Romans 8:15-17 -- "We are Co-heirs with Christ"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Culture wars: Fear and Comfort

[Point seven Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power. The culture war is largely driven by fear. We’re afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we’re afraid gay people will ruin our families. We’re afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we’re afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort.

Read more!

Arrogance, Elitism, and Opiates for the Masses II

[Continued from Part I]

I left the Left (or at least activism) in the late 70's for one conscious reason: I came to believe the radical Left would NEVER reach the working class that they wished to organize. EVER. Barack Obama's San Francisco speech about workers in Pennsylvania clearly shows why: we just didn't get the "culture" - and our philosophical, sociological, and political explanations about why "they" [key word that] just couldn't see why we were right were just not right. We were indeed, as Spiro Agnew called us, "nattering nabobs of negativity" and "effete intellectual snobs".

I left the Left for some unconscious reasons as well. I - not by design - "immersed myself in the working class": I got married to a fellow activist with four children aged 9-12 and I had to pay attention to my family, my job, and my life. I would swing a hammer as a carpenter for the next 15 years until I got injured on the job.

As PastorDan pointed out in "Rural Voters, Values Voters, And The Bitterness Of The Elites":

Even setting those issues aside, working class people tend to be somewhat parochial. I don't mean that as a criticism: it's just that they're focused on what happens at the shop, or at church, or in the neighborhood. The town board is pushing a plan to build a park. They also have a reputation for being a good-old-boys club. Both issues are keeping our neighbors up at night: the friendly biker across the road is mulling a run for the board, which we're encouraging for no better reason than that we like him. He also hates the bar down the street as much as we do. That's a good thing. But the point is that the focus around here is definitely on around here.

It goes deeper yet in my mind: the family, the neighborhood, the shop, and the church are inherently conservative, and organic, structures. Organic in that they are not "organized" [except the shop - yet it can develop an organic culture] - they arise naturally out of human interaction. Conservative in a non-political sense that parallels the political sense spoken of by Russell Kirk:

1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs


2. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes . . . equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.


3. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked


4. Faith in prescription and distrust of "sophisters, calculators, and economists" . . . Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.


5. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a person must take Providence into his calculations, and a person's chief virtue . . . is prudence.

The shorter version: that family, tradition, land, and faith are the tap roots from which the vast majority of folks' in the world draw their strength and endurance - and not something they "cling to" [unless, of course, you think plants "cling to" their roots during draughts]: it is just part of what they are. As Rick Moran said - they are "embraced and welcomed into their lives". Even Moran, now an atheist, gets this:

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic – that’s me, alright. Despite the fact I have long since left the Church, God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost (changed to “Spirit” in my youth; so much for the immutability of the divine), organized religion, and the idea of the supernatural altogether, I am still a Catholic.

I think like a Catholic. My worldview has been shaped – though not dominated – by Catholicism. In this, the nuns, the priests, the brothers, and probably a monk or two have left their mark on my intellectual, social, and spiritual development. And I will thank them for it till my dying breath. There is great beauty to be found in the strands of logic and insightful, penetrating analysis of humanity by Catholic thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and other Catholic theologians and philosophers.

So, the Left in my day failed to touch the working class with their ideology because they could not step into and embrace their world - they could not stand in their shoes, or share their roots, long enough to show them the correct direction to walk in them [assuming, of course, we even actually knew the right direction].

When the Apostle Paul gave his famous speech on Mars Hill he understood that point: he did not start from a point of criticism but by understanding the roots of that audience and who they were:

So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.

Of course, political activism tends to run counter to a couple of important "beautiful attitudes" at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them."

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

There are some that it coincides with as well:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

That assumes that your politics are bringing true righteousness, justice and peace as God sees those terms.

True political activism also requires a servant's heart - the first will be last and the last will be first. If you want to lead, you must submit yourself to the needs of those you lead - and, of course, understand what those needs are. The Left has always thought that was economic - it isn't. That is why folks vote against their "economic interests".

However, I really have come to the threads of my current life: evangelical Christianity (and sales). Everything said above applies to that as well. Folks outside the Body of Christ have also put down their tap roots into sources of strength and endurance - and you simply cannot tell them the source of their strength is "wrong". You have to come into their world as Paul did above and lovingly serve them where they are: you have to be part of their community, job, traditions, etc. - and then show them by your fruit that your roots are planted in a better wellspring.

For the sales aspect, I will just leave you with this commercial from an automatic group:

Read more!

Arrogance, Elitism, and Opiates for the Masses

I wrote after the "Race in America" speech that if I voted eventually for Barack Obama that speech would be the major positive - and that is still true. Nothing in all the discussions I have read since has altered my opinions expressed in that post.

His San Francisco fundraiser speech has now assumed the lead for the major reason I wouldn't vote for him. Neither of these are actually what I consider to be "issue oriented" - there is nothing I want the Federal government to "do" about either racism or hopelessness in the United States. Well, except . . .

The president can use the platform of the Presidency to project values to the country as a whole. Since Senator Obama is running more as a candidate of "change" and "unity" - helping us to get over the divisions of the last 20ish years in order to move forward with a common purpose - these two speeches really are "issue" speeches for him. That isn't a bad thing for me since I do not believe the President has a great deal more than moral authority. Even as Chief Executive, the huge Federal bureauacracy doesn't seem to be much under his control. Since I have no idea who he might appoint to run the elements of that Federal machine - I have no way to guage what kind of executive he might be. Well, except . . .

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. -- Senator Barack Obama; April 6, 2008

I have been waiting this long two weeks to say something about this for three reasons:

1. To let my anger subside
2. To mesh together some threads it stirred up in my own past and current life
3. To hear the explanations - pro and con - about why this isn't just c__p

No one succeeded at #3 [it is c__p] - indeed I think it is only partisanship that keep PastorDan at Street Prophets from making Obama the "Wanker of the Day" for this comment; and SP - being a largely Barack Obama Zone - was pretty much a place where you could peacefully hear the crickets chirp after this speech [at least about this speech] - either they really agreed with Obama or they just want it to go away [it won't]. Two quotes just about sum up my attitude about the speech:

"He is saying people are weak, dumb and naive, and they are seeking religion as a way of getting through . . . He didn't help himself." -- quoted by John Hurdle

and

I’m sorry but I must disagree. Perhaps only liberals “cling” to religion. Most people of faith I know (I’m an atheist) embrace their faith, they welcome it into their lives. It is just plain wrong – in any reality – to say that Middle Class voters are scared little puppies cowering in their economically devastated communities, being swayed by the hypnotic fear mongering of Republicans with regard to guns (no one has to be scared into believing anything when liberals themselves constantly denigrate and mercilessly mock those who exercise their right to bear arms).

And Obama’s contention that Republicans jack up fear of “the other” to get votes presupposes that the Middle Class has no strong feelings about border security – that they are being manipulated by conservatives who use the issue to gin up racist feelings and not because people are passionate about the subject. This isn’t elitist thinking? This isn’t holding people in utter contempt who disagree with you?

Spare me.

The question isn’t whether these issues spill over into the realm of politics. Of course they do. The problem is Obama and much of the left believes people are so ignorant and easily swayed by GOP appeals to their values that the reason they don’t vote Democratic is that they are fooled into voting otherwise. In other words, these bitter, frustrated voters can be had simply by “throwing a flag in their face.”

Not recognizing why this is monumentally wrong is why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections. The GOP connect(ed)s with voters on an emotional level while the Democrats refuse to engage. It is not by ginning up fear that the GOP succeed(ed)s it is because the party doesn’t dismiss their values as some kind of mental disorder to be cured by “right thinking.” You’re a stupid yahoo if you own a gun. You’re a superstitious moron if you take religion (and its teachings on abortion and gay marriage) seriously. You’re a racist hater if you don’t allow unfettered access to America by illegal aliens.

And the left wonders why people don’t vote for them? -- Rick Moran

and, bonus quotes:

What’s most offensive? The condescension displayed here . . . ? The sheer breadth of the stereotype . . . ? The crude quasi-Marxist reductionism of his analysis, which he first introduced in his speech on race vis-a-vis the root causes of whites’ “resentment” — namely, exploitation by the bourgeoisie in the form of corporations and D.C. lobbyists? Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness’s repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail? Note the choice of verb, too. Why not just go the whole nine yards and call it the opiate of the masses? -- Allah

and

It comes off very badly . . . They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people. -- Kristen Powers (quoted by Allah)

To quote Top Gun - "that should just about do it for the fly-bys"

That last quote, and PastorDan in his "Rural Voters, Values Voters, And The Bitterness Of The Elites", gives me the perfect lead-in for #2 above - threads from my past and current life.

And that will be in Part 2

Read more!

Sometimes the Master Just Got it Right

Well, all the time the Master Just Got It Right. The last few days I have been experiencing the wisdom of a few advisories of Jesus

Matthew 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.

and

Matthew 10:19 Whenever they hand you over for trial, do not worry about how to speak or what to say, for what you should say will be given to you at that time.

and

Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.

I have learned that last year folks left the community group I was in because of me. This year, folks said they did not want to be in a community group if I was in it.

My understanding is that they came to the group leader for this year and expressed their concerns. He then, understandably, asked my group leader from last year about my affect on group dynamics. The two of them asked to meet with me to chat before the first group meeting this year.

Let me say that I have to grant every criticism, even though they are pretty non-specific. My brain needs concrete examples to act on; and the general principles that we should:

• think about the affect of our words on others;
• see things through others eyes; and
• be sensitive to folks feelings

are all things I know and believe - and practice badly: certainly my boss at work is trying to teach me to gauge my words to others in exactly the same way. The bat he uses to sink in his words (just kidding) may actually help me someday.

I had no desire to drive someone from our group - and will take this opportunity to apologize and ask their forgiveness if they read this - which they might. I did not mean to hurt, or make them stumble, rob their hope, or offend their sensibilities. These are all things I really am quite capable of doing. Heck, my MIL tonight, who was in last year's group, said that I had a way of stating things that just made it seem that I was certain I was right and if someone disagreed they were wrong. This is certainly an ongoing struggle for me. Folks who talk to me, especially at Street Prophets, will relate to that.

It should be said that, as near as I can figure it, this was not as much about doctrinal statements during a Bible study (although I am sure that was there); but about things that I shared in transparency about my personal struggles - particularly with sexual temptation and pornography - and my view that indeed I may struggle with these things for the rest of my life. It is a frequent suggestion in my FMO group that I may pay too much attention to the ongoing struggle of Romans 7 . . .

19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. 21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

. . . while missing the glorious answer that begins in verse 25 and continues into chapter 8:

25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death . . .

I damaged someone's hope in struggling with their own issues because I did not seem to recognize and acknowledge the power of God to free me from my addiction. For this I am beyond sorry - I have made a fellow Christian stumble and that millstone feels a little heavy and my feet are getting wet. I do acknowledge God's power (and only God's power) to bring me healing; and I rest entirely on that hope - my own efforts being so useless. Again, if my brother or sister is reading this - forgive me: I did not mean to make your struggle harder.

Regretfully, I never knew the effects of what I did when they were happening - nor do I even know who left the group because of me; who I am apologizing to; or who was concerned I was joining a group with them this year. Anonymity has been maintained completely.

That brings me to the three passages at the beginning of this post; and hopefully it is clear that what I am about to say is not an attempt to deflect criticism from myself. Folks had a responsibility to correct me in love as the events unfolded. Even if they thought that I might take offense, get angry, leave the group or the church, or tell them they were idiots and fools - they had the responsibility to correct me. My group leader from last year sincerely apologized for not bringing it up as it came to his attention - and for allowing a desire for peace to keep him from correcting me in love. He took his share of the responsibility. I appreciate that; and forgive him.

However, in the Matthew 18 passage he should not have entered the picture until the second step. Folks should have gathered their strength in Christ, left their offerings at the altar, met with me alone, and let me know how my actions affected them and damaged their Christian walk. If I reacted badly or continued my behavior then it was the time for the group leader, and then maybe the church, to take a hand.

There has now been a different chain of events that occurred:

• People left community rather than building community - something that comes through some struggle
• Two group leaders, and groups, were affected
• I felt blind-sided by having what appears to be a years worth of actions brought to my attention in a way that makes it hard to act on them - generalities are hard learn from
• My wife and MIL are hurt because I was hurt

God will use this to teach me and grow me - however, failure to follow Biblical principles on my part and the parts of others means that folks have been hurt and harmed in ways that should have been avoidable - and for longer than it should have occurred.

All this brings me to an appreciation of the group guidelines in my FMO group:

• Take Responsibility: When uncomfortable with anything in this group, we deal with it directly ourselves instead of expecting others to solve the problem or rescue us.
• Consider Others: We guard against offending one another. If someone offends us, we work it out directly with him.

These guidelines, and the passages from Matthew, are essential to build community between human beings who are so capable of being so insensitive and self-absorbed - myself definitely included.

Read more!

What Do We Fear?

I cruised by The Jesus Creed today and found a post from the 15th that I came late for. The title of the essay is "Letters to Emerging Christians" by Scot McKnight. He responds to a question by Holly:

What a fascinating question. You are taking a sociology class, your professor says what people fear the most tells you most about them, and you and your friend begin to discuss what fear drives the “Liberal churches, the Evangelical churches, and the Emerging churches.” And you want me to weigh in the greatest fear of each. Great one . . .

These are, BTW, theological categories and not political ones. Scot's answers:

• One of the cardinal virtues of Liberals is tolerance and that means intolerance is intolerable . . . Which all means that Liberals are most fearful of Traditionalists and Evangelicals with upper-case “T” and “E.” Why? Because they fix firm boundaries on how far tolerance can be extended, and at the same time they say “some things are just wrong.” Now it is also clear that we can’t be simplistic here: Liberals think some things are wrong and when conservatives say they are moral relativists I’m willing to bet that conservatives can’t really find a pure relativist. At least not among Liberals — for a Liberal doesn’t relativize freedom. But, they do fear the inflexibility of Tradition.


• Evangelicals, on the other hand, are most fearful of change to the core of what is perceived as central to their faith. By nature, Evangelicals are Conservatives — some with an upper-case “C” and some not (that’s a big difference but I’ll not go there now) — and they are Traditionalists . . . When it comes down to it, change is a major, major fear for Evangelicals.


• The emerging movement, no matter how many times I say this it doesn’t seem to convince many, is not a movement rooted in a set of doctrines. It is theological, but not the way either Liberalism or Evangelicalism are. It’s biggest fear is centralization of power and authority.

I cannot argue with these answers from what I know. However, I think there is a more central fear that we all are motivated from; and different theological responses react to differently. My comment (#96) was (in the quotes - the main text expands on my comment):

If C.S. Lewis is right and evil comes in pairs of errors (and Satan does not care which one we flee to) - then to me the two errors (the ditches on the side of the narrow road) are license and legalism: theologically liberal Christians err to the former; fundamentalists, and to a lessor degree, evangelicals err to the latter (I am, for full disclosure, very much an evangelical).

To me, what is in the middle they are both running from is obedience to a real living God. Take for the proposition that we are indwelt by a God that has a plan for us - what Americans fear most is losing their freedom and giving up control to someone else: being a puppet - even to God.

For evangelicalism, this meant for a number of years rejecting the ministry of the Holy Spirit to a degree and denying that there is continuing revelation. If there is continuing revelation, then you might have to get quiet in front of God; listen to what He says; and then actually do it. Why, He might make you sell everything and go to Africa as a missionary. Instead, we turn the Bible into a rulebook; and rather than follow the Holy Spirit in our lives - we try to do the right thing. We deny the power of Grace, and His leadership, in our lives and try to live by rules - rules defined in scripture; and not the voice of a real living God

For more of a discussion of the above, see "How to Hear God Speak"

For the theologically liberal (or at least a chunk of liberal theologians), they reject the action of God in this world at all: God does not reach into, and act, in His creation. They talk about continuing revelation; but that is revelation from the community of believers - not from a living God. That community, in consensus, determines what God really is. Love for each other is everything. Grace abounds, and rules do not. The true theologians will tell you God is not going to tell you anything except through that community of other believers. Again, you do not have to worry that God is going to tell you to sell everything and move to Africa. [This ends my comment at Scot's place]

From German "higher criticism" to the Jesus Seminar we are seeing a movement to a deist God - one where miracles and the metaphysical are dropped in the face of the "rationality" of modern culture. God does not "take a hand" in this world; and only the community of believers determines his desires [in a sense, the Body of Christ - free of its Head - becomes Christ]; and, if you do not like what the community says about your personal view of God - you can go find one that does. Even the resurrection is turned into mythology whose importance is in its lessons, and not in its actual occurance.

However, liberal theologians who object to the resurrection as a real event in real history fly in the face of a truly rational view of the historical record; which, as N.T. Wright points out:

. . . brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw.

I propose that, at heart, they fear a God that they are required to obey when He speaks; and that is because they do not wish to give up control to that real living, and Risen, God. By reducing the Bible to interesting stories and myths (and not a revelation from God), and Christ to an great, but unrisen, moral teacher - you remove their authority to direct and lead you.

If Scot is right, and the emerging church also fears authority - I do not think that falls outside this analysis. This fear of authority also laces the theological differences: from the plethora of denominations, congregations, and theological stances; to the stripping of the authority of scripture and Christ. Humans want control and they fear submission to community, church authority, Christ and the Holy Spirit - and, ultimately, God. So, I think the central fear of Christians that drives our theological divisions (leading to both personal, and corporate, license and legalism) is:

We all fear giving up control to a real, living God

Or, maybe deeper than that, that there is no God to obey. We then substitute the Bible, or our own conception of God and Christ, for the real thing.

Read more!