves to others do one of the following:
    • Breed pride
    • Destroy community
    • Function as a kind of anti-love

    II. That Confusing Thing Called Humility:


    Question 3: How does our society affirm and even encourage a prideful spirit? What consequences does this pride-affirming ethos have on the fabric of our culture?


    What does it mean to "humble yourself' in everyday life? Let's say we take this seriously. Someone compliments us on the way we look. We are trying to live in God's kingdom and respond as Jesus would if he were in our place. What do we do?
    • Look down at the ground, shuffle our feet, and say, "I'm not really attractive. It's just that the light in here is pretty dim."

    • Boldly speak the truth by saying, "I'm terribly interested in what you say. Tell me more, and let us celebrate this good news together."

    • Quote Proverbs 11:22 in order to correct the other person's superficial focus on physical appearance: "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without good sense." (This will pretty much remove any problem of receiving too many compliments.)

    • Be direct and to the point: "You are giving me a swelled head. Get behind me, Satan."

    • Smile, say "thank you," then be quiet.
    Humility is not about convincing ourselves - or others - that we are unattractive or incompetent. -- John Ortberg
    Ortberg points out that this is an elusive pursuit because, how on earth do we pursue humility?
    One of the hardest things in the world is to stop being the prodigal son without turning into the elder brother.

    III. Following Jesus into the Practice of Servanthood:
    More than any other single way the grace of humility is worked into our lives through the Discipline of service. . . . Nothing disciplines the inordinate desires of the flesh like service, and nothing transforms the desires of the flesh like serving in hiddenness. The flesh whines against service but screams against hidden service. It strains and pulls for honor and recognition. -- Richard Foster

    Question 4: How can service - and specifically hidden service - act as a remedy for pride? What keeps us from offering more acts of secret service?


    Philippians 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be grasped,
    7 but emptied himself
    by taking on the form of a slave,
    by looking like other men,
    and by sharing in human nature.
    8 He humbled himself,
    by becoming obedient to the point of death
    – even death on a cross! -- NET Bible
    Ortberg talks about a different way to view that second passage:
    "Jesus did not take on the "outward form" of a servant. Paul uses the same term to describe both Jesus' servanthood and his Godhood. (It is the word morphe - our little morphing word again.) When Jesus came in the form of a servant, he was not disguising who God is. He was revealing who God is.

    I remember hearing a Christian speaker say once that pride is forbidden to human beings, but is okay in God because, after all, he is God. This is wrong. God is the Infinite Servant. God is the most humble being in all the universe. Jesus did not come as a servant in spite of the fact that he is God; he came precisely because of the fact that he is God." -- John Ortberg

    Question 5: Besides Philippians 2:6-11 above, read Mark 10:45. What are some of the acts of service Jesus offered when he walked on this earth? What was his heart and attitude when it came to serving?


    • Jesus' Plan for His followers
      "Jesus knew that his own followers would wrestle with the messiah complex, so he decided to put them in a small group together. For two years they ate meals together, met together daily for group discussions, went everywhere together. And sure enough, one day they "argued with one another who was the greatest." It will happen in any gathering of human beings: Hang out with a group of people long enough, and the messiah complex will rear its ugly head.

      Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it like this:
      'We know who it is that sows this thought in the Christian community. But perhaps we do not bear in mind enough that no Christian community ever comes together without this thought immediately emerging as a seed of discord. Thus at the very beginning of Christian fellowship there is engendered an invisible, often unconscious, life-and-death contest. "There arose a reasoning among them"; this is enough to destroy a fellowship.'"
    • I'm Not Superman
      "There is another way to help people out instead of trying to be the Superpeople we aren't. The primary reason Jesus calls us to servanthood is not just because other people need our service. It is because of what happens to us when we serve."

    Read more!

    Wednesday, March 12, 2008

    Touring the Net

    I am not going to call this a "weekly" tour because I haven't been too good about doing it weekly.

    • First, the 215th Christian Carnival is up at Fish and Cans. A sample of three posts:

      • A fellow Oregonian posts "My Testimony" as a meme. My contribution starts here. Go look at her questions, answer at your blog, and link in her comments.


      • Politicians say some interesting things about scripture. Jeremy Pierce at Parableman looks at a recent comment by Barack Obama:
        I want to delve a little bit into the contrast he draws between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 1. The gist of his statement is (1) the Sermon on the Mount is more central to Christian faith than an "obscure" passage in Romans, and (2) the Sermon on the Mount should influence our attitudes toward civil unions in some positive way.
        The conversation in the comments between two of the "parablemen" is a really good launch for this discussion.


      • Speaking of that obscure passage in Romans, Chris at The Bible Study Podcast begins a podcast series on Romans:
        This is the introductory episode for a new series studying the book of Romans. This episode will provide an overview of why we will be studying the book of Roman. It also starts to look at the introduction to this letter. Romans is the only one of Paul’s letters written to a church that he has not previously preached to. Because it is written to a new audience it is the most complete of the New Testament letters theologically.
    • Another meme caught by eye at Parableman: "Bible Meme". I am putting this on my list to do - and you can consider yourself tagged if you like (but since I haven't yet (and may never) done it - my tag doesn't really count since I am not yet "it")


    • Joe at Evangelical Outpost looks at "Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology":
      The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"
    • Bonnie at Intellectuelle examines "The Exclusive Nature of Religious Pluralism":
      To look at RP [religious pluralism] more closely, one has to admit that it cannot really exist because religious pluralism cannot embrace historic Christianity, it rejects it. Historic Christianity teaches that it is only through faith in Jesus can anyone be saved, and RP rejects this claim. Therefore, all roads do not lead to God, rather any road other than historic Christianity leads to God.
    • Scot at The Jesus Creed has a series on Os Guinness' The Case for Civility. See "Civility 1" (it has reached "Civility 3")
      Some of my finest moments of exhilaration in study have emerged out of visions for what public discourse has been and could be. But we are presently mired, largely in the wake of America’s culture wars, in bombastic and apocalyptic ruts. We have Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity and Michael Moore and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and just naming them embarrasses public discourse. I despise TV news talk shows where folks talk over one another.
    • Two folks pointed to a new CDC report that 1 out of 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease - with two diametrically opposed conclusions:

      • Rain at Street Prophets believes this shows a lack of eduction of our children - particularly because of "abstinence only" sex education:
        My sister and I discussed this briefly this morning and she made the point that teenagers are not stupid. They need information so that they can protect themselves – and abstinence only programs of sex education are likely to blame for some – if not a lot -- of this. Add to this the fact that health care is not easily available to many American families and the problem is compounded.
      • Melinda at the Stand to Reason Blog points out the obvious:
        Some people scoff that "abstinence doesn't work." Yet, I guarantee you that all of the girls who practice abstinence are in the disease-free group. Abstinence works every time it's tried. No one said it was easy, only that it is right and it works. More than 3 millions girls lives are devastated because they bought the cultural lie perpetuated by the sexual revolution.
      My 14 year old daughter's response: her classmates are NOT ignorant that unprotected sex can cause pregnancy or STD's - and they can be very stupid when it comes to sex. She proceeded to tell me some horror stories she has overheard at school which I will not repeat here.

      We are failing our children - but the failure is in the lack of moral and ethical grounding about sex - both culturely and in our families; and not because they lack information about the negative outcomes of sex: they know them and ignore them in the moment.

      • Should sex education by "abstinence only"? No.

      • Should it be morality and ethics free? No - it needs to include abstinence (my daughter's health classes do not).

      • Can our schools handle the ethics and moral education necessary? No.

      Parents: teach your children well. [Incidentally, for anyone who says my daughter's opinion is anecdotal - she is an expert on everything: just ask her :-)


    • Jan at The View from Her has something to say "Re: The Apologists":
      I have two observations that cause me to re-think apologetics as a positional framework for faith. First, the desire to be "right" can sometimes get tangled up in the lust for power that goes all the way back to the Garden. Armed with all the "right answers" we are ready for battle, to attack and demolish another's arguments so we can conquer them with The Truth. Do we really think adversarial war metaphors will help us win anyone to Christ? Really? I remember hiking in the mountains, and crossing a stream from rock to rock. A friend stretched out his hand to help me make a particularly slippery jump. This is a better metaphor, I think - helping people cross over to faith from rock to rock, and extending well-thought-out answers to help them over the places where they may have the most fear.
      This is primarily about folks thinking Anne Rice the artist should adhere to reality in her Christ the Lord series


    • In the "you cannot make this stuff up" department, Save the Humans [HT: The Volokh Conspiracy] reports [please tell me this is a spoof]:
      In a surprising turn of events, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has filed a lawsuit against “Kristen”, a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club prostitution ring. Spitzer’s complaint alleges that “Kristen’s” refusal to allow him to sleep with her bareback, while allegedly knowing of his sexual addiction, constituted unfair exploitation of an ADA-protected disability.
      There . are . no . words.


    • Finally, back to those schools teaching sexual morals and ethics: WorldMagBlog reports on a school in Illinois that assigned Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes as required reading:
      "The book is replete with profanity, overt racism through multiple uses of the N-word, an explicit description of a sex act involving Mother Theresa and some of the most graphic, vile and vivid depictions of homosexual anal sodomy every put in print." -- Concerned Women for America
      Lynn at WorldMagBlog challenges folks to google this if they think it "case of straight-laced Christian schoolmarms with their knickers in knots." She asks the question I would ask:
      But can not even our gay and lesbian friends on this blog agree that it is not appropriate to assign sexually graphic/pornographic literature to high school students? And, if a teacher is going to assign gay-themed literature, aren’t there more age-appropriate, less sexualized, polarizing choices? Gay activists are constantly arguing that the gay lifestyle isn’t just about sex. Why then assign Angels in America and reinforce the opposite opinion?
    Enjoy.

    Read more!

    Monday, March 10, 2008

    The Listening Heart: The Decline of Vocation II

    [Number six in a series]

    The last post looked at organic society as represented by one which embraces vocation; and the organized society created by modern western culture:

    • Organic societies were not based on the independence of individuals; but the interdependence of members; and

    • Organic societies were not based on the equality of their members, but their differences
    This wasn't just an outgrowth of the rise of modernity - it was a requirement. Therefore, the theme of this post:
    that modern western culture requires the severing of folks from vocation - and its attachment to family, tradition, religion, etc. - in order to build a culture rooted in production and conquest.
    Indeed, as A. J. Conyers points out in The Listening Heart, the "reason" taught by the enlightenment wasn't reason in general [other than items in brackets by me - this completely follows Conyers]:

    It is often noted that Enlightenment thinkers emphasized reason. Yet the real effect of their emphasis is almost always lost. This certainly could not mean that they emphasized reason while earlier ages neglected it, or preferred superstition and unreason: who indeed were more devoted to the arts of reason than the disciples of Aristotle in antiquity, or those who, in medieval times, submitted everything to reason in the most rigorous fashion, the schoolmen from Anselm to Aquinas and beyond? The specific way in which the Enlightenment used reason was as a replacement for the idea of vocation. One could then make reasoned choices. The true locus of personal decisions was to be found in the individual who "thinks for himself:' as Kant would put it, and who declines to depend upon the "guidance of another."
    and
    It is not without significance that Kant, like others following the same pattern, appeals to a virtue of the will, courage. For in many ways the movement of modernity has been a shift from the intellect and the affections as guiding faculties for human beings, to the will. Kant does not say, develop the skill to think for yourself. Nor does he say learn what best to love so that you may guide yourself toward what is good. Nor does he suggest that you have the courage to follow what you know is good and true. The will is placed ahead of the intellect and the love of good. He says instead, ''All that is required for enlightenment is freedom. . . ." and "Men raise themselves by and by out of backwardness if one does not purposely invent artifices to keep them down."
    [An interesting contrast in this will vs. good discussion might be Matthew Yglesias' "Thinking about Prostitution"; and Joe Carter's "Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology" or PastorDan's "Eliot Spitzer Self-Immolates". None of the three mention the "elephant in the room" in regards to prostitution (and pornography) - the international trafficking in sexual slaves. I am getting to slavery in this series.]

    So, what does Conyers see as the process in the modern decline of vocation:
    The stages of this recession are not surprising, though the extremity in which it has manifested itself (and the real name of that extremity) is something modern people would generally reject, although they, more than any other peoples of any other age are most acquainted with it. . . .

    The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought impressive advances in technology, or-to use plainer language-in the use of implements or tools to accomplish practical tasks. This advance was so impressive and made such a remarkable impact upon society that a number of direct or indirect consequences made themselves felt.
    1. Progress in technology suggested that progress was a general rule in human experience and that it was a force that operated throughout social, moral, and artistic life; that what was the rule for technology was also the rule for civilization and culture, bringing all things under the power of an unseen evolutionary hand.

    2. The increased use of technology drew larger numbers of people to centers of production and commerce, giving rise to the phenomenal growth of urban living and the ready availability of manpower for industry and army, for production and conquest.

    3. The labor force, the government, and the army developed along lines analogous to the machine.

    4. Governments were organized for the efficient administration of large territories and the gradual yet effective opposition to barriers (including and sometimes especially the moral and religious ones) that hampered profitable enterprises. One can see this especially in the effort (beginning with Locke) to distinguish between a public and private realm, in which matters of moral and religious concern were relegated to the private, where the influence of church and family could not discourage free rein in the public realm of commercial enterprise.

    [This can be seen in the battle over homeschooling. In Germany, a law passed in 1939 during the Third Reich and still in effect today makes it illegal to homeschool your children: parents are arrested and children moved under control of the state. The need of the modern state to control education in order to make us more equal and interchangeable parts for conquest and production is clear. Homeschooling in the United States, particularly in California right now, is also a "battleground issue" between those who wish to maintain the connection of their children to family, community, church, and tradition - and those that believe that the state has an interest in creating more "equal" and homogenous students.]

    5. Social organization increasingly imitated the rational use of implements - of machines.

    6. The social consciousness of large territories began to be formed . . . toward those urban centers of manufacture, trade, and government (growth industries all!) where the power of technology and bureaucratic organization could be felt in its full force.

    This led to people no longer seeing themselves as belonging to the land

    that something more or less permanent no longer undergirded, nourished, and protected them: the land to which they belonged, and that was the common environment of all-rich and poor, old and young, from birth to death-was in smaller and smaller measure the environment that determined the shape of their lives.
    but to the company, the standing army, or the state:
    to belong to a "company:' let us say, means that one is subject to the will of another and in some ways is sustained only by the arbitrary good will of others. It implies that one belongs in a way that is not true of a family or a church, for this "belonging" is made possible by the activity and initiative of those who are in positions of power.
    In the next post, we will see what Conyers calls these folks alienated from family, place, community, church, and tradition; and now organized, like parts of a machine, for production and conquest.

    Read more!

    Wednesday, March 05, 2008

    The Listening Heart: The Decline of Vocation I

    [Number five in a series]

    Probably the toughest thing for me as a writer is finding a "hook to hang" my post on. I know things I want to write about - but the topics are either too large or I simply do not know how to proceed. Thankfully, folks are nice enough to provide those hooks for me. The blessing this time was provided by these comments about my writing:

    I have read through your last two diaries and continually see you commenting on the thoughts and beliefs of others. Do you have any "original" thoughts are beliefs of "your own" that do not simply leave it up to others to form your opinions?
    and later

    What I would most like to hear from you is the same thing. A diary of your OWN beliefs without one single quote from any place except your own heart.
    This idea that we have our own ideas, from our own heart, that we should "be true to" is the core of the philosophical counter positions to the idea of vocation, or calling:

    1. "The idea of a call implies an agent outside of the one who is subject to the call."
    2. "The summons is often against the will of the one who is called into service."
    3. the calling involves in almost every case hardships that must be overcome in order to answer the summons.
    4. from the point of view of answering to the summons, the greatest danger appears not in this kind of resistance, but in the possibility of being diverted or distracted from the goal.
    I quoted this in the last post:

    Precisely the point of vocatio is that you don't choose. And this is precisely why and how the idea jars against conventional modern sentiment, the sentiment that since the Enlightenment has succeeded in making a primary virtue of self-determination. "What is Enlightenment?" asked Immanuel Kant. It is the capacity "to use one's intelligence without being guided by another." "Have courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment". Thus stand side by side, in unmistakable opposition, two ideas of the way one lives in the world. One is that of attentive listening to the guidance of another, whether of a wise guide, or tradition, or of God. The other is the notion of the self-determined "free" man, who without listening to another, becomes the master of his own soul.
    Now it is difficult to know how to proceed. There are two themes, highly interrelated, that underlie the rest of the book:


    • First, that community (and the type of community) is key to the differences between modern western culture and a culture rooted in vocation

    • Second, that modern western culture requires the severing of folks from vocation - and its attachment to family, tradition, religion, etc. - in order to build a culture rooted in production and conquest.
    Let's start with:



    Organic Society vs. Organized Society
    1 Corinthians 12:12-27: For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body – though many – are one body, so too is Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. For in fact the body is not a single member, but many. If the foot says, “Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. And if the ear says, “Since I am not an eye, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor in turn can the head say to the foot, “I do not need you.” On the contrary, those members that seem to be weaker are essential, and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our unpresentable members are clothed with dignity, but our presentable members do not need this. Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another. If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it. If a member is honored, all rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.
    This is not just a "religious view" of the Body of Christ - this is a view of the pre-modern nature of organic, and primarily agrarian societies:

    1. they were not based on independence of individuals; but the interdependence of members
    2. they were not based on the equality of their members, but their differences
    Conyers points out that modern society, organized in almost mechanical terms, requires "equality" and "independence" to create the interchangeable parts for the machinery that is modern life. The organic society presented by Paul requires different parts with different functions - called together into an organic whole to fulfill a transcendent function under a unifying outside, and greater, good or force. In an organic society, each person is indispensable; while in modern society, organized like a machine, each individual is interchangeable because if all individuals are equal, each will do just as well. Or, at least, those are the ideals - and the reason to create a culture of alienated and isolated individuals whose ties to the land, family, faith, or indeed anything but the state and/or the company, are broken. Conyers:

    Since the sixteenth century, the state has become a new kind of community. It is not a true nation, since it is made up generally of many nations, although there is a dominant national culture. Its influence then arises from the fact that it is organized in a way that dissolves what is organic and to some extent voluntary. It should not be surprising then that the concepts of "vocation" and the concept of vocation as it is embedded in the liberal arts has subsided in the public consciousness. Organizations do not need such ideas or experiences, but organic communities do. And it should not be surprising that modernity has been marked by the exaggeration of the freedoms of the individual, the alienation of the person, the dissolution of families, and a culture of pathological loneliness: for these features are in the very design of the organized society which replaces the organic society.
    The second point above is continued with "The Decline of Vocation II"

    Read more!

    Tuesday, March 04, 2008

    Interupting Heaven: Part 2

    I am continuing to journal the study questions from Chapter 6 ("Interrupting Heaven: The Practice of Prayer") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. Someone said they appreciated my questions. They are not mine. They are the study questions in the back of the book, written by Kevin G. Harney.

    Additional Small-group Questions

    1. How have you seen prayer used as a last resort and a desperate "Hail Mary" pass at the end of the game?

      • Tell about a time you were forced to your knees in prayer because you realized you had nowhere else to go.
      • What happened once you hit your knees and began praying?
    Living the Life

    Take time this week to sit down with a paper and pencil or at a computer terminal uninterrupted for at least twenty minutes. Identify one specific area of life or one need that you have been praying about consistently. Write out two prayers focused on this area of need or concern.

    First, write out a safe, polite, cautious prayer. Play it close to the vest and don't get too passionate. Don't be too expectant and don't expect God to be very responsive or extravagant.

    Second, write a prayer that reflects the attitude Walter Wink suggests in this chapter. Be bold, fearless, and expectant. Ask in a way that takes you beyond your own comfort zone and ask in anticipation.

    After you are done writing both prayers, read each one out loud and ask yourself which of these prayers most reflects what God wants to hear from his children.

        Personal Reflection

        The first disciples were face-to-face with Jesus, the master prayer. As you think through the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, identify what you can learn about prayer and how these lessons should impact your prayers. If nothing comes to mind, consider reading through the Gospels in the coming month and focusing on the prayer life of Jesus.

            Group Prayer Direction

            Take time to thank God for inviting you into relationship with him. Sometimes we forget what an amazing honor and privilege it is to talk to God in prayer. Thank Jesus for making a way for us to speak with the Father in prayer.

            Index to Series

            Read more!

            Is Moralism Defensible?

            Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost writes "In Defense of Moralism"

            Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?

            The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:
            Certainly, go read Joe's post - it is a valiant effort to reclaim the word. What follows after the fold is my comment at that post:

            I suppose one could try to resurrect "moralist" as a term applying to one that studies morals - although I am not sure where the professional future of that job lies. In the secular world, ethicist would probably do better. For the follower of Christ, we probably should be looking at how the secular world we are trying to reach views our moral claims and prescriptions.

            First, Christ's primary ministry was to the Jews - the religion of His birth and the community His ministry was launched in and directed to. He shared a common moral framework, and indeed a common citizenship in a theocracy - or at least one repressed by the Romans. The group of Pharisees he was most likely railing against were those calling Jews to ultra-holiness, and strict adherance to religious law and custom, in order to stave off the inroads of hellenization; and to keep Roman rule from breaking their faith community. Of course, in about 30 years, that group would combine with Zealots to start the first of three wars with Rome that would destroy Judah. So, Christ warned against the very things our current moralists and legalists attempt to organize: the creation of rules and customs to be strictly adhered to in order to stave off secularization of our religion. Indeed, we find our extremes wishing to legislate those rules and customs into ["Roman"?] law. Christ instead talked about writing these laws on our hearts, and not in stone. In being pure, not acting pure. And criticized those who would lay additional moral and legal burdens on God's people [that they themselves could, or would, not follow].

            Paul would do the same as the church formed. He did not expect Pagan society to follow Christian rules - his moral prescriptions focused entirely on internal church life; and, indeed, he made it clear that we must be "all to all" in order to bring people to Christ so that the morality of God even applied to them at all. At the beginnnings of Romans 2, right after those famous verses and homosexuality and more in Romans 1:18-32, we have this chilling warning against trying to take the moral high ground:
            1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!
            Can you have the "kindness, forbearance and patience" of God while knowing that only His kindness will lead folks to repentance? Then, indeed be a moralist. Otherwise, I think a better idea is to realize that no one cares what you think about their morality until they know you love them.

            Read more!

            Saturday, March 01, 2008

            "The Problem Isn't God"

            In the last post, I quoted Vox Day from The Irrational Atheist [a downloadable E-book] about Messrs. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

            While both men are too cautious to ever come right out and state that they believe religion is the direct and primary cause of war, most likely due to the fact that it is so easy to disprove such a belief, they nevertheless attempt to insinuate that this is the case by repeatedly associating religious faith with group violence and military conflict . . . This is done by claiming that while religion is not the explicit cause of most wars, it is still responsible for the fact that those wars are taking place because religious faith is the reason there are two different sides in the first place . . . by constructing a pair of shaky parallel arguments based on the idea that religion causes division.
            Certainly, that last post largely destroyed any argument from observation and/or evidence that religion is a major direct cause of war. What about an argument that rests on reason or intuition? This is called an ontological argument:
            Its most famous application is an argument for the existence of God, first used by St. Anselm of Canterbury, and it states that because we can conceive of God, something of which nothing greater can be imagined, God must exist. René Descartes also made use of a variant of this argument, but it has never been an important part of Christian theology due to its rejection by Thomas Aquinas. Its fame is more due to its later resurrection and rejections by David Hume and Bertrand Russell.

            Richard Dawkins describes the ontological argument for the existence of God to be an infantile one. He pronounces himself offended at the very idea that “such logomachist trickery” could be used to produce such grand conclusions. And he’s correct to reject it, in my opinion, as ontological arguments boil down to the idea that if something can be conceived, it therefore must exist. No supporting evidence is necessary, mere reason and intuition suffice to prove the matter. Daniel Dennett scorns it as well, describing it as the logical equivalent of a carnival fun-house illusion. -- Vox Day
            Day characterizes the argument described in the first quote above as exactly an ontological argument, and cites both Dawkins and Harris as employing such arguments despite their disdain for there use in proving God exists. What are the "shaky parallel arguments" they both employ to cover this? Vox Day:
            1. Religion causes division between people. [Day points out this is an ontological argument in itself]
              “Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force.” -- Dawkins

              “The religious divisions in our world are self-evident" -- Harris
            2. Religion provides the dominant label by which people are divided into groups.
              “Without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge.” -- Dawkins

              “The only difference between these groups is what they believe about God.” -- Harris
            3. Wars are fought between divided groups of people with different labels.
              “Look carefully at any region of the world where you find intractable enmity and violence between rival groups. I cannot guarantee that you’ll find religions as the dominant labels for in-groups and out-groups. But it’s a very good bet.” -- Dawkins

              “Religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past.” -- Harris
            4. Therefore, religion is the implicit cause of war.
              “The problem’s name is God.” -- Dawkins

              “Faith . . . the most prolific source of violence in our history.” -- Harris
            Superficial thinkers who know very little history find this argument compelling because the statements flow nicely from one into the other, and because there is a certain amount of truth in each of the assertions that lead up to the final conclusion. It cannot be denied that religion HAS been known to divide friends and families as well as entire nations. Religion HAS provided a marker by which opposing groups identify each other. War IS fought between divided groups of people bearing different labels; it takes two to tangle. The problem is that merely stringing together three statements that are factually true in some circumstances does not always lead to a logical conclusion.

            Consider the same argument, only this time substituting three similarly valid assertions.

            1. Pelicans eat sardines.
            2. Pelicans improve the sardine species through aiding natural selection.
            3. Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs.
            4. Therefore, pelicans are the implicit cause of evolution.
            Day goes on to examine the division of Europe into kingdoms - replete with subsequent wars - branching from Charlemagne's son's attempt to divide the Frankish empire into 4 pieces for his sons; and then one of those sons dividing his section into 3 more parts for his sons. From the death of Charlemagne in 814 through 860 - 5 different wars had been fought; and
            More wars were fought over the centuries, the Eastern and Western Franks grew more and more apart, until finally it reached the point where they spoke separate languages, possessed separate identities, and, in the end, adopted different forms of Christianity. But the division of the Franks into Germans and Frenchmen predates the division of Christendom into Catholics and Protestants by more than 675 years.
            As Day points out using this example, the vast majority of divisions between groups of people are not religious; and religion is not the dominant label by which most distinct groups are indentified.
            Day: "The Problem isn't God"

            Read more!

            War and Religion

            One of those little arguments popular nowadays - and not challenged much in my sight - is expressed in these two remarks that were part of a post I was involved in this week.

            Organized religions do not unite us, they divide us. They segregate one group from another. You can argue the truthfulness of your religion all you want to, but you'll only alienate others who honestly believe in the truthfulness of theirs. Organized religions, regardless of their good intentions, have caused hate, mistrust and in extreme cases death and destruction.
            and its comments thread:
            More people have slaughtered in religious wars than all other wars combined.
            Certainly, the author of these remarks is in good company - and I am guessing, even though s/he is some sort of deist/theist, that this is a parroting of remarks of a similar nature by some of the new atheist writers of our day. These kind of comments have been common since the rash of books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and company in the recent past - and back into the 19th century with the likes of Robert Green Ingersoll:
            Religion makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, “religion,” covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of persecution, of tyranny, and death. . . . Although they have been preaching universal love, the Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world -- “The Damage Religion Causes” [HT: The Irrational Atheist]
            The first comment I am only going to briefly deal with: it is counter-intuitive to me that religious expression and organization has been responsible for more division between folks than race, class, nationality, and tribe. Indeed, I am not going to try to speak to all religions, but I will speak to Christianity. Other than the obvious examples of the Crusades (actually, according to modern historians, not so obvious), the wars arising out of the Reformation, and the rise (and delay in the fall) of modern slavery - Christianity has united folks across racial, class, and national lines. Human beings are fallen, and find lots of reasons to kill each other, but religion is no more divisive an issue than class, race nation, and tribe. Indeed, much less potent and, in fact, it has largely served as a restraint in the bloodthirstiness of humans. Now, that is an opinion - for which I hold no proof other that the previously mentioned intuition. However, there is a bit of statistical support

            That brings us to the second comment - which is simply factually wrong. I found an interesting resource for folks who wish to see a very good destruction of the "religion = war" arguments of folks like Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion):
            The Irrational Atheist [downloadable E-book] by Vox Day [HT: Evangelical Outpost]
            His arguments against the "religion = war" arguments of what he calls the "new atheists" reside primarily in these chapters: "Sam Tzu and the Art of War" and "The War Delusion" - but not exclusively. Vox cites The Encyclopedia of Wars:
            I had barely begun separating the teetering stacks of books dedicated to ancient and medieval warfare when Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod fortuitously happened to publish their three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, a massive 1,502-page compendium compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of Military History and the former head of the Centre for Defence Studies, of what amounts to a significant percentage of all the wars that have taken place throughout recorded human history. -- Vox Day
            where he found
            These 1,763 wars cannot be considered entirely comprehensive . . . in any event, the very large size of the sample set definitely provides enough detail for the purpose of determining what percentage of Man’s wars are caused by his diverse religious faiths with some degree of accuracy.
            According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, of those 1,763 wars, the following were categorized as religious wars for one reason or another:
            Albigensian Crusade, Almohad Conquest of Muslim Spain, Anglo-Scottish War (1559–1560), Arab Conquest of Carthage, Aragonese-Castilian War, Aragonese-French War (1209–1213), First Bearnese Revolt, Second Bearnese Revolt, Third Bearnese Revolt, First Bishop’s War, Second Bishop’s War, Raids of the Black Hundreds, Bohemian Civil War (1465–1471), Bohemian Palatine War, War in Bosnia, Brabant Revolution, Byzantine-Muslim War (633–642), Byzantine-Muslim War (645–656),Byzantine-Muslim War (688-679), Byzantine-Muslim War (698–718), Byzantine-Muslim War (739), Byzantine-Muslim War (741–752), Byzantine-Muslim War (778–783), Byzantine-Muslim War (797–798),Byzantine-Muslim War (803–809), Byzantine-Muslim War (830–841),Byzantine-Muslim War (851–863), Byzantine-Muslim War (871–885), Byzantine-Muslim War (960–976), Byzantine-Muslim War (995–999), Camisards’ Rebellion, Castilian Conquest of Toledo, Charlemagne’s Invasion of Northern Spain, Charlemagne’s War against the Saxons, Count’s War, Covenanters’ Rebellion (1666), Covenanters’ Rebellion (1679), Covenanters’ Rebellion (1685), Crimean War, First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, Fourth Crusade,7 Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Seventh Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Ninth Crusade, Crusader-Turkish Wars (1100–1146), Crusader-Turkish Wars (1272–1291), Danish-Estonian War, German Civil War (1077–1106), Ghost Dance Uprising, Siege of Granada, First Iconoclastic War, Second Iconoclastic War, India-Pakistan Partition War, Irish Tithe War, Javanese invasion of Malacca, Great Java War, Kappel Wars, Khurramite’s Revolt, Lebanese Civil War, Wars of the Lombard League, Luccan-Florentine War, Holy Wars of the Mad Mullah, Maryland’s Religious War, Mecca-Medina War, Mexican Insurrections, War of the Monks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Revolt of Muqanna, Crusade of Nicopolis, Padri War, Paulician War, Persian Civil War (1500–1503), Portuguese-Moroccan War (1458–1471), Portuguese-Moroccan War (1578), Portuguese-Omani Wars in East Africa, Rajput Rebellion against Aurangzeb, Revolt in Ravenna, First War of Religion, Second War of Religion, Third War of Religion, Fourth War of Religion, Fifth War of Religion, Sixth War of Religion, Eighth War of Religion, Ninth War of Religion, Roman-Persian War (421–422), Roman-Persian War (441), Russo Turkish War (1877–1878), First Sacred War, Second Sacred War, Third Sacred War, Saladin’s Holy War, Schmalkaldic War, Scottish Uprising against Mary of Guise, Serbo-Turkish War, Shimabara Revolt, War of the Sonderbund, Spanish Christian-Muslim War (912–928), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (977–997), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1001–1031), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1172–1212), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1230–1248), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1481–1492), Spanish Conquests in North Africa, Swedish War, Thirty Years’ War, Transylvania-Hapsburg War, Tukulor-French War, Turko-Persian Wars, United States War on Terror, Vellore Mutiny, Vjayanagar Wars, First Villmergen War, Second Villmergen War, Visigothic-Frankish War.
            For someone not wanting to count those, that is 123 wars in all - or just a very fine hair under 7% of the wars in the book. I included the whole list just so those who would argue the numbers could see exactly what they are based on.

            Before finding this list, my primary source was going to be this online resource - "Wars, Massacres and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century". It doesn't take much examination of the conflicts and deaths there (there are links to centuries earlier than the 20th) to realize that religion may account for even less than the 7% above if you are actually talking about those killed by wars.

            The human race is great at finding reasons to slaughter each other - but religion has neither been the chief cause or the principle feature of that slaughter: not even close. However, those who have repeated the arguments of Dawkins and Harris have missed a point:
            While both men are too cautious to ever come right out and state that they believe religion is the direct and primary cause of war, most likely due to the fact that it is so easy to disprove such a belief, they nevertheless attempt to insinuate that this is the case by repeatedly associating religious faith with group violence and military conflict . . . This is done by claiming that while religion is not the explicit cause of most wars, it is still responsible for the fact that those wars are taking place because religious faith is the reason there are two different sides in the first place . . . by constructing a pair of shaky parallel arguments based on the idea that religion causes division. -- Vox Day
            That will be the next post .

            Read more!