Church Plant: The Membership Meeting

I have been blogging a bit on the church plant I am involved in. I had written at about my interaction with church membership in the past; and noted it was not certain I would ever join Westport Church - the church plant I am involved in.

My wife and I did attend the first week of a three week membership class (called Portico) on Sunday. She will continue to attend; and I am likely not to make it to another class due to work restrictions. We will see. Since there are folks out there involved in church ministry and/or asked to be kept up to date - I thought I would pass on this class at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets.

The Goals for Portico:

• To orient you to the core values, vision and mission of Westport Church
• To describe for you what we believe the Christian life looks like
• To identify the basic beliefs and structure of Westport
• To give guidance in where you can serve and connect in Westport

Introduction
The "Value of Values":

The purpose of values ("The constant, biblically based central beliefs that define and guide Westport"):

• Give us identity
• Shape our decision-making and resource allocation
• Protect us from ineffectiveness and division

"Whenever people don't get along or differ over major ministry decisions in a church... the problem often lies in the area of their core values." -- Aubrey Malphurs, Ministry Nuts and Bolts

Core Value #1: Treasuring Jesus

We are a community of people who desire to make much of Jesus, and through Him, to glorify God the Father. We will emphasize the person of Jesus as our only true and lasting treasure, which motivates us for service.

Why is "Treasuring Jesus" one of our values?

1. It is a Biblical Concept

Matthew 13:44 -- The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

Philippians 3:8-10 -- I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ...

Psalm 27:4 -- One thing I have asked from the Lord, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to meditate in His temple.

Psalm 37:4 -- Delight yourself in the Lord; and He will give you the desires of your heart.

2 Corinthians 4:7 -- We have this treasure in earthen vessels..."

2. It is vital to our mission and vision

Our vision: to help people in the western region of Portland discover the beauty of Jesus Christ, His Word and His church so that they can experience forgiveness, restoration and joy.

Our mission: Engaging our community with the Gospel, teaching believers to treasure Jesus Christ and equipping them to be leaders of spiritual influence in our local and global communities.

• We believe that when we see Jesus for who He really is, in all of His beauty... we will naturally exalt Him as our greatest treasure.
• When this happens, our worship and service at Westport will be authentic and we will find great pleasure and satisfaction in it.

3. It Creates Measurable Marks for our Community:

• Worship -- "to show an authentic faith in and devotion to"
  • Expressed in awe, reverence, and wonder -- Psalm 95:1-7

    ''Worship can never be the sole work of the rational mind. It can't be drawn out on paper or measured out on charts. Worship and wonder, which are so closely connected, are all about coming to the end of our measurements. In the presence of the Almighty God... the sense of wonder comes naturally and leaves us changed. How could we respond any other way?" -- David Jeremiah, My Heart's Desire

  • Expressed in everyday, ordinary life -- Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 10:31


• Community with other believers
  • Expressed in love for one another
  • If we are to treasure Jesus, we must treasure what He Treasures - Ephesians 5:25


• Spiritual Growth -- results from a willingness and a desire for learning:
  • What is growth? It is progressive life change:

    2 Peter 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence,
    - in your faith supply moral excellence, and
    - in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and
    - in your knowledge, self-control, and
    - in your self-control, perseverance, and
    - in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and
    - in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and
    - in your brotherly kindness, love.
    8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • How does it happen?
    • Wrong View: Point of Salvation + passage of time + our will + our individual application = Life change
    • Correct View: Point of Salvation + intentionality (doesn't "just happen" over time) + training + community = Life change
  
  
• Impact - results from intentional personal efforts in local and global efforts

  Matthew 5:16 -- Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

  • "I Treasure Jesus so much, I want others to know and treasure him too!"
  • Intentional use of time, gifts, and resources
  • Intentional physical witness
  • Intentional verbal witness

Around the core value of Treasuring Jesus (that is the fuel - not guilt), these 4 marks are emphasized at the same time to avoid imbalance. We never "phase out" or "arrive" - this is about lifelong growth at ever increasing levels (see 2 Peter 1:8 above)

4. It actually shapes the identity of our community

• Treasuring Jesus is only possible with a transformed heart -- can only really be appreciated by spiritual people…people who have been redeemed
• We believe the church, by definition, is a group of believers. To be a part of this community [that is member and not attendee] called Westport Church, we insist that you be a lover of Jesus Christ and that you find your identity in Christ. We're asking anyone who wants to join Westport to affirm this statement of the Gospel:

We believe that there is ONE true God, who sent His Son Jesus Christ to die as payment for our sins. After three days, Jesus was raised from the grave and now lives in Heaven with the Father. We believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to live in those who repent and believe this Gospel, according to the Scriptures.

By affirming this statement, we affirm several things:
• The Holy Trinity (God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
• The Holy Scriptures (without error and inspired by God) - in original manuscripts
• The Insufficiency of Man (all have sinned and require redemption)
• The Sufficiency of Christ (his death satisfied the Father's wrath)

Core Value #2: Theological Emphasis

"Theological foundation is essential for transformation. Theology will be emphasized through the passionate and creative communication of the Bible. Transformative Bible study will be modeled publicly, creating a passion for studying it personally."

Why is Theological Emphasis one of our values?

1. Theology is vital to Our Vision

• Some key definitions:
  • Theology -- "the study of God how He relates to His creation"
  • Doctrine -- "what the whole Bible teaches about a particular topic" - a holistic view
• Is theology important? Yes! Should we bother with it?
  • The results of answering no:
    • Lack of confidence in our own beliefs
    • Lack of discernment:

      "some of God's sheep cannot tell the difference between grass and Astroturf!" - Unknown

    • Limits our effectiveness
    • Leads to lack of meaning
  • The answer is yes: God wants to be fully known; it’s a matter of obedience -- Matthew 28:19-20; Titus 2:1

    "You Christians look after a document containing enough dynamite to blow all civilization to pieces, to turn the world upside down and bring peace to a battle-torn planet. But you treat it as though it is nothing more than a piece of literature." - Mahatma Gandhi

2. Theology is practical…REALLY!

• At Westport, we want to debunk the common myth that "theology is too boring, it is unrelated to my life and I can't understand it."
• Our motto is: I can do theology…I must do theology
• Theology is for beginners -- 1 John 5:20; 1 Corinthians 2:10-15
• Theology gives us a framework for understanding life -- 2 Peter 1:2-3
• Examples of practical theology:
  • "created in the image of God" relates to the dignity and value of human beings
  • "created He man and woman" relates to gender issues
  • "Father, Son and Spirit" relates to diversity issues and marriage
  • "God's Sovereignty" relates to the justice of God
  • "without error" relates to morality and right/wrong

3. It protects our community

• Theology helps us preserve the truth for future generations -- Deuteronomy 6:4-7 (the Hebrew "Shema")
• Theology helps us know when others are not speaking truth -- Jude 3-4; 2 Peter 2:1; Hebrews 13:9; Ephesians 4:14-15; Romans 16:17

4. It influences our teaching model

• Holistic teaching is our goal:
  • Theological: What truths should we believe?
  • Biblical: What facts should we know?
  • Practical: What principles should we adopt?
• Theology is our "lens"

  Our teaching team will strive to teach through the lens of theology, in creative ways, so that you will enjoy learning theology and discover how it relates to your life.

The formal statements of church belief are to be found here

Coming Sessions 2 & 3:

• Core Value #3 - Transformational Community
• Core Value #4 - Team Leadership
• Joining the Team Packet


• Core Value #5 - Community Service (i2)
• Core Value #6 - Creative Ministry
• Unity Covenant

Read more!

An Unhurried Life: Part 1

[I am beginning to journal the study questions from Chapter 5 ("An Unhurried Life: The Practice of 'Slowing'") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. For some "look ahead" at the book, I have posted the chapter titles at the index link at the bottom.]

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.

Small Group Discussion Questions

1. If you were to take this exhortation with all seriousness, "to be spiritually healthy, you must ruthlessly eliminate hurry from your life," what is one thing you would need to change in your life so you could slow down?



2. The author writes, "Hurry is the great enemy of spiritual life in our day. Hurry can destroy our souls. Hurry can keep us from living well." How have you experienced the destructive power of hurry in your life?



3. • How can busyness cause us to settle for mediocrity in our faith rather than a deep experience of God's presence and power?
   • How have you experienced this reality in your life during times of intense busyness?


4. Read:

   Mark 1:32 When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed. 33 And the whole city had gathered at the door. 34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was. 35 In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there. 36 Simon and his companions searched for Him; 37 they found Him, and said to Him, "Everyone is looking for You." 38 He said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for." 39 And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.
   
   Luke 5:15 But the news about Him was spreading even farther, and large crowds were gathering to hear Him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.

   From these two passages and other stories in the Gospels, what are some examples of how Jesus modeled an unhurried life?



5. Take a few moments and have your small-group members take this brief survey. Circle yes or no for each question:
   • Do you live with a daily sense that there is not enough time to get done with everything you need to accomplish? YES NO
   • Do you find yourself talking faster because there is so much to say? YES NO
   • Do you nod a lot when a person is talking slowly in an effort to keep them moving along? YES NO
   • When people are talking too slowly, do you ever find yourself wanting to (or actually) finishing their sentences? YES NO
   • Do you ever drive faster than is safe (even sometimes when you are not in a hurry) ? YES NO
   • When you stop at a red light with two or more lanes with cars in them, do you ever try to anticipate which car looks faster so you can get behind that car and save a few seconds when the light turns green? YES NO
   • Do you ever try to gauge which line at the grocery store will be the quickest and get in that line? And, if it turns out you picked the slower line, does it bother you? YES NO
   • Do you multiple-task and try to get more than one thing done at a time on a regular basis? YES NO
   • Do you have a big pile of magazines, newspapers, and books that you hope to read "some day"? YES NO
   • Do you live your life driven by schedules, organizers, and to-do lists? YES NO
   • Do you find it difficult to say no when others ask you to do things that will add one more item to your schedule? YES NO
   Share how many times you circled yes to the questions above, and tell your group what you think this reveals about the place of hurry in your life.



6. The author says, "Love and hurry are fundamentally incompatible." How is hurry the enemy of love in one of these relationships?
   • Your relationship with God
   • Your relationship with your family members
   • Your relationship with other followers of Christ
   • Your relationship with those who don't yet know Jesus


7. • What are some of the values and attitudes in our society that drive us to a hurried lifestyle?
   • What are some biblical truths we can hold on to that will counteract these values and attitudes?

Next in series: "An Unhurried Life" Pt. 2
Index to Series

Read more!

Scot McKnight on Labelling

Scot McKnight at The Jesus Creed in "Name-Calling in the Church" talks about labelling

The Church has developed its own mechanisms of calling people "names," of "labelling" others. The most powerful "labels" in the Church are "fundamentalist" and "liberal." Calling someone one of those labels is rarely a simple description -- it is an act of repudiation and denunciation. Here are ten observations about labelling. But, first . . . [go read the rest]

His ten points about labelling:

1. Each society, group, church has boundary lines of who is "in" and who is "out." Familes know, churches know, and friends know who does and who does not belong.


2. This group-consciousness permits people to know where they are and if they belong or not. Labelling has to do with this fundamental way of viewing a society.


3. The labels used to describe who is "in" vs. "out," because those labels use language, sometimes reflect reality -- some really are "in" and some really are "out" -- and sometimes they do not reflect reality. Some are called things that are inaccurate, even if they are effective (but wrong). So, the "label" itself may or may not tell the truth about someone.


4. Labels are of two sorts. Some are given honorable "titles"; others are given dishonorable "deviants." An "entitled" person is approved; a "deviant" person is disapproved.


5. The rhetorical labels we use are as much "weapons" as they are "descriptions." Labelling someone can both bring honor and destroy a person's status.


6. A person who has the capacity to label deviants successfully is a "champion." Champions defend the sanctity of the group and define the borders and boundaries.


7. Champions are supported by "enhancers" -- those who spread the label of the champion.


8. To label a person a "deviant" creates collective avoidance and isolation.


9. The major function of labelling is to create a "master status" for a person -- that is, it gives a number of people a way of interpreting and classifying another person.


10. O be careful labeller what you say; o be careful labeller whom you assign to deviance. We will be judged for every word we utter. Check out James 3.

The question is: when you label people how do you use labels? Are you cognizant of Ephesians 4:

29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Read more!

Christian Carnivals 154 and 155 are up

CLIV (154)
Christmas Week Edition

The introduction from Karen at From the Anchor Hold:

Welcome to what was, in the olden days, the twelve days of Christmas. Goes to show how out of step Christians are if the secular world sets the tempo, and how scandalously at odds we sometimes are amongst ourselves. We've heard and believed the Announcement of Great Joy, as the shepherds did --- but things aren't all glory and light yet, since we are all bent (though redeemed) people in a fallen world tending to the chaos it was in the beginning. And --- some of us, like the secular world, have been celebrating since before Thanksgiving and just finished up on the 25th; some just started the celebrating and will keep singing Nativity songs for twelve days, or forty; and a lot of Christans east of Athens won't even get to Christmas until the 7th of January. So, not every post will be full of comfort and joy (can't really expect that until the Great Day comes, anyway), but they are all fine and worthy.

CLV (155)
Epiphany 2007 Edition

The introduction from Dory at Wittenberg Gate:

Welcome to the first Christian Carnival for the Year of Our Lord 2007! May God bless you all with a deeper love for Him and a surer faith as you grow in Christ this year.

Each week, Christian blog writers are invited to submit their best post of the week to the Christian Carnival. Enjoy this week's submissions from a variety of Christian perspectives and traditions.

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival Participation Instructions.

Read more!

A Higher Discussion on Capital Punishment

[Cross posted from Street Prophets with massive revision - it didn’t light up the discussion I wanted. Of course, that could just be because it is a bad post . . .]

Saddam Hussein's execution has, rightfully, brought up the discussion of capital punishment. For me that discussion has been on a nearly useless plane. The emotional knee-jerk reactions (my own included: "Good") which largely control the discussion in a time like this are good if you are attempting to work up a good rabble-rousing speech where you fire up the emotions of the crowd rather than challenging their intellect; but I am not into that.

Throwing the words "revenge" and "murder" around about the execution of a butcher like Saddam is only guaranteed to muddy the waters in the capital punishment debate. In the end, someone may get me to view the execution of Saddam as "murder" (a charged word for me) and Iraqi justice as "revenge" -- but that will take a little philosophical work. However, I am perfectly willing to engage in that work; so, let's see if we can think this out a little deeper . . .

Before I get started, however, the discussion below deals with the word "revenge" - it doesn't really deal with the word "murder". My problems with the word "murder" are two-fold:

1. Capital punishment did not fall within the commandment not to murder in scripture. That is obvious in both the Old and the New Testament. Avery Cardinal Dulles' "Catholicism & Capital Punishment" deals with this exegesis very well [Please read the whole thing while you are over there]
2. In secular law, there is distinction being murder and homicide; and distinctions between those that are justifiable and those that are not. In that sense, society has a definition for murder (the intentional, unjustified taking of an innocent life) that must be met. I think abortion is the intentional (and very often unjustified) taking of an innocent life but, since society as a whole is not agreed that this is "murder" (or even the taking of an innocent life in the way I mean it) I will never use that word for abortion because its intent is to create heat and not shed light. Nor, without adequate foundation, do I think capital punishment can be called murder.

Now, on to the core essay: J. Budziszewski is Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. This article is adapted from a chapter of A Call for Reckoning: Religion and the Death Penalty, edited by John Carlson, Eric Elshtain, and Erik Owens.

"Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice"
First Things, August/September 2004

Budziszewski:

So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? . . .

[Betty Black at Street Prophets: What he does not state in his argument (or, at least in the parts excerpted) one key point which Aristotle argues, which is that usually one of the vices is wither prefered to the other vice, or one of the vices is more easily fallen into. This is important in speaking of justice and mercy. I would expect near universal agreement that: 1) mercy is preferable to punishment-beyond-dessert . . . even if just-dessert is preferable to mercy; and 2) it is easier to slip into over-punishment than to error via mercy.]

. . .Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.

I ask: Is there warrant for such categorical extension of clemency? Let us focus mainly on the crime of murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. The reason for this focus is that the question of mercy arises only on the assumption that some crime does deserve death. It would seem that at least death deserves death, that nothing less is sufficient to answer the gravity of the deed. As Scripture says: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (Genesis 9: 5-6). Someone may object that the murderer, too, is made in God's image, and so he is. But this does not lighten the horror of his deed. On the contrary, it heightens it, because it makes him a morally accountable being. Moreover, if even simple murder warrants death, how much more does multiple and compounded murder warrant it. Some criminals seem to deserve death many times over. If we are considering not taking their lives at all, the motive cannot be justice. It must be mercy.

He presents the three questions that must be answered about mercy in regards to capital punishment:

1. Is it ever permissible for public authority to give the wrongdoer less than he deserves?
2. If it is permissible, then when is it permissible?
3. Is it permissible to grant such mercy categorically?

Later, Budziszewski will examine these questions both from the perspective of God's mercy and utilitarianism. First, he starts with the underlying purpose of punishment in general and its need to exact retribution

Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution … the primary purpose of just punishment as such

and not revenge

…which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. In revenge the spur is the passion of resentment, which answers malice with malice for private satisfaction.

These distinctions must be dealt with by anyone who wishes to label punishment in general (by God or by man) - and capital punishment in specific - as revenge: What is the measured "just punishment" for a crime; and what is the motive of the punishers in carrying it out? The latter will not change what just punishment is, but will guide our education and shaping of our societal mores.

Budziszewski believes that just punishment/ retribution is the primary purpose (societal good) of criminal punishment:

1. just punishment is not something which might or might not requite evil; requital is simply what it is.
2. without just punishment evil cannot be requited.
3. just punishment requires no warrant beyond requiting evil, for the restoration of justice is good in itself.

He examines three other possible goods that come out of punishment:

• it might rehabilitate the criminal
• physically protect society from him
• deter crime in general

but gives reasons why they are secondary to retribution and not primary:

Although these might be additional motives for just punishment, they are secondary. In the first place, punishment might not achieve them. In the second place, they can sometimes be partly achieved apart from punishment. Third and most important, they cannot justify punishment by themselves. In other words, we may not do more to the criminal than he deserves--not even if more would be needed to rehabilitate him, make him harmless, or discourage others from imitation. For example, if a man punches another man in the nose, we may not keep him in a mental institution forever just because he has not yet become kind in spirit, kill him because we cannot be sure that he will never punch again, or torture him because nothing less would deter other would-be punchers . . .

[For those who have read it, C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength presents in the "criminal reform" of N.I.C.E. this very picture of holding people indefinitely to "rehabilitate" them rather than "cruelly" punish them. See also the real gulags of the Soviet Union; Gitmo; and re-education camps in China for examples where rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence reign supreme over just punishment]

. . . For these reasons, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution

It seems to me, from other discussions, that many folks consider these to be the primary reasons for punishment; and certainly constitute the primary argument against capital punishment. Budziszewski again:

The argument against capital punishment runs as follows. True, the purpose of retribution is served by the murderer's death, but under certain circumstances retribution might interfere with other purposes of punishment: it might prematurely put an end to his rehabilitation; it might undermine deterrence (say, by so angering his compatriots that they, too, commit evils); and it might not be necessary for the physical safety of others. Therefore, it would be better not to kill him, but to protect society by other means--perhaps by locking him up forever. The difficulty with this argument is that it seems to regard the secondary purposes of punishment as sufficient to overturn its primary purpose. Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence cannot justify doing more than what retribution demands; how can they justify doing less?

This brings us back to the only mediating influence on capital punishment - mercy - and the three questions at the top of the post. Budziszewski now looks at rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence in the light of mercy; and utilitarianism.

[You need to read the whole article at some point -- so here is where you need to go there, read it, and then come back when you are done . . . . . . . . Are you back? Great.]

Finally, he deals with some other issues outside these central ones:

Let us consider what objections might be made against our argument to this point. The judicious Cardinal Dulles, to whom my discussion is already indebted,

[and who the reader here at Brain Cramps should go read for this discussion also; and perhaps Justice Antonin Scalia's "God’s Justice and Ours"]

finds less to commend capital punishment than I do. Yet even he does not think that a review of the purposes of punishment is sufficient in itself to justify abolishing the ultimate penalty. The crux of his published argument is found not there, but in four other common objections to the penalty of death:

1. Sometimes innocent people are sentenced to death.
   
   [This is my chief problem with capital punishment, particularly because of ingrained racism (and other -isms) in American culture; and the source of my cramp here]
   
2. Capital punishment whets the lust for revenge rather than satisfying the zeal for true justice.
3. It cheapens the value of life.
4. And it contradicts Christ's teaching to forgive.

The Cardinal calls the first objection "relatively strong," to the second and third he concedes "some probable force," and the fourth he considers "relatively weak." Yet he concludes that "taken together, the four may suffice to tip the scale against the death penalty." Let us revisit these four objections.

[Again, I must send you to the article for Budziszewski's discussion of these four points (in case you do not remember) before you come back for this one.]

The reader is urged to link their own articles in the comments they would wish the folks here to discuss; but try to have them say something substantially different that what Budziszewski and Dulles have said.

Read more!

Christmas Vacation Tour

This is the last day of my vacation from work; and since I didn't go anywhere - I will instead tour some websites I frequent often to see how they spent the last week:

• Christian Carnival CLIII (153):
  • Jan at The View from Her is "Not So Literal"

    Ask me if I take the Bible literally, and I'll ask you, "Well, do you take the newspaper literally?" The answer is probably yes, because of course, the newspaper is filled with news, written by professional journalists and is nothing like the Bible … we read the newspaper according to its sections. We take the news pages literally. We know editorials express opinions. We understand sports metaphors. Opinions and metaphors are not literal. Christians read the Bible the same way. . .

  • Bonnie at Intellectuelle examines the "The ubiquitously deceitful heart"
  
  
  • Tom at Thinking Christian looks at "Miracles and Science":

    It's just about Christmas, time to celebrate the miracle of the Incarnation--God becoming man, born of a virgin. It's an obvious opportunity to consider whether the Christian claims of miracles are still credible in light of modern science. Christianity without the Virgin Birth is about as meaningful as Christianity without the Resurrection; both miracles were necessary for God to have conquered sin and death as a man. But what about scientific objections to miracles?
    
    These objections fall into three main versions: (1) Miracles can't happen, (2) Miracles shouldn't happen, (3) Miracles never have happened. The second of these will make more sense as I proceed. We'll start with the first, though.

  • Andre at Every Square Inch is "Deconstructing Racism"

    Few topics evoke as much emotion in our national conversation as the topic of race. In the wake of the Michael Richards episode, renown author Malcolm Gladwell writes about racism in his post "Defining a Racist". He proposes that a racist may be defined on the basis of three criteria: content, intention and conviction. Here are snippets of what he says with regard to each criteria.

• A Kurd's opinion of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations in the Washington Post: "For Iraqis, A Promise Is in Peril". [HT: All Things Conservative]


• Maureen Condic gives her perspective on "What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells" at First Things. [HT: Stand to Reason Blog]


• WorldMagBlog (and others) looks at the blasphemy challenge in which

  You record a short message damning yourself to Hell, you upload it to YouTube, and then the Rational Response Squad will send you a free The God Who Wasn't There DVD. It's that easy.
  
  INSTRUCTIONS:
  You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."
  
  Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.

  I was hesitant to bring this up even for fear of helping someone to a hell I believe in; but luckily the site shows that scripture is "spiritually discerned" - what they consider to be "blasphemy of the spirit" isn't by my reading of this passage or its parallel in Matthew. Vincent at WorldMagBlog asks this question: Does This Site Matter?


• In a victory for moderation (as mentioned in a few places), the President of Iran got embarrassed in the Tehran municipal elections:

  According to final results announced by the Interior Ministry, moderate conservatives opposed to Ahmadinejad won a majority of the seats, followed by reformists, who favor closer ties with the West. Analysts said Ahmadinejad supporters won less than 20 percent of local council seats nationwide. "People's vote means they don't support Ahmadinejad's policies and want change," Shariati, a leader of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, Iran's largest reformist party, told the Associated Press. "We consider this government's policy to be against Iran's national interests and security. It is simply acting against Iran's interests."

• Finally, Bonnie at Intellectuelle looks at Peter Yancey's article on Bonhoeffer in Christianity Today (Bonnie's link didn't work for me):

  "Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves," wrote Dietrich Bonhoeffer while awaiting execution in a Nazi prison. "We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer."

  and Bonnie points out

  I think people err by over-correcting error in both directions -- people try to cope with a lack of compassion by insisting that sin is not really sin. (And they also try to cope with sin by insisting that it's not really sin, or by blaming others.) People also try to cope with the first error by insisting, in a judgmental manner, that sin really is sin.

Read more!

Merry Christmas

It is "0-Dark-Thirty" and we are preparing for my daughter to arrive for Christmas.

She is in the Navy and very quickly she will be going to sea for a 7 month tour. She is one of those folks who forwards all sorts of emails to everyone she knows; and asks folks to pass them on.

Mostly, I ignore them; and never pass them on - except now . . .

A Different Christmas Poem

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the
sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"

For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..
Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."

This Christmas morning please remember "who they are" that stand on the front lines even if you disagree with "what they do".

And, if you pray, lift one up for them this morning.

Read more!

The Other Shameful Shoe

[Crossposted to Street Prophets ]

Frankly, I have been a little surprised at the reaction to my shame post (Street Prophets, Brain Cramps for God). A few things lurked in the back of my mind as I wrote it:

• The shame/pain which drives the addiction of my brothers in FMO


• By extension, the shame/pain that drives the addictions of alcoholics, gamblers, drug users, shoppers, etc.


• The shame/pain that has driven folks away from the Body of Christ because they have felt they were told that "who they were" was wrong.

Holiday seasons bring this out like no other time of year. Happy families meeting and having fun together just increases the pain for those whose shame is based on family horrors. For many the emotional pain of our shame shows itself as loneliness, inadequacy, panic, hopelessness and particularly anger. These all get highlighted this time of year.

At Street Prophets, I expected more of a discussion of the universal worth of human beings; and whether "what we do" is, or is not, equal to "who we are". I also expected less of a pass on the (at least perceived) judgmentalism of conservative evangelicals that I self-describe myself as. I even hoped that some folks might talk about the impact of shame in their lives; and how they have (or haven't) overcome it. Instead, I ended up with a discussion fringing on "cultural diversity vs. natural law" (yuck), and perhaps relativism (yuckier yet). Oh well - one of the interesting things about blogging is that discussions do not go how we expect. At least I had the opportunity to check a piece of information I have been carrying for 45 years and confirm it was true; and perhaps get folks thinking and talking about shame.

I haven't really heard from the theologically conservative side of my circle of friends - but the link at WorldMagBlog was titled: "A Valuable Emotion Considered". (Valuable? Hmm) How do I expect conservative Christians to respond?

I expect criticism of my contention that no one is bad considering Christ said no one was good (even Him) except God. I did not mean any of us are good in comparison to God - only that God values us all and desires a relationship with each one of us. God does not do that because we are worthless; or because he made any junk.

I expect to hear about total depravity. Again, I agree with this concept, and even Calvin recognized we all have, at our core, good overflowing from God in the form of our conscience - that can lead us to be try to do right, resist evil, and seek God. Lewis called this a residual of our pre-Fall perfection that whispers to us that we can be more.

I expect to hear about the necessity of our pride being broken in order for us to take ourselves out of the center of our universe and seek God. This is indeed the most valuable good that comes from shame and the action of the furies: breaking our ego. Until we "hate ourselves" we may not seek God so that God can show us who we really are. Budziszewski is correct that the furies will drive us to destruction in order to give God a chance to save us. That is a value of shame. However, this does not overrule that God loved us enough to sacrifice His Son. Again, can any of us be without worth? Are any of us "good for nothing"?

I expect the question of our universal capacity to sin (not the sins themselves but our sin nature) to come up as something we all carry that we indeed need to hate about "who we are" and indeed is "flawed".

If the internal forces represented by the last two points cause us shame I have to trust that we will find people we will help us realize we are valued and loved by God - even while our interior life is demanding a remodel. I also have to trust that God, if He initiates that process, will protect us from the destructive elements of shame.

As Bonnie at Intellectuelle said:

of course, no one wants to talk about shame, not only because of their own sense of humiliation but because of the devastatingly hurtful way that others often receive those who fail, or are vulnerable in the area of shame. This dynamic can become a self-perpetuating downward spiral.

What is my job, as an evangelical Christian, for those I am in personal contact with who are going through that interior process (or even the external one I will talk about next)? Helping shame along? Pointing out the "rotted core" of the humans around me? Helping "crank up" people's shame level until they break? No, that comes from their conscience, and the furies, driving them to righteousness. My job is not to "convict someone of sin" but to show how the love of God, through His Grace and Mercy, frees me from the pain and destruction of shame. John Roberts says that the place of the church is also not to make us "feel more guilty" -- it is to provide a place of healing and hope.

However, it is not those interior forces I am really hitting at in these two posts - it is the external forces that cause shame and pain. Pure Desire lists three major areas that shame us and start the shame/pain/wrong pleasure cycle -- what the author called the "addictive root":

• Family dysfunction -- abandonment and abuse (mental, physical, sexual), divorce, etc. "Don't feel; don't talk"


• Personal trauma - severe stress that leaves deep emotional scars requiring special coping techniques. John Roberts talked specifically about the "father wounds" that nearly every sexual addict carries.


• An addictive society -- encouragement by society to see yourself as less; and to pursue wrong ways to be more

John Roberts in Pure Desire:

Our nation is getting trounced in this area . . . the torn tapistry of people's lives is blowing in the winds of abuse, abandonment, and personal trauma.

God created us to be in families, which either become the place of our connectedness or our bondage.

. . . they didn't understand we are as sick as the secrets we hold

A vast number of folks carry shame issues in these areas; and, if they haven't come to grips with them, are "keeping secrets" that affect their self-image and all of their relationships. What haven't you told your significant other about your thoughts, history, etc? What pain and weakness are you hiding rather than dealing with?

I suppose "everyone knows this". However, in case you haven't done so: examine yourself for those areas where you think there is something wrong with "who you are" rather than "what you do" - and work to break the shame/pain cycle in your life if you find one.

For those who have faced the shame, and its pain, in their life, and are working on breaking its grip on you, the comments would be a good place to offer ways you have found to deal with this process.

Merry Christmas!

Read more!

A Few Things

I will just run together a few things:

A Tool and a Jewel

e-Sword is a great downloadable tool with a large number of:

• Bible translations
• Commentaries
• Dictionaries
• Graphics
• Extras, where the jewel of my title - The Pursuit of God, by A.W. Tozier - is located. In addition:
  • Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews, by Josephus
  • Ante-Nicene Fathers (9 volumes)
  • Concerning Christian Liberty, by Martin Luther
  • Doctrinal Works in the Reformed Tradition
  • Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
  • The Practice of the Presence of God, by Brother Lawrence
  • and much, much more
• Devotions

The Current "On Faith" Question

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?

With answers by:

• KAREN ARMSTRONG
• ZAID SHAKIR
• MARCUS BORG
• MICHAEL OTTERSON
• MARTIN MARTY
• REV. DR. SUSAN BROOKS THISTLETHWAITE
• JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN
• MIROSLAV VOLF
• SUSAN JACOBY
• JULIA NEUBERGER
• CAL THOMAS

At least, as of now.

Last, and certainly not least:

Christian Carnival CLIII (153)

The introduction from Leslie at Lux Venit:

I must be crazy! I don't know what I was thinking when I agreed to host the Christian Carnival the week before Christmas . . . Merry Christmas and enjoy reading this week's carnival. I have no idea which number carnival this is...can you say "worn slap out?" . . .

Read more!

The Shame of Shame

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

For some reason as this Christmas season rolls along I keep being brought back to the issue of shame. Whether it is the "New Member's Packet" I have been working on for my FMO group; trying to figure out where I have been shamed in my life (and still carry shame from my life); or trying to discuss the difference between shame and guilt (and how to react to each) - I keep coming back to the horror of shame: the shame of shame.

As a theologically conservative follower of Christ who believes that there are actions that separate us from God, it becomes important to understand the difference between guilt/conviction and shame and the response to each. This is especially true since calls to righteousness are frequently called, and can be, attempts to shame someone; and while calling someone to righteousness may be a good thing - shaming them never is.

That is because while no human being has a good reason to feel shame (we all feel shame for many bad reasons). We all have reason to know we are guilty, need to repent, and be healed (this is good) but must avoid shame/pain (this is bad). So, lets start with a diagram:

The are three components to that diagram; and we will look at each below (quotes, unless noted, are from the "The New Man's Survival Guide", by Pure Life Alliance):

Shame

All men and women experience shame, but many confuse guilt and shame. Guilt is about what we do. Shame is about who we are. It is an internal assessment that as a person we are bad or flawed. This shame leads to an emotional pain that cannot be effectively ignored for long

You can tell a child "that was a bad thing to do"; but you can never say "you are a bad child" -- my wife

This distinction between guilt and shame is essential. It is why I can say I love the sinner (the "who" who did it) and hate the sin (the "what" they did). In fact, the Bible is all about bad acts and not about bad people. It is not about "bad people" because God loves us; and did not make any junk.

This society drives shame. We are all "bad people" in some way:

• Too fat or too thin
• Too smart or too dumb
• Too tall or too short
• [Fill yours in here]

On a superficial level, this is because the feeling of being bad or flawed creates the cycle we are examining; and the pain that it creates drives our seeking medication to "relieve" the pain; and this seeking of "medications" to "cure" our "flaws" is good for the economy: the seeking of medication for the pain helps fuel consumerism. It also drives addictions and lifetimes spent on various and sundry bad "medicines" to cure the pain. The only cure for the pain is to remove the shame itself - to understand who you really are. The deeper level of this is that "the evil one" (hey, I believe in Satan) desires us to feel shame because it drives us away from God.

No one is bad. To say someone is a "bad person" is to lapse into judgment:

Romans 2:1-4 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

The boldface comment is critical: even if we do these "things" - it is God that redeems us (leads us to repentance); and God, even while we were all sinners, loved us so much that He gave up His own Son for us - each one of us. Again, God created no junk, and loves us all.

As an "exclusivist", I will of course be asked whether or not non-Christians are "bad" and therefore worthy to feel shame. No, the verses above leave no out for this - our choices may end up being "bad", and we may suffer for them; but we are imago dei - we are made in the image of God. We all carry the seed of our pre-fall perfection in our deep conscience; and each of us has within them that overflow of God's goodness. Again, God created no junk.

Certainly, after we become part of the Body of Christ we have no excuse for not recognizing the significance, acceptance, and security our position in Christ brings us; and there is no room, if we recognize that, to view ourselves as "bad people". That we have no excuse does not mean we will not view ourselves as "bad": then our choices are to feel shame (with the start of a separation from God out of disobedience); or guilt/conviction for which we repent and turn back to God and see ourselves as He sees us. We are certainly not reborn as junk either.

The particular shame (I think) that drives my addiction is the shame of not being able to be an adequate provider, husband, and father in my family. There is a proper guilt aspect to this: I am not an adequate provider, husband, or father. Rather than see this as something I am doing badly, I tend toward thinking I am "just wrong" or flawed - and that is "just the way I am". If I do that, then I experience the next step - pain; and not the step of repentance or change - and I certainly I find it harder to turn to God (since I am not worthy).

Pain

It is difficult for men people to identify pain in their lives. Often it looks like loneliness, inadequacy, panic, hopelessness and particularly anger. For many of us, wrong sexual pleasure "whatever" becomes our emotional pain medication.

Wrong Sexual Pleasure

The alluring part of this medication is that it works...but only for a short time. Our body releases naturally occurring drugs called endorphins, similar in makeup to morphine, though even more powerful. Our pain relief is short lived, as deep toxic shame comes crashing down, with destructive thoughts like: "I'm defective, I'll never change, and I'm worthless!" and the cycle begins once more.

This was written about sexual addiction - the one that gives us the greatest endorphin rush known; and it is applicable to all the ways we seek pleasure to medicate the pain our shame causes.

If we attempt to medicate the pain we feel from shame, we tend to make bad choices for our "medicine". This is because we haven't dealt with and removed the shame (the true cause of our suffering); still feel we are "bad"; and can only attempt to satisfy the five furies in ways that fail to satisfy them:

The normal outlet:

1. of remorse is to flee from wrong;
2. of confession is to admit what one has done;
3. of atonement is to pay the debt;
4. of reconciliation is to restore the bonds that have been broken; and
5. of justification is to get back in the right

If we do not do "feed" the furies the right way; then they will be fed in some other way - driving our lives further out of kilter. For example:

1. we do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
2. we compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
3. we punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
4. we simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
5. we seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

The greater purpose of conscience is not to inform us of moral truth, but to motivate us to live by it - driving our lives out of kilter is the exhortation of last resort. Therefore,

pursued by the five furies, a man becomes both wickeder and stupider in a progressively downward spiral: more wicked because his behavior becomes worse, more stupid because he tells himself more lies. -- J. Budziszewski

This is, of course, the classic description of people on their way to "bottoming out". In my opinion, our conscience drives us to the bottom in this way so we will "break", and in breaking, be open to truly repent and change - and become who God sees us as. This process does not just occur in the classicly addicted.

This brings us to the latter stages of attempting to "medicate" the pain from our shame:

This cycle causes a need for greater doses of "pain medication" because we build up a tolerance to these endorphins. As a man person takes stronger "doses" of wrong sexual pleasure, [their] shame and pain grow. This means [they] needs even stronger medication the next time

So, remember, you have absolutely nothing to be shamed over. Be guilty if you are and repent; but shame almost guarantees you will not feed your furies wisely.

["The Other Shameful Shoe" drops here]

Read more!

Christian Carnivals 151 and 152

CLI (151)

The introduction from Nerdmom at The Nerd Family:

I have been blessed to once again host the Christian Carnival. We have received many great entries. Please read them all and let the authors know how you feel!

CLII (152)

The introduction from Buzz at The Buzz Blog:

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Christian Carnival . . .

To kick off this week’s Carnival, here’s some scripture:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:1-5

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival Participation Instructions.

Read more!

An Answer to . . .

It is truly impossible for followers of Christ to remove their faith from their politics. The Great Commandment is that we first love God with our all; and then we love our neighbor as ourselves. To say we love God with our all means that we look at everything - everything - through the lens of our love for God: everything.

In the latest variation on the "followers of Christ must set their religion aside to be good citizens" meme - "The Power of Sacrifice" - it is presented that if we are unwilling to sacrifice our Christian doctrines in order to be part of a pluralistic society (if we put our religion first) than we cannot truly live out the sacrifice represented by President Kennedy's call to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" because we are not willing to sacrifice our faith for the "common good" established by the overall society. It seems strange to quote this speech considering the context of this remark; and for that I will quote a bit more of the speech:

. . . we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God
. . .
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."
. . .
Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Considering this speech then, how would President Kennedy respond to this assertion:

Are there any Christians who aren't focused on Christian first, America second? That frame to me- Christian first, America second- isn't a frame about common sacrifice because you aren't giving up anything.

How would the man above who said:

And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

respond?

The natural law theme of that quote, and most of his speech, is evident - that our rights as human beings do not flow from whatever protections a particular government may, or may not, give us; but from our rights as imago dei - as images of God. I share that view of the rights of all "images of God"; and of the responsibility of government, to God, to protect those rights. President Kennedy also contended that everyone on the planet - regardless of the form of government they live under - has those same rights flowing from God; and that the United States was going to be a defender of those rights, for everyone - everywhere in the world. This was not a man who put country first and his faith second.

I have problems with the speech because it appears to fall into one of those mistakes that followers of Christ (particularly conservative ones) in the United States get sucked into - civil religionism:

The first moral error of political conservatism is civil religionism. According to this notion America is a chosen nation, and its projects are a proper focus of religious aspiration; according to Christianity America is but one nation among many, no less loved by God, but no more.
. . .
The mistake in all these stages is confusing America with Zion. She is not the inheritor of the covenant, not the receiver of the promises, not the witness to the nations. It may well be that all nations have callings of sorts-specific purposes which God in His providence assigns them. But no nation can presume to take God under its wing. However we may love her, dote upon her, and regret her, the Lord our God can do without the United States.

However, certainly President Kennedy in asking for the sacrifice he was asking for was not placing this request outside his faith; and in fact couched it in our responsibility to God to protect the rights bestowed on us by God and not by the social contracts of mankind.

This was how Thomas Jefferson expressed our rights in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by our Creator"); and, of course, his "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)" made it clear that all ideas, religious and otherwise, must be free to contend in the public square because

. . . truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them . . .

I believe those people in this country who talk about Christians needing to couch our views in secular terms, place our faith second to our country, and/or not advocate for the views of our religion are violating Jefferson's warning about removing Truth's "natural weapons" - free argument and debate.

Neither Jefferson nor Kennedy sacrificed

because of faith in the common good which isn't about God, but about Caesar's power over us.

They sacrificed because they believed that only in looking at God's view of us could we moderate and control Caesar's power over us - only by seeing other humans as imago dei. Throughout history the primary issue has been one man removing another from this classification - whether black slaves in Jefferson's day or whoever today. The progress in the human race has been in slowing including more and more people in the category of "image of God".

Because we look to God to understand those inalienable rights it is incorrect to think that followers of Christ (or members of any other ethical and/or moral system) will not try to derive from their ethical structures an understanding of what rights God endowed us with. Certainly pornography is one of those kinds of issues: one person's free expression fuels, and funds, an industry that is responsible for a good portion of the remaining slavery in the world today - trafficking. It is not true, in that case, that allowing freedom to practice what folks want is a "common good" necessarily.

However, the major issues the author of "The Power of Sacrifice" concentrated on were abortion, gay rights, and gay marriage. In the case of abortion and gay rights, there is an assumption in the diary that followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, oppose abortion and gay rights and/or marriage. This isn't true - particularly about gay rights.

My primary argument against abortion is secular - exactly aimed at the "common good" and human rights; but for many followers of Christ this is just one more example of human beings being excluded, for the convenience of others, from imago dei. Frankly, there is no direct discussion of abortion in the Bible - it is generally derived from all humans being created in His image.

Certainly, there is a Biblical argument about homosexuality being sin; no New Testament basis for any hatred or lack of justice towards gays as just another class of sinner; a strong case for Christian marriage being between a man and a woman, and no Biblical case for followers of Christ imposing that on non-Christians. In fact, one of the major points of Christianity was that Hebrew law was unable to create righteousness; and that we were free from the law in Christ. To try to impose righteousness by secular law is certainly un-Biblical.

The author of "Sacrifice" and I may agree on another error of conservatism that followers of Christ fall into:

moralism. According to this notion God's grace needs the help of the state; Christianity merely asks the state to get out of the way . . .

Now I am not going to complain that moralism "imposes" a faith on people who do not share it. In the sense at issue, even secularists impose a faith on others-they merely impose a different faith. Every law reflects some moral idea, every moral idea reflects some fundamental commitment, and every fundamental commitment is religious-it proposes a god. Everything in the universe comes to a point. For moralism, therefore, the important distinction is not between religion and secularism, but between faiths that do and faiths that do not demand the civil enforcement of all their moral precepts.

To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" The New Testament contains literally hundreds of precepts. However, Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them. . . .

Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian-if it still exists at all- only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected.

A follower of Christ is going to look at everything through their love of God. They are going to put God in the center of every part of their life. While it may not be the most effective thing politically, they may refer to God in their political views and analysis'

And, as they have for 2000 years, they are going to struggle with their role in the secular political sphere. However, Biblically, there is no admonition that their service to "Caesar" impinges on, or competes with, their service to God. They are different spheres with different requirements.

Read more!

Christian Carnival CL (150)

Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Most followers of Christ are aware of the fruit of the Spirit listed in verse 22 and 23. Most of us do not particularly look at the spoiled fruit of the flesh in 19-21. We do well to gauge our individual walks in the Spirit by the positive fruit; and by checking ourselves against the spoiled ones as well.

So, let us carefully select our fruits for the:

The Holiday Fruit Basket Edition

Love vs. Enmity

Bryan and Mike presents "A New Right Wing Europe?" posted at THEOdyssey.

Diane at Crossroads says "Thank You! Young Fathers".

It's gratifying to see so many Christian young fathers take such an interest in their young children at school and at church. And although it didn't start in the church, at least it's there now.

Bill at Rev Bill has found a site for "Advent Devotions: Love's Revelations"

How has love been revealed to you? What did it taste like? Look like? Smell like? Did it come as a piece of chocolate left as a surprise for you, or from an unexpected word of kindness? Welcome to Goshen College's online devotionals for the 2006 Advent season! "Love’s Revelations" is this year’s theme.

While Joe at Evangelical Outpost did not submit this, I am going to "adopt it" as my submission; because we need to start "The Next Abolition Movement: Abolishing Slavery in the 21st Century"

Joy vs. Jealousy

Martin at Sun and Shield guesses that no one has ever posted "I'm thankful for the electromagnetic spectrum" as their Thanksgiving post, until now.

Annette at Fish and Cans expresses her joy in the promises of God expresses in "1 Peter 2 - part one"

Peace vs. Strife

Jack Yoest presents "Charmaine Speaks To The Pew Forum on Religion and Politics" posted at Reasoned Audacity.

In the linked transcript involving Charmaine and Eric Sapp, there is a very good discussion about Christians and partisan politics - and it was kept largely strife-free

Mike at Faith at Work discusses "How to Have an Emotionally Healthy Church".

Our challenge at New Life is how do we process our pain and the pain we have caused others in an emotionally mature manner?

Jordan at Acton Institute's Power Blog takes up "Hugh Hewitt and the Mormon Question":

If the long knives are brought out by Christians to attack Romney on the basis of his religious commitments, it won't be long before secularists attack Christians on similar grounds.

Penitens, A Penitent Blogger, looks at "News of terror and words of peace" - A brief reflection on inner peace through Christ in a world of terrors.

Stuff guest-blogs at Ales Rarus on overcoming fear and her conversion to the "The Vocation of Marriage and Parenthood"

. . . I was scared $#!%-less. I understand how women can be talked into abortions. I was in my 5th year of pharmacy school, freshly married, and dirt poor. And as the youngest of five children in a family that puts the FUN in dysfunctional, I wondered what God could possibly be thinking giving someone like me something so fragile and impressionable as a baby.

Patience vs. Dissention

Ruth presents "I Still Don't Get Church" posted at Journal of Ruth.

I love my church and my pastor and the people there. But I find it hard to be part of them. I always feel like I’m outside, watching in. (But then again, I’ve always felt like that in all the churches I’ve been in.) This is the best church I’ve ever been a part of but … I don’t feel like I’m part of them, y’know? I’m attending the church, but I’m like an attendee, not family.

Barbara at Tidbits and Treasures sees that "With God, All Things are Possible" including drawing Muslims to Himself through the gospel.

Stephen from Practical Quandary discusses seeing Christianity as a worldview can give us "A New Set of Glasses" that allow us to see the world in a clear manner.

Henry at Participatory Bible Study continues his series on Isaiah 24-27, with "Isaiah 26: Praise and Lament in Trouble" and its meaning in the study of the end times.

Kindness vs. Anger

Amanda examines Bart Campolo's "The Limits to God's Grace" at Imago Dei.

Goodness vs. Impurity

David Ker presents Preaching peeve #1: Seed-pickers posted at Lingamish.

Richard at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos theophilos discusses one of the interesting results of the last election connected to "Religious Value Voters".

Lillie submits a post by Father Chip Harper from All Saints Anglican Church: "Liturgy Lesson: Sunday Next Before Advent - Laying on of Hands" at Devotionals from Father Chip

Tia from Home Where They Belong - a homeschooling site - writes about "The Crime of Isolation" in Germany.

Frauke R, who is pregnant, told newspapers while her husband was in jail, "We prepared the children for his arrest and they are OK. I miss him, but God will take care of him."

Jeremy Pierce presents "Explanations for Evil, Part I" posted at Parableman:

This is the latest post in a series on the problem of evil, looking at responses to questions about some particular kinds of evil manifesting itself in particular ways.

Josh at Church Hopping examines the evidence of a "New Testiment: Extended Edition"

Faithfulness vs. Idolatry

Rodney Olsen: One of the most enduring Christian books over many decades has been "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison.

According to popular belief, Morison was a lawyer who was skeptical of the claims of Christians regarding Jesus Christ. The story goes that he set out to prove the Bible wrong. That story's almost true. The fact is that 'Frank Morison' never actually existed.

In "Is This Accurate?", Veracity at Veracity - The Way asks :

why are we so reluctant to be Bereans and search out what Scripture actually says about a matter? Why do we accept carte-blanche what a ministry or pastor or leader tell us? We are going to get ourselves into serious trouble this way

nikola presents "Dostoevsky: Russian Prophet" posted at Victory or Death.

I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly and more perfect than the Savior;...If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not the truth. -- Dostoevsky

Mike Pace presents "How cults recruit and keep their members" posted at THEOdyssey.

Vynette presents "The Curia Mail : Vol 3" posted at The Race is Run.

Mike at Discerning Discipleship is confused about the purpose of a new book about Australian religion, and would really like to know what "Spiritual Aerobics in Australian Emerging Churches" is.

Dana presents "Family as Idol" posted at Principled Discovery.

Gentleness vs. Dispute

[LOL: Didn't know where else to put this] John at Light Along the Journey shows what you get when a guy stares too long at his books and starts free associating pro wrestling? You get "Friday Night Theological Library Smackdown":

So I was wondering…since Pixar Studios has taught us that toys come to life when we leave the room, what if books come to life too? . . . and I’m thinking who could take down who if they were went mano e mano like they are lying side by side in the shelf?

Self-control vs. Immorality

Mick at Romans 15:4 Project asks "Who will stand for our nations girls? Who will protect their innocence and purity?"; and asks us to "Stop Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood!"

Read more!