The End of Sunday School? July 31, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Education, Ministry.add a comment
There is an article in the Wall Street Journal from June on the closing of Sunday Schools in American church . As one who has directed Sunday School classes for youth and adults, I figured I needed to read this.
The basis: “The decline in Sunday schools appears to be gradual but steady. A study by the Barna Group indicated that in 2004 churches were 6% less likely to provide Sunday school for children ages 2 to 5 as in 1997. For middle-school kids, the decline was to 86% providing Sunday school in 2004 from 93% in 1997. Similarly, there was a six-percentage-point drop in Sunday schools offered for high school kids — to 80% from 86%. All in all, about 20,000 fewer churches were maintaining Sunday-school classes. And the future does not look bright: Only 15% of ministers regarded Sunday school as a leading concern. The younger the pastor, the study showed, the less emphasis he placed on Sunday school.” [Interesting side note: any study on Adult Sunday School classes?]
Other interesting quotes: “Catholics relied on parochial schools and special weekday classes to teach the faith, but Protestants had Sunday school.”… “In short, Sunday school was a civilizing experience that assured some level of religious literacy.”
An interesting note was that the type of Sunday school class might have been the problem; while giving kids some spiritual literacy, they did not go very deep and often were just exercises of rote memorization. That doesn’t fly today–for good reasons (ineffective, inefficient programs are never good). In addition, there are other demands on time for children and adults (particularly on weekends). There could also be the element that since less and less people have spiritual literacy, less and less people see it as being important (and the way we structure churches does not show it as being important). This might contribute to the decline.
What I see is a couple of points to consider:
-How should we give adults and children spiritual literacy? Are we doing anything to give children and adults spiritual literacy? Do we need more than a sermon and a “small group” Bible study (which seem more about community than content)? Is Sunday morning the best time, or do we need to go to a more “Catholic” model or another sort of model–or night–(which they note are being developed) for this sort of cultivation of spiritual literacy?
-How do we improve our educational techniques in this, in that the average Sunday School teacher has little (if any) educational training? Clearly, lecture is not the best but neither is just simply sitting around and talking. This was a challenge in my experiences.
Posting this as I think through it…..comments, as always, welcome.
Excitement in Chicago July 30, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry.add a comment
My time in the presbytery has been seen many challenges happen in our denomination in Chicago. In some ways, to say challening would be a bit of an understandment. After our meeting yesterday, though, I am pretty excited about what is going on; perhaps those challenges were paving the way for some good things to begin to happen (God turning ashes into beauty?). Two men are coming in as pastors who really excite me; good guys who are unashamed of their theology but also seek to communicate it pastorally. They seem like great fits for their situations as well; I look forward to getting to know them. There are some encouraging new works happening in some different locales (mostly in the city), but also some plans in the suburbs. While the plans of men often fail, it is exciting to at least see things moving forward. I don’t know what my role will be in the coming years, but I am excited for the position that I am in right now. In some ways, what I am most excited about are the relationships that seem to be developing with some others; I am starting to feel like these men are my brothers, that they see me as an equal with much to offer, and that we know that we need each other in this work. In some ways, words aren’t capturing my excitement…maybe some day they will!
The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight July 28, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Language, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
I have heard Scot McKnight speak, used some of his more scholarly works, and followed his blog for a few years now. I like him; he’s a provocative and relevant speaker as this is true of Blue Parakeet in the Lisle Library, as I could now read it for myself. As I suspected, it is clear (it has a great structure, essentially intro and then two parts, with those parts subdivided well), full of good scholarship (though more aimed at laity, it is published by Zondervan/Willow Creek) as well as helpful in use of illustrations and pictures (the whole idea of a “blue parakeet” comes from a story about an escapted pet blue parakeet that Dr. McKnight saw; this becomes his controlling metaphor as he seeks to help us “unleash” the Bible and rethink how to read it). I liked it on the whole, as his approach to Scripture is much like mine, while it would seem that using a similar approach, we come to different conclusions. I concur with much of the message of the book, though I have a few critiques.
The introduction of the book deals with the fact that, whether we admit it, we all pick and choose what we apply from the Bible (except in really extreme causes!). The question is, how do we justifiy this sort of “picking and choosing.” In many ways, that is the purpose of the book. McKnight then uses a metaphor that we often cage the “blue parakeet” of the Bible, either by rigorously seeking to apply it or holding it captive to tradition. Instead, we need to read it as it stands on its own, as well as in conversation with others in history (reading with tradition). There are three elements that McKnight wants to impart in regards to approaching reading and appying the Bible. The first is that the Bible is not an instruction manual/rule book, mysterious puzzle with a code to be solved, blessing book, reader response/inkblot test, or having one privileged portion; it is a story. I affirm; I have taught this persective many times. We need to read it as the story of God’s redemption; McKnight modifies the usual Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration to Creation, Crack, Community (Israel), Christ, Consummation. Not sure if I will adopt this view (I have more of a view that would talk about redemption through a people failing (Israel) and moving into a person (Christ), but I affirm it. The second part tells us that the goal is to listen to God; to listen and obey God. The goal is not to obey the Bible but the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. While this might sound a bit too neo-orthodox for some, this is something that I have taught as well (even using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well), viewing the Bible as a way to a relationship with God. The Bible is His inspired Word but knowing it is not an end but a means to an end: knowing Him. So far, so good!
The third part of approaching the Bible–discerning–and then the case study–women in ministries–is where Dr. McKnight and I seem to differ more; I don’t think in principles as much as in application of principles. The idea of discerning is that through the Spirit and the historical/cultural context of our faith, we must see how the Bible patterns our life. This is where the rubber hits the road and where it gets messy. One critique I would give this book is that not enough time was spent on how to “discern,” which is understanding God through His Word and then applying it to our world today. This process means that we must understand what it said it its day (Moses’ ways in Moses’ day–careful Bible study) as well as what our world is really like today (I don’t know if Dr. McKnight cover much about how to “exegete the culture”). This is more difficult than Dr. McKnight seems to mention, as both processes are very complicated. He tries to do so with a case study, but this case study seems to lack much exegetical discussion of culture (furthermore, his approach to the discussion does not seem that different from others who have not advocated his same approach to Scripture). In some ways, McKnight does not mention how we must analyze culture to see where it is neutral to God’s created order and where it is in opposition to God’s created order–we must embody the gospel in the culture but this also means that we must confront the culture and transform it. A way that I see this having implications in his case study of women in ministry is the issue of whether we have an increasing androgynistic culture, if there are connections between feminism and the new “Roman woman” that he talks about in 1 Timothy, the variety of cultures/heritages/perspectives in our culture today (is there an “American culture” or “cultures in America”) and whether there are other paradigms (household of faith) that affects how we view church leadership (we also differ with how we see the created order affecting the issue, are the differences of men and women tied to the fall or creation?). Furthermore, it is much more difficult to exegete the original meaning, as we seem to differ in some readings concerning 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We are never going to have unanimity in these issues, which should also lead to some humility; perhaps there is a place for both. Something I definitely think that people should take away from this section, though, is the question of what minstries we see women doing in Scripture, as opposed to seeing what they might not be allowed to do. I am not quite where he is in terms of overall practice, but I think he has some insights we need to keep in mind.
The conclusion of the book in some ways moves to a “contextualization” of Christianity in each culture; we will live it out our faith differently in different times and places. I do not have a problem with that (must be my missiological training), within reason; this seems to be what happens in the Bible (though I would say that they contextualized under the inspiration of the Spirit; we do so under the guidance). There is diversity in Scripture; while I do not go as far as Ehrman and others and say that the 4 Gospels are 4 different religions, I do think that each community had its emphases and uniqueness, which affirms the validity of some differences in practices within the heart of the gospel (say Apostles’ Creed). But are these totally different cultures–or manifestations within sub-cultures? Does the “melting pot” feel of America mean that we have many different cultures or that we can have the gospel manifested differently within our nation because we are merging it? Is this why we have Willow Creek and the Episcopal church? Dr. McKnight mentions how he enjoys both of them and thinks that we need both; might the same be said in other areas of doctrine–such as the one of women in church ministries, which McKnight discusses (baptism, church order, worship styles, etc.). He does not seem to point to the fact that we could have a plurality of practices within a diverse culture–making the stance of something like the PCA vs. that of Willow Creek or other churches not in opposition but reflecting different ways of discerning in a multiplex culture.
As I said, a good, thought-provoking book. A good conversation piece. It corrects some mistakes that we make in reading and thinking about the Bible. I like it; however, it needs to be read in conversation with other books in Bible study (exegetical and cultural) 
There is a God by Antony Flew July 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Books, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.4 comments
Back in 2004, when I was teaching an apologetics class at church using Jesus Among Other Gods, the revelation that Antony Flew, a very well-known atheistic philosopher of the 2nd half of the 20th century, now believed in a God came out. It was true, as it came straight from the horse’s mouth–he myself. Of course, this was shocking news and well-received by Christian apologetics, panned by other atheists. I finally got around to reading Flew’s There is a God, in which he recounts his philosophical journey to deism. This is important to remember: he is a deist now who believes in the God of Aristotle, the unmoved mover; this god is self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient. God is not good or active (two key elements in the Christian god). Flew intially became a atheist because of the problem of evil; he says that this is not an issue, though, that determines God’s existence, but one that might reflect on His character. The two solutions in his mind are deism or free-will. He says that the evidence brought him to this belief; he is being true to his philosophical convictions that evidence should lead to one’s beliefs.
The first half of the book is Flew’s atheistic philosophical journey. There were many ideas that I did not totally understand, as they are were more philosophical and how he helped develop a different school of philosophy in some ways. Ironically, this school of philosophy has made some advances and has led to Flew changing his mind about the existence of God. He notes that philosophers have acutally made some advances in thinking over the past 50 years; there can be advances in philosophy! Flew then goes on in particular to look at the reasons he believes now (common apologetic arguments Christians). The appendices include another person’s review of the fundamental atheist movement (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and the like) from more of a philosphical angle. Appendix B is NT Wright on teh resurrection; a great mini-primer from Wright’s prominent writings. I highly recommend B for everyone, not A, though, as it seems to technical. I thought I would briefly summarize the arugments that Flew notes help change his mind.
He notes three key areas (pg. 91) that lead him to believe that there is a god; the best explanation for these problems would be the existence of a god. They are: How did the laws of nature come to exist? How did life come from nonlife? How did the universe come into existence? Essentially, these are the old arguments from creation/design in some ways but from a different angle, looking at even more indepth science, with tight philosophical framings. The laws of nature are incredible–but why are there laws? Why do we assume laws? It seems that these come from the mind of God (as the best solution). Why is our universe perfectly suited for us; the conditions exist for life, but why is there life? How did it come to happen? (science can’t explain that). While some have posited the multi-verse approach (we just happen to be in the one where all conditions work), this only multiplies the issues and still begs the question: why and how? Science that points to a beginning of a universe seems to point that we cannot simply say that the universe always has been. This is not simply a “God of the gaps” but one that seems to be the best explanation for the data that we have at hand. Follow the evidence…
Note, this evidence leads Flew to the God of Aristotle, not the God of Abraham. The next question is whether this God has revealed Himself; if so, how has he revealed Himself. Or to put it a different way, what do we make of Jesus Christ. Is the revelation of God? That needs more than philosophy (though Wright does a good job of showing the historical “problem” of the resurrection…that the resurrection seems to be the best answer to a number of historical phenomenon. It made for a good read, not too deep; more of a “memoirs” by a philosopher, but glad I read it. If anything, it gives me confidence that these arguments can be convincing to people not yet Christian; however, more is needed than philosophy and intellectual discussions.
Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer July 24, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, Random, Spirituality.add a comment
A couple of weeks ago, I was looking for a “fun” book to read on the side (my definition of “fun” is a lot different than other people’s!). I looked in the biography section of the library and found Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer. He is the son of Francis Schaeffer; I knew he followed in his dad’s footsteps for a while but then left the evangelical fold but was not sure the whole story behind it. This book is his memoirs and it seemed intriguing to me to understand more about Schaeffer’s work as well as Frankie’s leaving of the evangelical fold (he is now Eastern Orthodox).
He makes it clear that it is not an autobiography, he did not go back to research things and, therefore, some dates, locations, etc. might be wrong. Therefore, this really must be read as HIS memory of different events; it is very subjective. In true post-modern fashion, one has to remember that he is out to sell books as well as to push his own agenda, which is most likely going to be to try to bring down the image of his family, his father’s work, and the religious right. That being said, it does show the perspective of a man who was part of the forefront of the evangelical movement (the religious right of the ’70s and ’80s) and why he left; it is “a” take on the situations. There are many things to think about from this book, but I guess I will focus on three: his portrait of his parents, his view of evangelicalism, and the connection between L’Abri and the religious right movement.
He seems to paint a contradictory picture of his parents, more harsh on his mom than on his dad. They are uptight legalists for the most part according to Frank but also have a kind heart, modelling the love of Christ to the outcast (gays, unwed expecting mothers, etc). They were dedicated to the work and neglected to look out for him or really get to know him. However, he almost makes it sound like his dad was uncomfortable with his place in the Christian world and would have loved to escape it; he would rather look at art than talk theology (can’t help but wonder if this is because more talking about theology is part of “doing work” as most of us in ministry have felt). If Frank claims that his parents didn’t really get to know him well, then can we think that HE knew them that well. Not sure what to make of his portrait of his dad; he probably was a sinner and a saint, though who knows if his sins were the ones that Frank points out. But, as he said, these were his thoughts about the work. It always makes me wonder how my own family will remember me, as well as how others close to my life view my work.
The second area was Frank’s assessment of the evangelical movement as one that has many power-hungry individuals and has a mass that simply follows the next “big thing.” The people are in many cases phonies anyway and self-righteous at that. I have seen this side of the church through my years and it helped me to ponder things like, “Am I listening to Tim Keller, Dr. Lorrits, or Dr. Carson or other key leaders right now because they are the “flavor of the month?”" But as I thought about it, I think that something like the Gospel Coalition is focusing on the right things, on the gospel and not on people. These are the people thay I am attracted to. They are building smaller churches rather than larger churches; maybe elements of the evangelical movement and seen this and have responded. I hope I am not a “bandwagon” Christian; hopefully, my contrarian impulses will protect me from this danger.
Thirdly, Schaeffer wrote about the connection between his dad’s work in L’Abri and the formation of the religious right in American (which, as he pointed out as a little ironic, in that Frank did not even grow up in America or know much about what America was truly like). While my guess is that Frank might have over-stated his role in it, this connection seems true from what I can follow. This made me a bit uneasy, as I am a fan of Schaeffer’s work on culture and on cultural engagement but do not particularly like the religious right. Can I hold the two in tension? There is that uneasy nature of Reformed thought that “all true is God’s true” and to be “cultural agents” that leads to seeking to cause political reform; we have seen this in the theonomy of some Christian leaders in my circles (also known as Christian Reconstruction). The more I thought, though, this does not seem to be the only way that one can speak of being a “cultural agent”; I would prefer to follow an ethic of influence rather than one of legislation. I think this also fits the idea of what it means that “all truth is God’s truth.” Frank Schaeffer pointed out that the “religious right” is actually very anti-American, in that they hope the nation falls so that they can prove their point (“that is what happens when you don’t follow God’s laws). That was an interesting thought to consider; it seems true in some regards. Is even the idea of forming a “Christian nation” against the idea of a “pluralistic” “deistic” nation that I think better characterizes the founding documents of this country? He also noted the rise of “single-issue” politics among Protestants (which Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer help form); before Whatever Happened to the Human Race, abortion was a Catholic issue in many regards. While I do not want to underplay this issue, it seems (as Frank notes) that we have moved beyond this in our political world today.
Interesting read.
Christian Reflections on the Messianism of Harry Potter July 22, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Media, Ministry, Random.1 comment so far
We went to see Harry Potter on Sunday night and as you might guess, it made me think a little bit. In particular, the direction my thoughts moved was onto the messianic theme seen in this movie (he is the Chosen One) and in many other movies (Star Wars, etc.). Why is this so appealing to us? As I pondered this, I wondered, is it because we hope to be the chosen one? That it inspires us to go forward and do things, instead of just waiting passively. This might be the case in some respects, we do want to be the one who rescues others. We want to be the “chosen one.”
This then moved my mind to ponder: who do we identify with in the movie (as good movies draw you in and you seem to identify with someone). Is it with the messiah figure? I know I don’t usually think of myself of this; in some ways, I don’t think I can do it. I usually identify with the side-kicks, the Ron Weasley’s if you will (or maybe better the Nevilles). Maybe it is the friends we identify with, as the chosen one still needs help to get to the position in which he can destroy evil. This might better match the proper Christian identification, as we are not the messiah but go forth with him into the world. But then I began to ponder it a bit, as a Christian, maybe I should identify with the extras, with the crowds, with the people who have nothing to do in the battle but put trust in the Chosen One. He delivers me because I can’t. My job is not to “help him,” as that then says that what I do is what leads to my salvation (this does not make me passive, but it also is an important thing to remember, as we sometimes try to “help” Jesus save us more easily).
Maybe I am on to something, maybe I am not Sorry for overthinking movies again, I just can’t help myself.
Preaching…. July 21, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
I had a chance to preach this past weekend. While I have always seen myself as a better teacher than preacher, I really feel like I am growing into a style of preaching that relates to people, I enjoy “hammering the gospel” home and trying to use word pictures and illustrations to do so. I have a long way to go, but I am making progress. A constant tension I have is that I want to be thoughtful with everything that I say, not to waste a single word or sentence. I don’t want to be funny to be funny…but I think it is good to throw a humorous comment to reconnect the audience, to break tension, to make people laugh at the situation. It is not to entertain, but to provide a firmer place for the word of God (and reminds us to be joyful). On the other hand, I don’t want to read a manuscript or be tied to notes–I want to look people in the eyes and speak the truth because it either connects with them or makes them more uncomfortable than someone reading a script. This is a delicate tension, because it leads to some ad-libbing at times, it leads to me not phrasing things correctly or succintly (I felt like I ran into that problem yesterday). It also leads to me making an occasional comment that could be distracting or rendered careless. And then I think of Matthew 12:36: ”But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken” and James 3:1 “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”
My prayer before I preach and even more yesterday after I preached was that Spirit would impress upon people His Word and ways I helped them to see it, and that He would remove any sort of carless words or unclear comment I made. And now I need to let go and remember that God can do that!
A Letter in Response to A Letter to a Christian Nation July 18, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Ministry, Politics.add a comment
Dear Mr. Harris,
I just finished reading your Letter to a Christian Nation and I felt like I needed to respond with my own letter. This is a bit hastily written (in the formatting, etc.), so please forgive any sort of typos, etc. I hope you do not detect a tone of anger behind my writing, I am not angry. I am thankful that you wrote this book and would like to meet you a get to know the guy behind the words. I want to begin with a personal note, then note some areas of affirmation, and then offer some more critical thoughts. I know “criticism” on paper always sounds tougher and is not as productive as a conversation, but this form will have to do for now.
First of all, I want to condemn, not condone, much of the critical correspondence you have received from “Christians” through the years. In a way, I wish I could sit down and have you read the letters and remarks to me, that I might experience the unjustified and needless insults and threats. There is no place for this sort of behavior in the marketplace of ideas if we ever want to discuss things in a civilized manner.
Secondly, I want to echo agreement on your thoughts concerning the bankruptcy of “liberal” and “moderate” Christianity (p. 5, 47-48). As Machen wrote in Christianity and Liberalism, these ideas are not truly part of Christianity; it is a different faith system. The God of these liberal systems is so undefinable and contradictory that it seems illogical; there is a reason it is on the decline while atheism and “fundamentalism” (as you would call it) are on the increase. The claims that religions systems make are mutually exclusive and we need to recognize this. I am glad that you do see this key distinction.
In addition, I wanted to thank you for noting what your goal is in the book and for noting your presuppositions and views throughout the book. Your goal was to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions in its most committed forms” (p. ix). That being said, I believe that this was an ambition goal. If it takes a 1,000 page bill to seek to fix the health care system, I doubt a less than 100 page book is going to “demolish” these ideas! If anything, you could only destroy a straw man. In my mind, you fail to fulfill your goal; you probably bit off more than you can chew. That being said, you have presented many some good points that every Christian should consider and examine.
I also wonder about the exact nature of your target. Have you really attacked Christianity? In many ways, I did not feel that you addressed my faith. You attack those who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that there will be a great tribulation at the end as sketched in the Left Behind books, and who believe that this nation was built upon biblical principles to which we need to get the country to return. These ideas are not at the heart of my cross-centered faith. In some ways, it feels like you have attacked an American cultural construction, not the Christian faith. You have not gone through the apostles creed and deconstructed this faith. Furthermore, I think that you have attacked what I would (following Tim Keller) call the “elder brother” syndrome in the church’s, which the gospel confronts! Therefore, you might attack a “Christian nation” of fundamentalists, but not Christianity.
Now, there are a number of issues in your argument that I would like to push back on in different sections of your book; I combine some subsections because I think the same criticism could be leveled at the arguments or because they go together. I know that you would not give every argument equal weight, so some are stronger than others; I might question some of your “weaker” points” but I find enough weaknesses and flaws to find your argument unconvincing. (Which of course brings up a whole issue about logic and persuasion: why is it that the same argument can sound persuasive and solid to one but completely unpersuasive to others. Is it because one is “irrational?” Take religious beliefs out of the picture. Why do literary critics disagree on a regular basis? Why do historians disagree? We see this all the time in academia. However, this is something that I cannot fully address now, nor do you really touch on in the book, other than to say that I would find it unconvincing because of my faith system). Morality, science, the character of God and the Bible, behavior of Christians.
Moral Wisdom of the Bible
You question whether the Bible is really a “morally wise” book by looking at Old Testament laws and the fact that the NT affirms them; this means that we should stone adulterers and that we should not wear garments made of two different fabrics. You accuse Christians of cherry-picking the Bible, but you do the exact same thing. While you quote Matt 5:17 as showing the abiding nature of the OT law, you do not quote Rom 10:4 (“Christ is the end of the law”) or Ephesians 2:15. You do not examine Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council talking about the OT law with Gentile believers. Christians have debated the place of the OT in the life of the believer for years; lower volumes than your work here have addressed the issue. You vastly simplify the relationship between the OT and NT. Furthermore, you misconstrue the OT law. The OT law was culturally situated; it must be compared not to our laws today but to laws back then. For example, stoning a person seems to be more compassionate in some ways than ostracizing them from the community in a tribal culture. God seems to have chosen to work in gradual steps, rather than all at once; these laws reflect a different sort of culture than those around them. The slave laws are often cited as an example. Could He have given a more complete moral law at once? Absolutely! But he did not. Just as we often take steps to solve problems (for our benefit), it seems God has done the same thing.
Real Morality
You claim that there is an objective basis for morality outside of divine revelation, but I am still a little confused on what this is. It seems that it is to promote happiness and to alleviate suffering; this leads to self-sacrifice. How do we define these things? Does self-sacrifice truly lead to happiness? I am not so sure in my experience. Even the ideas of happiness and suffering seem to be non-physical entities it would seem; there is an element of subjectivity in them. That is why we have philosophers. For one thing, this would be in line with the sort of standards I see in the gospel message—the gospel increases human flourishing and defeats the forces that lead to suffering. For example, when I have taught teenagers about the Biblical teaching on sex and marriage, I believe that the biblical teaching is designed to promote happiness and to alleviate suffering. In addition, how do we deal with psychological/emotional/spiritual/mental (whatever you want to label it) suffering? What cures those? And why is there suffering? If this is just the way that life is, shouldn’t we accept it? Isn’t it interesting that science, education, and knowledge cannot eliminate suffering? Even the knowledge that a hurricane will come to New Orleans did not stop people from living there or staying there. We are not rational beings! Christians should be seeking to stop genocide as well as abortion; maybe we, at times, have had a bad strategy of promoting morality. This does not show that our SYSTEM is flawed but that our STRATEGIES are flawed. Though you seem to make it sound like no one suffers in the issue of abortion. It would seem that women who have had abortions would counter that; it would seem that some issues that arise from them increase suffering and decrease human flourishing (let alone the aborted fetuses).
The stem cell issue is a complicated one. I am no scientist so there is much that I do not understand; what I remember from my biology classes and reading on the issue problems leaves some ignorance and confusion so if I am wrong, please someone correct me. However, I think that scratching your nose versus creating and destroying embryos is a bit of a different process (p.30). My cells and the embryos themselves are different; the embryos constitute what becomes a person, a single cell does not. There are problems with when the soul comes into a physical beings in light of division of cells, etc. I admit those things. However, you do not seem to offer any sort of alternative on when life begins? Is it at viability? Implantation? I see no standard of a “person” in your argument that you can argue for; you only argue against, but we need something else to believe if you have an “objective moral system” within naturalism.
Good for God
You are right, many Christians do “good for God” and not “good for others.” This is because we seek to justify ourselves. When we DO GOOD FOR GOD and expect rewards, we are like the elder brother in the prodigal son who is lost. You are attacking religion here, not Christianity!
Are “Atheists Evil”?
Another objection you level that if Christianity is true, then atheists should be evil people. This misconstrues what Christians believe about a lack of faith. Can we do good, humane works as unbelievers. Yes! Can we sense morals and do them—yes! This seems to be what Paul says in Romans 1-2. We do not say that an unbeliever is going to be as evil as they can be because they do not believe God. We have a theological category for this—general revelation. Therefore, as opposed to contradicting Christianity, it actually confirms it! Furthermore, later on in the book you state that there are people (liberals and moderates) who believe but who “don’t know what it is like to really believe in God” (p.83). Couldn’t the same be said for atheists? That is, your morality is contradictory, and that the French Revolution is more of what “true atheism” looks like? If you are going to level this attack at faith, you can level the attack at non-faith (or faith in humanity).
The Goodness of God
The problem of evil is always a difficult one that everyone needs to solve. Either stuff happens or stuff happens for a reason. I choose the latter, but in some ways that is based upon faith. The old question of theodicy, though, has a major flaw in it; God will eliminate evil, but in the meantime allows it to exist. He can destroy it, He knows about it, but He chooses to take a different approach than we might like. This is logical—it is difficult, but not illogical. You choose to believe that stuff just happens but we still get upset about it; we can solve our problems ourselves. This is logical but I find even more difficult, as nothing in the history of the world shows that we can improve things. Shouldn’t the world be getting better; shouldn’t we have less, not more, war? If “reason” is the answer, it is doing a pretty bad job.
Power of Prophecy
You claim that if there was a God who could predict future, he would be a lot more specific about prophecies. This, first of all, is a lucidrous argument on your part. You don’t think that the existence of such a God is possible, so why even bring it up. More importantly, it is a not belief it God that then goes to Scriptures but the other way around; the Scriptures testify to what this God is like. Are they consistent in themselves in how they would portray God? Is He interested in impressing people with mathematical accuracy? No, He is interested in saving people, in redeeming people. The whole Scripture is a testimony about Jesus (John 5:29). Do we see the Scriptures pointing to Christ all throughout. Yes! Therefore, the sort of prophecy we see is what we would expect from its claims itself. Yes, this is a bit of a circular argument, but it is one that is meant to show consistency. Your argument is hypothetical and not convincing. And you do not marshal forth any new objections. For example, the “mistranslation of Isa 7:14,” reflects an extraordinary word used in the Hebrew that the Greek picks up; the virgin birth itself is what moves to the need to examine this passage, it would seem. Why do these prophecies sound like something someone in the first century would say? Because they were spoken of in time and space. Is the God that you oppose one who does come to the world in real-time and space? If so, the God you oppose is not the one who is in the Scriptures.
Science and Religion
Religion and science are not opposed to each other; are philosophy and science? I wonder if you think philosophy is even valid, but to have an ethical discussion, it seems that it is (or a logical discussion). I would put religion in the category of philosophy of METAPHYSICS. By definition, it addresses things that, you admit, science cannot answer. For example, what is the purpose of the world? Is there one? Why are things messed up? Science cannot and does not seek to address these things; religion does. Genesis 1 speaks of the who and the why of creation, things that science can never address. They are addressing different questions. Each arises from a certain set of presuppositions that cannot be proven, only confirmed. Cause and effect cannot be proven but we live in a universe where it gets confirmed (as every scientific theory). If we think of the same idea in the philosophical sphere, then Christianity can be seen to be plausible and fit the universe. For example, the “arguments for the existence of God” are meant to show the plausibility of the existence of God; that it would fit the universe that we have. It only makes sense if you believe and then confirms it. This is how a scientific theory works as well, isn’t it?
The Facts of Life
Which moves perfectly to your questions on intelligent design. The problem with the intelligent design movement. The problem most people make with intelligent design is forgetting that we live in a fallen world according to the biblical testimony. If you believe you Bible, you have to show corruption in the world, in the creation itself, which shows the fall. People that point out the “unintelligent design” (like yourself) do that. Thank you. You actually show that the world we live in matches the world depicted in the Bible. Furthermore, the comment that God must be very interested in beetles makes sense of the Scriptures as well; if He has numbered the hairs on our heads and has His eye on the sparrow, then it would make sense that He would have such an interest in beetles and the creatures of the earth (as well, micro evolution could be a factor which is accepted by most Christians). Rather than demolishing my faith, you have seemed to confirm it in this section!
The Violence of Religion
I would once again turn your claim that those moderates who do not do this do not really believe back upon itself. Those who use violence (in the name of Christianity) do not truly believe the gospel. Those who use religion to oppress others, though, do what people want to do as fallen creatures, be in charge. Religion is a problem because it becomes an –ism, but non-religious ideas can become “ism”’s as well. This does not threaten the gospel message.
I would like to add two thoughts:
What is Absent?
You do not bring historical objections to Christianity, to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Had you done so, if you can show that we cannot trust the accounts that we have, then you are “demolishing” the Christian faith. You look to science, morality, and the like, but if Jesus came and was who he said he was and did what he said he was going to do, then all those objections need to be rethought. He breaks the rules of physical sciences by rising from the dead! Therefore, he breaks your natural mindset. Until you do so, you have not addressed Christianity.
The Old Atheism and the New Atheism
You seem to attack religion and Christendom in many ways. Let us move to the origin of Christianity. Christianity was viewed very different in the first three centuries of the Common Era. It was seen as atheism. As Tim Keller points out in Prodigal God, Christianity was seen as atheism because it had no temple, no sacrifices, no priesthood, etc. It subverted the religious order of the day. It subverts the religious order of our day as well, telling us it is not how good we are but how God is the only solution to our problems. Therefore, the answer is not the New Atheism but the Old Atheism: Christianity. Religion and the religious right is the problem. The gospel and the God of all grace, the God of Jesus Christ, is the solution.
Sorry this is so long, but I still wish I could do more work on it. Thank you for reading it.
Sincerely,
Brian
The Silence of Adam…and My Silence July 15, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality.add a comment
As I have more time to read on the trains to and from school (and my mind can only absorb so much new information and energy), I decided I would re-read a book more for “fun”–or better, for personal enrichment. The book was The Silence of Adam by Larry Crabb (with 2 others). I read this in seminary for a men’s ministry class and remembered it, thought it would be good to read now that I am married. I remembered that I think he touches better on masculinity than “Wild at Heart,” which seems to say that men should be rough warriors, etc. Essentially, the thesis is that the silence of Adam in the Garden (he was there with Eve when she took the fruit, but he did not do or say anything) is how men act in general; we come to the unknown and instead of acting on what we know God has said and desires us to do (use our “image of God” capabilities to reflect His glory), we freeze, we are paralyzed–and do nothing. This leads to “unmanly” men who seek to have some area of expertise, where they always know what to do (work, play, wherever it might be). It also leads to “unmanly” behaviors,” such as being the angry, controlling sort of husband/father/guy or the needy, quiet, man who wants everything to be predictable (they mention these are the two major ways of men behaving). Both are ways of controlling in some ways. Instead, men are called to move and face the unknown of the world. A man is not a “macho” man as much as one who goes forth without fear but with faith. The solution is not “recipe theology” but looking to the transcedent God and moving together in community to reclaim what God has designed us to be.
It struck a chord with me, as I am afraid to move forward. I am the guy who would rather take a walk than swing the bat; to go with the food that I know for-sure I like as opposed to trying something new (or just what is cheapest, as it is lowest risk!). I, too, am silent when it comes to the unknown. I don’t want to mess up. I don’t want to disappoint. I don’t want to fail. I don’t move forward into the unknown but want to stick to what is “reliable.” It is spot on. This leads to me being a “needy” man more than an angry man; it still is a way to be in control and not live up to my calling by God. I have seen this more and more as I get married. When I read this in seminary, it challenged me to move forward into ministry and into (eventually) marriage. Having begun ministry, having taken the step into the unknown that is marriage, though, I find myself acting in “unmanly” ways once again. I am content with what I have; or rather, I would rather enjoy order than move into chaos, to bring order and the glory of God.
I realized why it is that I think the guys who can go into the wilderness or the guys who can fix or make anything with power tools are so “manly.” From chaos, the unknown, they know what to do. That is what we are longing to do as men. Not that those are the only ways that we can do it, but the idea that we don’t look for someone else to show us what to do, but we just do it. I get into those venues and have no clue what to do, and I shut down. This is true in other areas of life. But I am called to bring order from chaos, to bring the chaos into the design of God (subdue the earth). I have the commands of God, but I also have his image imprinted in me that I need to extend. That is what I long to do. I can do this in the scholarly world, in the classroom, in the everyday life with my family. This can also be, though, where I have “expertise.” It is a fine line; I should push myself in the areas where I have “expertise,” and not simply look to imitate the experts but take what they have found (as fathers/mentors) but still engage in my own journey. And I need to take this boldness and initative in other ways in my life as well. May I be a man who moves through the power of God. May I be in a community that helps me to do so.
Church Shopping….Lutherans July 14, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
Addendum to the post: I have listened to a few other sermons (including week 1 of the series) and the gospel was there; they do preach the gospel message. That being said, when there is a week when the gospel is not explained, I (as a Christian) miss the good news and fall back into my own works mentality. Just wanted to add that remark.
So, this past weekened Beth and I started our “process of church shopping.” While we think we know the church we will be fellowshiping with over the next few years, we thought it would be good to take some time to look around and see what else is out there. We can learn about other churches, ourselves, and, hopefully, God as well. Of course, my wife is very patient with me because I have my own peculiar ways of researching and considering churches [I am getting better]. I don’t want to be critical as much as learn and consider things, better defining who I am as a minister and how to help others in ministry. On the whole, it is a bit strange to go to church as an “outsider” and to simply go, but now I remember what this is like! That aside, here are some observations on our visit to a conservative Lutheran church this past week (I won’t name names).
-Lutherans have always been a bit strange to me. I haven’t really known a conservative Lutheran (at least one who is studying theology). One thing I realized in doing a bit of research that morning is that Lutheran-Missouri Synod seems even more conservative doctrinally than myself in the PCA, as they deem 6 day creationism and amilliennialism to be points of doctrine that pastors must hold. In addition, it sounds like one of the reasons I didn’t run into many Lutherans at Trinity (where I ran into just about everything else), was that their pastors have to go to one of their seminaries (I belive there are 2). I realized that in the PCA, we have Covenant, Westminister (2 campuses), Reformed Theological Seminary (multiple campuses), in addition to those of us who go to places like Trinity or Gordon Conwell. You even get the occasional Fuller, Beeson, or grad of another seminary. It seems a lot more eclectic in terms of training; while there is a stream, there are also multiple places people go. In addition, I realized I don’t know of any LCMS in the Gospel Coalition; they are also not in the National Association of Evangelicals. While NAE has its own issues at times, it almost seems that LCMS is even more separatistic, not necessarily in the conservative baptist sort of way, but that this church is almost outside of the usual evangelical circuit. Interesting thoughts that someone like me, not someone like my wife, would probably care about
-The service was not liturgical (they have traditional and contemporary services), it was contemporary. In many ways, it reminded me more of my roots than where I have landed now; while NPC is contemporary, I always feel that it is a different sort of contemporary than other services I have been a part of. The sermon was more topical, though the pastor did do some exegesis (though, being the NT scholar, I am not sure if I agree with some conclusions). Something I realized is how I have grown used to KNOWING the musicians personally; when you don’t know musicians in a contemporary service, you wonder sometimes if they are performing or worshipping. When you know them, you usually know that they are worshipping. So I had to think through my heart on it. The songs were mostly Vineyard and Contemporary Christian (had they done some Redman, Tomlin, Crowder, Sovereign Grace, etc., I probably would have been more comfortable! But that’s not the point). I worshipped, but I also wondered if all the songs are simply “happy” songs; they were all upbeat, etc. As I have learned by hanging out with worship leaders, we need these songs but we also need doctrinal songs, reflective songs, songs of confession, thanksfulness, and (maybe someday we will do these) lament songs. I would need to go back multiple times to see if this is a usual style. I continue to wrestle in my heart with whether I am more liturgical or contemporary; I feel like I am somewhere in between. I want creeds, confessions of faith, etc. but I also don’t want a pipe organ. And bottom line: I can worship God through whatever! God was glorified in the worship that morning.
-The sermon had some good content; the pastor is a good communicator. As he spoke, though, I wondered about Dr. Lorritis’ distinction between communicators and preachers. There is a difference; not sure if he really was a “preacher” in the true-est sense. While there were some good challenges–to love others, not judge them–the thing it missed was the gospel. Beth and I both said this after the service. Why don’t we need to wear masks? Because we can’t before God and we are saved by His grace alone. Why is it so difficult? Because in my heart, I think I am better than others. If there is something that I have seen grow in my heart over the past few years, it has been the need to ground everything in the gospel and when giving a challenge, to ask why it is difficult (which is because we DON’T believe the gospel in our hearts). I discovered some of my preaching style and what I want to hear in a sermon in this process.
-On the whole, there was some irony in that the sermon was about being welcoming to others and we really did not feel welcomed. While we got a few “hello”s and “good morning”s, no one seemed to ask for our names, stories, or take an interest in us as PEOPLE. We know that there were some regular attenders in our area as well. As Beth and I talked about this experience, in addition to being ironic, it was also challenging to us as we plan on being regular attenders somewhere.
-Communion was a bit confusing. I thought through some logistical elements for my own administration. In addition, though, I still don’t understand what Lutherans expect a person to believe about the real presence of Christ in communion. I am a “sign and a seal,” a “spiritual presence” in a special way guy. Is that good enough for them? Interestingly, at a PCA church, since we don’t say whether you do or don’t believe in the “real body and blood,” a Lutheran would probably feel more welcome to come to the talk. Once again, I see the need for myself to be more clear in the gospel conent and the logistics of the meal.
God is using this church, I am sure. I just don’t think we will be joining His work there (other issues: we are looking for a smaller church and I am not a big fan of churches that have different styles of worship in the multiple services, so it already had some strikes against it), but I will pray for them, recommend them to those who are looking for a church, and hope to understand the Lutherans a bit better.
