The Farmer and the Minister August 30, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Ministry.add a comment
I had one of those “aha” readings this morning as I spent time in prayer and reading. I was struck once again by how much ministry is like farming (an example used a number of times in Scripture). That is, the farmer is dependent upon God like no one (at least in my mind). Sure, there are many techniques in farming, but the weather as a whole is a huge factor, and one that they cannot control. They can do their best in those seasons, but they cannot control it. Even with new “super-farming” techniques, there are still droughts, floods, and all sorts of things that can wreck the crop. The farmer is dependent, but also works hard. The same should be true of us in ministry–we are dependent upon God. We can use skills and techniques, but they will never cause the growth. There will be different seasons and different sizes of crops, but we ultimately are not the ones in control of that. We should be able to rest because we are NOT in control (so let’s stop thinking that we are). However, we can still work our butts off as we are in the fields. Look to the farmer and learn!
Surprised by Wright?!? August 22, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I read through N.T. Wright’s Suprised by Joy this past week. I liked it as a whole, he touches on many things that I feel similarly about. Some might be surprised that I liked this book by Wright, as many in my circles seem to condemn him and his “new” views. Well, regardless of what you think about his view on justification, I think this book’s point is hard to argue with. What’s the point? That we have had a vastly inferior understanding of the resurrection and of our future hope than what the New Testament gives us.
Basically, we often view the goal of the Christian life to “die and go to heaven.” Not only does this render the present life superfluous, it also misrepresents teaching on death. Ultimately, we will be raised bodily on the new earth. Christ is the example of this; as he rose, so shall we. This does not mean living in a disembodied state, when we are not embodied, we are “naked” as Paul tells us. We believe in life after life after death–a resurrection state. Furthermore, the lordship of Christ has come now–the resurrection shows that the new creation is beginning. It ultimately only happens through Christ’s work of full redemption, but as Christians, we participate in this new creation, as the new creation has continuity and discontinuity with the present world (like the body of Christ). We are participants in His work, as He is saving the world from the curse. It is not just about being forgiven, but being transformed from the present order of the world. This si a strue message that we need to remember and embrace each day that we live.
Knowledge of the Holy (Chapters 7 and 8) August 20, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group, Spirituality.add a comment
So, last night our small group look at chapters 7 and 8 of Knowlege of the Holy by Tozer. The topics: the eternity and infinitude of God. Yikes! The challenge for such a discussion is how to do it without making our heads hurt (as one said, “Good luck on that!”). Clearly, we must recognize that these are not things that we can totally understand about God. Then why study then? Because He has revealed them to us, which means they have some benefit for us. As Tozer quoted Anselm, it is meant to be a journey for the heart, not for the head. What do these doctrines/ideas teach our hearts? The eternity of God shows that he is different, that every other thing that we know is not eternal but trapped in time. God has placed eternity in our hearts, unlike dogs we ponder things greater than our world, and the bridge between eternity and time is the God-man, Jesus Christ. He is the eternal one, who, as God does, comes into time. God is outside of time but meets us in time. What does this mean? As Moses points out in Psalm 90, he is everlasting, we are mortal, but he is our safe refuge and we can draw near to Him. He cares for us even though we are small. The eternity of God should point us to have refuge in God, knowing that the refuge is found in Christ. What other places do we find refuge in? Maybe family, friends, work, possessions, reputation, countless things. Those do not bridge the gap, those will fail us, but God, the Eternal One will not.
After talking about the eternity, we talked about the infinitude of God–that He is beyond limits. That is tough to grasp (in fact, impossible), but it should be a reminder that His traits know no limits. His justice in the world is true and everlasting, so is His love for us. His riches (ultimately, Himself) is infinite. There is enough for Him to go around! This should move us to have confidence in Him as well as invite others to join, as we get to participate in life with this Great God, who is infinite.
So, let us cling to the eternal God, sharing in His infinite riches and inviting others to do the same!
Christians Need Peer Pressure August 18, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Last night, we spent some time reflecting on our Wilderness Trip (DTP) and our Mission Trip (with Sacred Road Ministries on the Yakama reservation). The thing that amazes me about these trips with teenagers is the things that they will do when they are away together anad when they are in a community. Over and over again, people said, “I would never have done that but we were doing it together.” Positive peer pressure at its best, I guess 
This applied to caving and climbing and hiking, but it also applies to the Christian life, doesn’t it? I mean, when we try to live as solo Christians, climibing those mountains without the help of others, we struggle or give up. We succumb to so many obstacles. Even service is much easier when we are doing it as a group–as we have support from others. That is the beauty of these trips. Something I have never quite been able to grasp, though, is what this community looks like when we get home. It is more than just having fun, but what does it look like? How do we cultivate? We need each other–we just don’t know how.
I honestly believe that the Christian life needs to be lived in community. A question I am still trying to figure out as an introvert is, “What does community look like?” I am trying to live into it, knowing that it is not necessarily what I might think it is, but it also might not be what others think it is.
Optimist, Pessimist, and Grace-imist August 16, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I have been thinking lately, “Am I an optimist or a pessimist?” I like to think of myself as a realist…which usually means you are a pessimist who is optimistic about themselves. I have noticed that mentally, I do better when I focus on positive things, not quite to the extent of Julie Andrews singing, “My Favorite Things,” but that there is something helpful in looking at the positive side of things. However, I wonder if there is not a third option–a “grace-imist.” That is, one who looks at the world with grace in mind. In some ways, it means seeing the worst but also seeing the best in each situation in life. I can look at the hurt that someone does against me and dwell in that–or I can think of how the forgiveness of Christ reaches through that and works grace in all situations. That is the point of “grace,” to be able to transform this world. So, that is my new goal–to be a grace-imist.
The “Poison” of Religion and the Antidote of Grace August 14, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I finally finished up Christopher Hitchens’ book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. It was an interesting read, one that I did not read as quickly as Dawkins’ book but one that I enjoyed reading more. While Hitchens is not polite, his language reflected a bit more respect to others as fellow human beings; while he disagrees with religion (arguing that we do not need it anymore and it is bad for your health and well-being, as well as for the health of culture—ultimately seeing religion as being man-made), I did not feel as much ridiculed as much as disagreed with. And Hitchens has some good comments about religion. Three areas of his analysis as a whole that I found truthful about how faith is lived out
- The Power of Religion. Hitchens points out that religion makes people do some pretty extreme things. Much evil has been done “in the name of God.” When we couch things with God language, we can make things that seem wrong right. That is why religion is often hijacked and used for evil causes—because there is great power. However, this shows the abuse of it, as (in spite of Hitchens claim), when good causes are couched in the name of God, good comes out of it. This should make Christians and those in leadership very hesistant about what we say and about what we invoke divine authority on. I know I try to constantly ask myself, “Is this my opinion or is this someone that cannot escape because of the teachings of Scripture.” Basically, we need to check our presuppositions, “doubt our doubts” as it were to make sure we are being true.
- The Hypocrisy in Religion. Religious people are funny beings, in that we do all sorts of things that are contradictory. But isn’t that true of all humans, that we profess things and act differently? It seems to be from my experience, that others are always making us trace our logic back. Christians make the same case about atheists. However, I view Hitchens’ ironic statements about when our beliefs and actions do not match as good rebukes to myself. In a similar vein, I hear things that Brian Regan talks about in ourselves and laugh at them, and maybe try to change them Hypocrisy, though, does not mean it is wrong, just that followers are imperfect (which matches my claims of faith).
- The Offense of Faith. As Hitchens repeatedly says, there are things in a faith that seem like they should not be a big deal. For example, is sex outside of marriage really evil like murder? Is coveting something really wrong if I do not do anything about it. Hitchens uses this “offense” of the faith against our “natural” inclinations (or facts…though one might wonder about some areas that we say aren’t a big deal when, at least experientially, I have seen positives from commands and negatives from disobedience, but anyway) as a sign that religion is man-made. It is designed to “hold us down” or “back.” However, as Tim Keller points out, if there is a God who has designed us (and if we do believe in a Fall—these are premises accepted for argument), then wouldn’t we expect His standards to be different from ours. If we have a God who just affirms what we want and denies what we think is wrong, isn’t that more of a sign that we have created Him in our image? As Keller says, wouldn’t this be a “Stepford God” created to make us happy?
What I find interesting in many of these books by atheists saying that religion is bad and should be left is that they critique religion. As Keller points out in his book The Reason for God, religion is a problem. However, true Christianity is not religion. It is not built on what we do for God but what God has done for us as broken sinners. It has a worldview of Creation/Fall/Redemption/Restoration that helps us make sense of this world. It seems that many of these writers do not see grace in Christians and also do not see our view of sin and its effects on ourselves and the world. Therefore, I too can say that religion poisons everything but that grace is the antidote.
Posted…finally August 11, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Ministry.add a comment
My sermon from August 3rd.
Blog Righteousness, Discipline, and Olympics August 11, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Random.add a comment
I hope I am not getting blogger righteousness–I am not trying to impress Keith or anything, but I am trying to get more disciplined these days. I have been realizing that my time keeps drifting away and I do not feel productive in most moments. So, I am trying to read more, blog more, and just use my time in ways that I will feel better as I get ready to head back to school. So, this is my attempt to help myself (I am so selfish!)
I watched a little of the Olympics the other day. I have been thinking a little bit of how much we spend on them in energy, attention, money, and honor. We glorify these athletes because they can do some impressive feats. We must have them compete against each other so that we can compete as countries against each other. I am not saying competition is bad, but simply that it can be misplaced. It is entertainment, pure and simple. It is like watching a movie or a TV show. It is like reading a book. It is the not the end all be all of our existence. Are the winners better people for it? No. We can congratulate good performances, but it is that, a performance. I guess I am thinking about competitions in light of how I compete with others constantly in life–how I want to be better than others. When in fact, in Christ, I am accepted by God. I have the greatness gift–an inheritance from Him. My value is not found in my results but in my Redeemer.
What if we had a “Office Olympics.” We get workers from all over the world to compete in stapling contests, the decathlon (faxing, copying, doing an Excel spreadsheet, etc.). Movers can compete to fill the truck. All sorts of fun. I am joking, but it is helpful to remind me of the place of most of these things in the grand scheme of things. Let’s have fun and be careful what we glorify.
Knowledge the Holy (Chapters 5 and 6) August 8, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
My small group resumed this week and we continued our journey through A.W. Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy. Chapters 5 and 6 look at the self-existence and self-sufficiency of God. Essentially, Tozer begins by talking about the question that we all ask or are asked at some point, “But who made God?” How do we answer that? The truth is that God is unmade; as Tozer points out, the idea of origin only applies to creatures. God is a “unique species” to quote Dr. Bjornstad (though he is singular so it would be tough to make him a species), he exists outside of our concepts and beyond our understanding. Tozer points out that this bothers us. As well, he exists beyond our possibility of knowing, which can bug scientists and philosophers, there is a limit to our knowledge. But we must study God because we are made in his image–there are communicable elements from Him. We go astray when we think we are independent of Him; when we say “I am” as opposed to acknowledge that only He is “I AM that I AM.” The chapter on self-sufficiency somewhat flowed from this discussion as well, as it looks at the fact that God has no need. We sometimes think that He NEEDS us for mission, or for a defense, or for other things. He does not need us but he uses us. He has no necessary relationship (out of need) but voluntary (out of choice). He did not need to create us but did, that we might share in His goodness. In some ways, that means, yes, He made us for His glory but He made us for OUR benefit, that we might know HIM. He does not need us, we need Him. We must grow dependent more upon Him if we are to be truly what we were made to be. As Tozer points out, all of life’s problems and solutions are theological because we come from Him. Let us study God together.
The Dawkins Discussion August 7, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Uncategorized.2 comments
I have finished reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, as well as (in about an hour) reading Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion? which is a critique of his book (and really McGrath is one of the best suited critics, he was an atheist who became a Christian and was raised in a place of “religious” violence in Northern Ireland, as well as being a professor at Oxford as well. It is a pity that Dawkins did not interact with McGrath, as he would be a good dialogue partner). Why did a read a book by a prominent atheist? To understand the other side, of how people critique religion and Christianity. Dawkins is on the forefront of the Fundamental Atheists. It should be noted that Dawkins is a critic of all religion. What are some things that I can offer about Dawkins’ book?
Areas that interested me in the book
- Critiques of the “Arguments for God.” Dawkins devotes a chapter on the usual arguments for the existence of God. I did not find this chapter too challenging, to be honest. His greatest reason for rejecting the argument that something had to be the first cause is to say, “Who caused God?” and that we cannot have as an explanation something that cannot be explained. But that is true with any view of the world, as something has to explain it. As McGrath helpfully points out, that is the nature of the worldview, it cannot be explained. So, this is not an end-all, slam down decision. Furthermore, many of the arguments, for example, given by Aquinas do not prove God but show that there is reason to believe. That is, the world reflects what would be true if the God that we believe in truly does exist.
- Explanation of Religion and Morals. I was interested to see how Dawkins’ explains the religion that we see across humanity as well as morals. He views religion as part of a “misfiring” of our genes—that there is are evolutionary helps in our belief of religion (trusting our elders helps us at times). But now, that evolutionary value is gone (or something). In addition, there are evolutionary reasons for morals (they help us survive). While he can explain morals on that level in existence, WHY do we have this “oughtness” still. We should not care if people are immoral if it is not going to help me. Furthermore, according to my understanding of Darwin, might would still make right (these morals are for the weak, who, hey, should be eliminated anyway).
- Indoctrination of Children. Dawkins really wants people to not teach children religion, to let them choose. He says we should not call them Christian children but children of Christian (or any other religion). Teaching them a religion as being right is tantamount to child abuse (he even says that it is worse than sexual abuse….wow!). Instead, we need to teach them to question everything and to make decisions for themselves based on evidence. But isn’t that going to be indoctrinating them with something. By definition, we teach them something. And to say that a child is to young to truly understand would by nature mean that they cannot know ANYTHING until a certain age. It is really a new form of indoctrination that he suggests, but he does not seem to see it that way.
- Violence because of religion and really nothing else. Dawkins seems to say that religion should be eliminated because it leads to violence. History shows that is often the case. But history also shows the non-religion leads to violence. Perhaps the issue is not the belief but the fact that we want to fight; or that people have other motives that they use religion to get across. Do those who bomb abortion clinics or become suicide bombers truly do so for religion or use it to justify it? It seems that Dawkins evidence is selective.
Here are some areas of critique that I definitely would have to mention:
- Misrepresentation of Christianity. He does not dialogue with evangelical scholars, but with popular and extremist Christians. For example, there is no interaction with guys like McGrath or Ravi Zacharias, and his discussion of biblical scholars does not draw on the likes of John Stott, I.Howard Marshall, Craig Blomberg, or really any evangelical Christian who I would look to as an example of my beliefs.
- Misrepresentation of religion as well. He seems to lump all theistic religions together. However, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are different. In addition, he says that all religion leads to violence, even “moderation.” (I think the truth is In addition, all religion leads to a “shutting of the mind” in terms of science. These are accusations that evidentially do not stand up (and he is about evidence).
- Misrepresentation of the Scriptures and of Jesus. He points out all the bad things that OT saints did, and says that they are our example. They are sinners! Furthermore, he does not draw on the OT and Jesus’ critique of religion, or the example of Jesus. There is really no interaction with how Christians read the Bible, interpretative principles, etc. Either we are “literal” or we do not believe anything is history. From a biblical scholar perspective, I am a bit offended at the shallow research that he did.
- Misrepresentation of Scientists. He creates a dichotomy between science and religion and to hold to both is to be a complete hypocrite, whether you are Stephen Jay Gould (late professor at Harvard) or the pope. And if you are a scientist who talks about religion, you are most likely doing it for money (if that is not an ad hominem attack, I do not know what is). He makes statements that these are scientists who are really atheists but trying to sound Christian. Couldn’t we make the same statement about many Christians who live lifestyles that make no difference, that they are really atheists who put on Christian garb (as most of us do function more like atheists).
- Misrepresentation of Science. Dawkins is committed to science being able to explain everything. However, no discipline can do that; we need different disciplines. He does not seem to try to use sociology or anthropology, but only evolutionary biology to explain things. Obviously, he does not think that philosophy or metaphysics exist, but it seems best to say that we need multiple sorts of studies to learn things. We can look at a piece of art from the mechanical perspective (how), the social (the context and background), but there is something else about art that we look at (the aesthetics). Can the same be said of the world?
There are other fallacies and issues, but that is where I will leave this for now. I can say that most of what Dawkins critiques, I would critique about forms of Christianity myself. For example, exalting the “gaps” of science as showing God is setting it up for rejection, as “gaps” can be filled. People do dumb things because they think that it is right for religious reasons. But as a whole, was my faith threatened by Dawkins? No. Of course, he says that is because I am a closed-mind, dyed in the wool fundamentalist. I don’t think that it is the case; I look at the evidence too and am convinced that God is there. And that God came in Jesus Christ.
Next on my list to read—Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great.
