Well, I was hoping by now that I'd have some one in line for my next discussion. Unfortunately I've been caught up in some other things that have taken up my time.
I was hoping to do something around the topic of Christianity and evolution, and here's why: Evolution has been become a bit of a hot topic, and there are a lot of different ways the debate has been framed. For example, many conservative Christians believe in what's typically called Creationism. Creationism is more or less the understanding that God created the world in 6 days, or 6 distinct periods of time, as is described in Genesis 1 or 2. This is often seen as in direct opposition to evolution. The vast majority of scientists, whether they have a particular agenda against Christianity or not, view the world as having come about by some process of evolution over millions or billions of years.
Without getting into too much detail I think it's important to distinguish between what evolution is, and what people believe it implies. That is, there is an assumption that evolutionary processes happen by completely blind forces and therefore gives a valid excuse to keep God out of the picture. This is what's known as materialistic naturalism. There's also an assumption from atheists and even some Christians that creationists are a bunch of obscurantist, ignorant people that haven't caught up with reality.
Anyway, some important questions being asked: Does Genesis 1 or 2 conflict with scientific evidence? What implications does evolution have, if any, for Christians? What about the historic Adam? What about original sin? What about redemption?
An interesting topic indeed...
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Monday, March 05, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 3 - My Response
Welcome back to our conversations with M.K. and the LGBT controversies. If you haven't read any of the conversation thus far I invite you to read part 1 and 2 as it will help give context to the following post. M.K. has graciously answered a few general questions on where he sits personally on LGBT issues, and at this point I'm offering my own response. Although provocative, it should be made clear from the onset that this response is not a personal attack on M.K. It is merely a means to probing us both deeper into what we believe and why we believe it.
Speaking of, I would like to invite you readers to pose your own questions. M.K. has indicated to me that this is an extremely busy time right now so don't expect a rapid response. There is so much that could be said and asked, so please, go right ahead. Enjoy.
M.K., I’d like to thank you once again for taking the time out to answer these questions for me. I’m glad it has been enjoyable for you. It’s certainly been fun for me as well.
Part 1: The Question of Same-Sex Marriage
To start, I’d like to begin where we left off, regarding the questions of same sex marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to citizens of the U.S. are bound primarily to its constitution. Recently, the U.S. supreme court (whose responsibility is, in part, to interpret the constitution) ruled that under the constitution that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. This means, at the very least, that the door is still left open for states to recognize same-sex marriage.
I’m not an American, and neither have I read the U.S. constitution. Whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutionally acceptable is not something I’m particularly capable of answering. Regardless, I do know that the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey. S. White, in explaining the ruling, said that “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group. I think that you and I would both agree that marriage is something more than “tradition alone.” Rather, it is a covenant before God, instituted by God, for His glory, as a pattern set forth for human flourishing. It’s more than a practical social contract that’s been passed through the ages.
Nevertheless, you state that you “support the right of marriage equality...from the perspective of a citizen of the USA.” And that you “believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.” Is it because of the U.S. system that you support same-sex marriage? Suppose the U.S. Constitution flatly denies the possibility of any marriage arrangement beyond one man and one woman. Would that mean you would no longer support it? Or is there something beyond a nation’s constitution that ought to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry?
As for the church, it may not directly impact their ability to discriminate who they marry, it nevertheless remains a concern. For example, suppose a same-sex couple is recognized by the state as being married, and they begin attending a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage. What is the church to say to them? This where the church must answer the question: What is Marriage? The church may say that even if from a legal perspective they are married, they are nevertheless not actually married. This is because the state only recognizes marriage, but it does not institute marriage. According to the church’s definition of marriage this same-sex couple’s marriage cannot be recognized within the church.
This isn’t just an intramural question for churches. As a Christian, I believe that one of the church’s chief responsibilities is to be a herald of God’s Truth. I do not believe that one’s beliefs are merely private. So while it isn’t the church’s responsibility to write up a blueprint for a nation building, or foreign policy, or economics, etc., it does have responsibility to call out the state when it crosses the line. This is why, when it comes to marriage, the church doesn’t deal with these issues merely within its own walls.
But going back to the issue of the state, if the U.S. system is set up to allow same-sex marriage, what about other non-traditional marriages? Would the same arguments that apply to the acceptance of same-sex marriage also apply to the recognition of marriages between a man and several wives, or pedophilia, or any number of other arrangements? And if so, it also brings into question what interest the state has in recognizing personal arrangements. Why bother with it at all?
It all begs the question: is the granting of same-sex unions an innate right, or the collective will to power?
Part 2: On Sexual Identity
I believe you’ve touched on something a lot of Christians, myself included, and people in the church have not been called out on enough, and that would be their categorization of people based on their sexual orientation. The bottom line is it doesn’t help anyone, and we ought to repent of our errors. The truth is, at the end of the day, we’re all sinners. We’ve all fallen short, and we’re all deserving of God’s wrath, in desperate need of grace.
It seems to me there have generally been two ends of a spectrum that has defined the way we speak about LGBT issues. On the one end, there’s Lady Ga Ga’s “Born This Way” perspective. Through no fault of our own, we are the way we are because that’s just the way we were born. In this perspective, homosexuality is biologically determinative.
I remember a conversation with an old friend a few years ago who said he was gay. (Not as an identity, but as a descriptive term). He believed that homosexuality was a sin, and sought forgiveness and repentance for his behaviours. He later attended an Exodus conference where he hoped to be “cured” of his homosexuality. I told him I personally doubted the effectiveness of a 2 day conference. When he returned he thought it worked, but sure enough, within a couple weeks he was right back to the way he was. It seemed it was deeply ingrained into his nature. His story is very common.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that people are biologically determined to be homosexual. They believe the problem lies on the other end of the spectrum. They insist it’s entirely a personal choice, and if that if they just repented they could stop what they’re doing. In this perspective homosexuality is an entirely willful decision.
Research shows that neither position is entirely valid. There has been no “gay gene” discovered, but there may be certain biological factors which may contribute to the way one is sexually oriented. Even these biological factors are unclear as to whether they are the root cause. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as is the case with human brain physiology. There have also been many sociological factors that seem to have an effect on sexual orientation, such as the absence of a Father, or child abuse, etc. While there isn’t one particular scenario that guarantees a certain result, it does suggest that sexual behaviour and orientation is influenced in part by our experiences. Furthermore, sexual orientation is itself not categorically one way or another as the labels may suggest. Even ones sexual orientation seems to fall somewhere on a spectrum.
Unlike the story of my friend who was unsuccessfully “cured” of his homosexuality, there are plenty of stories of men and women who once were attracted to people of their own gender from puberty into adulthood, who later became attracted to people of the opposite sex. This suggests that change can and does happen, even if not overnight or in a complete 180 degree turn. This shows that sexual orientation is fluid, rather than fixed.
In any case none of this should be all that surprising. As a fallen human race we have been given over to all sorts of behaviours and temptations. Heterosexuality is not a saviour to the sexual deviant of any sort. The heterosexual is guilty of sexual sin as much as the next person. No man can perfectly live up to the ideals that God had originally instituted in creation. Whether slave or free, Gentile or Jew, Male or Female, we’re all guilty parties.
Response Part 3 - Gender Roles
I believe that the Bible’s authors unanimously agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible begins with a wedding where God gives Adam a woman, Eve, to unite them together in marriage. While it’s a human institution that reflects human culture, it’s still God’s idea, so it’s crucial for us to understand what the Bible has to say about it. Attempts have been made to re-interpret Scripture to justify alternatives, but I don’t think any of them have been truly successful.
You mention that “many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal.” I know what you’re saying and I agree. I think that’s tantamount to worldliness. It’s more about promoting old American family values than a truly Biblical portrait of marriage. At the same time the ancient wisdom of the Bible is deeply penetrating, often offending our modern western sensibilities. Even if the Biblical portrait of marriage isn’t necessarily the 1950s housewife, we can’t write it off as being outdated or regressive. Even in the culture of the Apostle Paul’s time his messages on marriage, sex, and even singleness would’ve been radical to many.
You write “[Mark Driscoll] is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about.” I personally don’t know Driscoll’s ideas on gender, although I think I may have an idea. Without bothering to speculate, what the Gospel of freedom does to gender roles could mean just about anything depending on where you go with it. It’s a loaded term to say the least.
Freedom is an interesting idea, and I think the how the Bible uses the term is quite different than how it’s often seen today. I like to think of it as follows: When God created the world, and all was good, it was made that all may flourish. Indeed, it was God’s command in Genesis 1:28 that we “be fruitful and increase in number; [and] fill the earth and subdue it.” All this could happen under the condition that Adam and Eve not eat the forbidden fruit. That would bring about a curse, destruction, death.
What is good allows us to flourish. It sets us free. What is bad will lead to our own destruction: death. But what allows us to flourish is to act in accordance with God’s original design in creation. People today see freedom as though it were the absence of restriction. For the Christian, however, freedom is a result of the obedience to the right restrictions. Adam and Eve only experienced true freedom so long as they were obedient to God’s conditions.
Ever since the Fall mankind has been on a path of destruction. Only through the redeeming work of Christ will we be able to experience true freedom again. With all this in mind, how does this speak to gender roles?
The Bible speaks of three institutions that stand apart from anything else--the Family, the Church, and the State. Apart from these there are businesses, sports, and any number of enterprises that the Bible doesn’t directly address or regulate. So long as we act in line with the principles that the Bible commands we are free to invent and operate these enterprises as we please.
If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, this suggests that there are certain differences in the roles of the genders, and I think the Bible speaks this way. Ephesians 5 comes to mind. The two opposites compliment each other, but they may not necessarily be interchangeable. Both genders have their own uniqueness, a purposeful part of God’s creation.
Outside the church and the family, however, I think the role of the man or woman isn’t nearly as directly regulated. For example, unlike the idea of the 1950s house-wife, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to engage in an enterprise outside the home as she sees fit. But whether either spouse is in a career or not, the husband and wife have responsibilities to their own marriage, family and the church that are a priority.
At this point I must admit my own ignorance as far as Biblical studies of gender roles go. You’ve brought to my attention something I’ve obviously taken for granted. That said, I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Paul’s principles of the conscience as laid out in Romans 14 are a good example of somewhere to start. On the one hand, I think there are attributes inescapably unique to each gender that go beyond mere physicality. I think it’s only appropriate that we act in accordance with the way God intended. On the other hand there are many things both genders share by virtue of simply being human, and we ought to examine our prejudices. But as Christians we must always keep in mind the very foundations that inform our beliefs, and to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.” (Romans 9:19).
M.K. This has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion so far, and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m sure you’ve heard similar comments and arguments from others, but I’m very curious to hear your reaction. I trust that while we may continue to disagree with each other we will at least mutually respect the right to our hold our views.
Speaking of, I would like to invite you readers to pose your own questions. M.K. has indicated to me that this is an extremely busy time right now so don't expect a rapid response. There is so much that could be said and asked, so please, go right ahead. Enjoy.
M.K., I’d like to thank you once again for taking the time out to answer these questions for me. I’m glad it has been enjoyable for you. It’s certainly been fun for me as well.
Part 1: The Question of Same-Sex Marriage
To start, I’d like to begin where we left off, regarding the questions of same sex marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to citizens of the U.S. are bound primarily to its constitution. Recently, the U.S. supreme court (whose responsibility is, in part, to interpret the constitution) ruled that under the constitution that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. This means, at the very least, that the door is still left open for states to recognize same-sex marriage.
I’m not an American, and neither have I read the U.S. constitution. Whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutionally acceptable is not something I’m particularly capable of answering. Regardless, I do know that the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey. S. White, in explaining the ruling, said that “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group. I think that you and I would both agree that marriage is something more than “tradition alone.” Rather, it is a covenant before God, instituted by God, for His glory, as a pattern set forth for human flourishing. It’s more than a practical social contract that’s been passed through the ages.
Nevertheless, you state that you “support the right of marriage equality...from the perspective of a citizen of the USA.” And that you “believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.” Is it because of the U.S. system that you support same-sex marriage? Suppose the U.S. Constitution flatly denies the possibility of any marriage arrangement beyond one man and one woman. Would that mean you would no longer support it? Or is there something beyond a nation’s constitution that ought to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry?
As for the church, it may not directly impact their ability to discriminate who they marry, it nevertheless remains a concern. For example, suppose a same-sex couple is recognized by the state as being married, and they begin attending a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage. What is the church to say to them? This where the church must answer the question: What is Marriage? The church may say that even if from a legal perspective they are married, they are nevertheless not actually married. This is because the state only recognizes marriage, but it does not institute marriage. According to the church’s definition of marriage this same-sex couple’s marriage cannot be recognized within the church.
This isn’t just an intramural question for churches. As a Christian, I believe that one of the church’s chief responsibilities is to be a herald of God’s Truth. I do not believe that one’s beliefs are merely private. So while it isn’t the church’s responsibility to write up a blueprint for a nation building, or foreign policy, or economics, etc., it does have responsibility to call out the state when it crosses the line. This is why, when it comes to marriage, the church doesn’t deal with these issues merely within its own walls.
But going back to the issue of the state, if the U.S. system is set up to allow same-sex marriage, what about other non-traditional marriages? Would the same arguments that apply to the acceptance of same-sex marriage also apply to the recognition of marriages between a man and several wives, or pedophilia, or any number of other arrangements? And if so, it also brings into question what interest the state has in recognizing personal arrangements. Why bother with it at all?
It all begs the question: is the granting of same-sex unions an innate right, or the collective will to power?
Part 2: On Sexual Identity
I believe you’ve touched on something a lot of Christians, myself included, and people in the church have not been called out on enough, and that would be their categorization of people based on their sexual orientation. The bottom line is it doesn’t help anyone, and we ought to repent of our errors. The truth is, at the end of the day, we’re all sinners. We’ve all fallen short, and we’re all deserving of God’s wrath, in desperate need of grace.
It seems to me there have generally been two ends of a spectrum that has defined the way we speak about LGBT issues. On the one end, there’s Lady Ga Ga’s “Born This Way” perspective. Through no fault of our own, we are the way we are because that’s just the way we were born. In this perspective, homosexuality is biologically determinative.
I remember a conversation with an old friend a few years ago who said he was gay. (Not as an identity, but as a descriptive term). He believed that homosexuality was a sin, and sought forgiveness and repentance for his behaviours. He later attended an Exodus conference where he hoped to be “cured” of his homosexuality. I told him I personally doubted the effectiveness of a 2 day conference. When he returned he thought it worked, but sure enough, within a couple weeks he was right back to the way he was. It seemed it was deeply ingrained into his nature. His story is very common.
Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that people are biologically determined to be homosexual. They believe the problem lies on the other end of the spectrum. They insist it’s entirely a personal choice, and if that if they just repented they could stop what they’re doing. In this perspective homosexuality is an entirely willful decision.
Research shows that neither position is entirely valid. There has been no “gay gene” discovered, but there may be certain biological factors which may contribute to the way one is sexually oriented. Even these biological factors are unclear as to whether they are the root cause. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as is the case with human brain physiology. There have also been many sociological factors that seem to have an effect on sexual orientation, such as the absence of a Father, or child abuse, etc. While there isn’t one particular scenario that guarantees a certain result, it does suggest that sexual behaviour and orientation is influenced in part by our experiences. Furthermore, sexual orientation is itself not categorically one way or another as the labels may suggest. Even ones sexual orientation seems to fall somewhere on a spectrum.
Unlike the story of my friend who was unsuccessfully “cured” of his homosexuality, there are plenty of stories of men and women who once were attracted to people of their own gender from puberty into adulthood, who later became attracted to people of the opposite sex. This suggests that change can and does happen, even if not overnight or in a complete 180 degree turn. This shows that sexual orientation is fluid, rather than fixed.
In any case none of this should be all that surprising. As a fallen human race we have been given over to all sorts of behaviours and temptations. Heterosexuality is not a saviour to the sexual deviant of any sort. The heterosexual is guilty of sexual sin as much as the next person. No man can perfectly live up to the ideals that God had originally instituted in creation. Whether slave or free, Gentile or Jew, Male or Female, we’re all guilty parties.
Response Part 3 - Gender Roles
I believe that the Bible’s authors unanimously agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible begins with a wedding where God gives Adam a woman, Eve, to unite them together in marriage. While it’s a human institution that reflects human culture, it’s still God’s idea, so it’s crucial for us to understand what the Bible has to say about it. Attempts have been made to re-interpret Scripture to justify alternatives, but I don’t think any of them have been truly successful.
You mention that “many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal.” I know what you’re saying and I agree. I think that’s tantamount to worldliness. It’s more about promoting old American family values than a truly Biblical portrait of marriage. At the same time the ancient wisdom of the Bible is deeply penetrating, often offending our modern western sensibilities. Even if the Biblical portrait of marriage isn’t necessarily the 1950s housewife, we can’t write it off as being outdated or regressive. Even in the culture of the Apostle Paul’s time his messages on marriage, sex, and even singleness would’ve been radical to many.
You write “[Mark Driscoll] is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about.” I personally don’t know Driscoll’s ideas on gender, although I think I may have an idea. Without bothering to speculate, what the Gospel of freedom does to gender roles could mean just about anything depending on where you go with it. It’s a loaded term to say the least.
Freedom is an interesting idea, and I think the how the Bible uses the term is quite different than how it’s often seen today. I like to think of it as follows: When God created the world, and all was good, it was made that all may flourish. Indeed, it was God’s command in Genesis 1:28 that we “be fruitful and increase in number; [and] fill the earth and subdue it.” All this could happen under the condition that Adam and Eve not eat the forbidden fruit. That would bring about a curse, destruction, death.
What is good allows us to flourish. It sets us free. What is bad will lead to our own destruction: death. But what allows us to flourish is to act in accordance with God’s original design in creation. People today see freedom as though it were the absence of restriction. For the Christian, however, freedom is a result of the obedience to the right restrictions. Adam and Eve only experienced true freedom so long as they were obedient to God’s conditions.
Ever since the Fall mankind has been on a path of destruction. Only through the redeeming work of Christ will we be able to experience true freedom again. With all this in mind, how does this speak to gender roles?
The Bible speaks of three institutions that stand apart from anything else--the Family, the Church, and the State. Apart from these there are businesses, sports, and any number of enterprises that the Bible doesn’t directly address or regulate. So long as we act in line with the principles that the Bible commands we are free to invent and operate these enterprises as we please.
If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, this suggests that there are certain differences in the roles of the genders, and I think the Bible speaks this way. Ephesians 5 comes to mind. The two opposites compliment each other, but they may not necessarily be interchangeable. Both genders have their own uniqueness, a purposeful part of God’s creation.
Outside the church and the family, however, I think the role of the man or woman isn’t nearly as directly regulated. For example, unlike the idea of the 1950s house-wife, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to engage in an enterprise outside the home as she sees fit. But whether either spouse is in a career or not, the husband and wife have responsibilities to their own marriage, family and the church that are a priority.
At this point I must admit my own ignorance as far as Biblical studies of gender roles go. You’ve brought to my attention something I’ve obviously taken for granted. That said, I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Paul’s principles of the conscience as laid out in Romans 14 are a good example of somewhere to start. On the one hand, I think there are attributes inescapably unique to each gender that go beyond mere physicality. I think it’s only appropriate that we act in accordance with the way God intended. On the other hand there are many things both genders share by virtue of simply being human, and we ought to examine our prejudices. But as Christians we must always keep in mind the very foundations that inform our beliefs, and to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.” (Romans 9:19).
M.K. This has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion so far, and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m sure you’ve heard similar comments and arguments from others, but I’m very curious to hear your reaction. I trust that while we may continue to disagree with each other we will at least mutually respect the right to our hold our views.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 2
Welcome to the second instalment of my interviews with M.K. I would like to share my gratitude once again to M.K. who has graciously been willing to partake in these interviews, especially given his very busy schedule these days. While I can't say I speak for all of them, I believe it's fair to say that most of the readers of this blog share opinions that are much different than M.K. As such I ask that you once again extend to him the respect M.K. deserves, especially given the nature of the conversation. However, I'm sure he would love your questions and feedback and on his behalf I'm inviting you to submit your own questions in the comments section. Part 1 can be found here.
You recommend the book "The End of Sexual Identity." What is the main thrust of the book?
The main thrust of Paris’ book is that we as Christians have simply given in to accepting the social constructions made by society, this happens in a multitude of ways.
How does the author aim to frame the debate?
She specifically focuses on how we as Christians have simply accepted the current system of sexuality as something that has always existed. In her mind, it is improper to think of heterosexual and homosexual as fixed eternal categories. Ultimately all our desire should be pointed toward God, and our identity is to be found in Christ, not in who we are sexually attracted to.
How has this changed your view?
Having studied a lot of gender theory related works; I was finding myself in agreement with her on basic concepts. Our current system for understanding sexuality and identity is just that, our current concept that fits our worldviews.
This is of course not to say that LGBT individuals have an invalid identity, as it is impossible to completely separate ourselves from our social and cultural contexts and worldviews. And LGBT persons have a rich history of existing in many cultures and places throughout history, but they most likely did not understand themselves in the same way we may know.
If I had to say that her book changed my view in one specific way though, I would say that it really did convince me that there are other ways to discuss these debates than the current framework we seem to be using of all or nothing.
How have we used sexual identity in ways that are unhelpful? What are some better alternatives?
I think that most people are missing out on seeing just how much variety there is in personal identity. We should not be forced to pick either straight or gay, and more people should be encouraged to find their identity outside of relationships-whether straight or gay.
I would like to note, that from personal conversation with Paris, that both she and I would believe that the Transgender discussion in the Church needs to happen separately and independently from discussion of gay and lesbian issues.
If the transgender discussion ought to be separate from the Gay and Lesbian issues, perhaps it would helpful to clarify what Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender all mean, and how one may be distinct from another.
In a basic distinction, lesbian gay and bisexual all relate to sexuality, where as the transgender umbrella of terms relates to issues of gender identity and personal gender expression.
A lesbian is a woman attracted to women, someone who is gay is a male attracted to men, a bisexual person may find themselves attracted to either sex. A term which is gaining steam in the LGBT community is pansexual, which means you are more attracted to individuals and their personalities than their gender or sex. I like to jokingly say that it means that it all pans out when you find the right person.
Transgender is an umbrella term. Before getting into type of transgender individuals, you must understand four terms. Sex is the biological pieces that you are born with. This would be the physical categories of male and female, as well as intersex. Gender and gender expression are the social rules and concepts which relate to how we express ourselves and also relate to gender identity, which is how we identify ourselves as male or female (or something else entirely)
So, someone who is transgender could be an individual who express themselves as a cross dresser, but does not have any disconnect between their gender identity and sex. Or individuals whose gender identity does not match their biological sex, and choose to either express this in some way, or if the disconnect is bad enough, some will desire to physically transition sexes.
I hope that is a helpful start to understanding a wide world of terms.
Can we still use terms heterosexual and homosexual as merely descriptive?
I think even in light of Paris' thoughts, we still can use the social terms that are at our convenience. We are social creatures, and we cannot completely detach ourselves from our modern world views.
Every culture has set its own norms, taboos, and expectations for Gender roles. But are gender roles arbitrarily dictated by the culture?
This would relate to the term gender expression that I mentioned earlier. Gender and sex are intimately related. Personally I think that there is an innate nature of some level of gender identity, whether as male or female, or something androgynous. We in turn may find out whether this relates to our biological sex, and based on our societies and personal feelings we will choose how we express it. So in my opinion, gender is both innate and built by society.
Do you see certain Biblical expectations toward being a man or a woman?
Personally I would say not. I do think the bible can speak into cultural expectations, and can speak to us as people enmeshed in our societies gender roles. However, in my mind much of the gendered discussion in scripture is more related to cultural concepts of the time and pointed towards a wider biblical vision of equality between all people. To me a key verse is Paul saying in Galatians that in Christ there is no male or female, and that distinction was as trivial to our christian identity as Jew and gentile.
I recently wrote a paper for an independent study where I attempted to examine redemptive history from a transgender standpoint, and to understand how we read a lot of gender assumptions into scripture. It was a very rewarding paper.
Paul speaks to the Galatians about our true identity being found in Christ rather than our ethnicity, our status in society, or our gender. By doing so he demonstrates that our identity is given by grace alone through faith alone rather than some inherited, achieved, or innate status. In your opinion, what are some ways that gender has negatively effected the way we read about redemption?
The first thing that comes to mind is Mark Driscoll. He is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about. Many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal. The biblical ideal is that we are one in Christ, and that should never be used as a way to claim authority over another human being.
I don't know if I would say that it has caused us to understand redemption itself improperly, but our gender ideals often get in the way of the church and community functioning in a more biblical and healthy way.
I know you to be someone who supports gay marriage. Why have you chosen this position? Would you consider it a "right?" Why or why not?
It is true that I support the right of marriage equality. In doing so, I am speaking from the perspective of a citizen of the USA, and in the context of our politics, my answers may not speak into other political contexts. I believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.
I do not believe this infringes upon Churches either. Churches are allowed to set up their own standards to "discriminate" on who they marry. For example, when I was married in a Catholic church, I had to go through a certain amount of counseling and such before being allowed to be married. Churches can marry whom they want, and deny others, as long as it is not just a random standard.
In fact, I think it is a triumph of the concept of marriage to see that gay couples desire the life long commitment that marriage means.
The historical Christian consensus is that homosexuality (as a behavioural pattern) is a sin. In other words, it's a question of whether it's intrinsically right or wrong. Agree or disagree, and why?
I will admit at this point that I have put far more effort into studying biblical issues relating to transgenderism than I have researching into the biblical issues surrounding homosexuality. However, I have a lot of people who I know have put serious time into researching it, and come away believing that one can be gay, in a relationship, and Christian, and I would agree.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 1
I'd like to introduce you to someone, who for now, will be named MK. Those readers who may already know who I'm referring to likely know him personally. But in the interest of maintaining privacy over sensitive personal information, we will leave it at that unless he decides at a later time to fully disclose his identity. What is about to follow is the beginning of a series of interviews with MK and his perspective on the controversies of LGBT. MK is someone I've known for a few years now. I am very grateful for his willingness to take time to participate in these interviews, especially given the sensitive nature of the content. As such, I ask that you give him the respect he deserves for doing so. He is my friend. Although I've learned much from him already, and have much more to learn, we maintain different perspectives on these issues. This is not an endorsement. The aim is to have a respectful, comfortable platform with which to dialogue so that, ultimately, we can all benefit in one way or another. At the very least it will help us examine our own beliefs so that we will better know what we believe, and why we believe it.
*Note* This is MK's first submission. It has been reformatted from an original document in order to fit the desired format. The original letter will be posted later.
Ben: First of all, for those who don't know, what does LGBT stand for, and who are these people?
MK: For those that are not as familiar with that acronym as I am, LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. It is used as a quick and easy way to summarize all of those who fall outside the norms of understanding and expressing their sexuality and gender identity. These are those who find that their sexual attraction does not fall neatly into the heterosexual norm, or those who find that their gender identity does not match the biological sex which they were born into. And this is a community of people who have been hurt and ostracized. By friends, family, and their church homes.
Ben: How would you describe yourself among those terms?
MK: I have experienced the pain and the hurt first hand, as I identify under the broad transgender terminology. I felt the pain of spending the first 20 years of my life hiding a part of my identity, but I have also felt the pain of losing friends who want nothing to do with me after they find out. I knew from a young age that the boy box did not seem to fit me properly, but did not find out that my feelings fit a broader concept of being transgender till about middle school. I tried to pray it away, I tried to hide it, I tried to be someone else, but I just could not escape that it was a part of my identity. I am a Christian, who happens to also be transgender
Ben: In your opinion, what do you find are some common misperceptions regarding the LGBT community and where do you stand as someone trying to change those misperceptions?
MK: One author whose dialogue on this issue that I particularly enjoyed, is Jenell Williams Paris, who is a professor at Messiah College, and wrote The End of Sexual Identity, which is a high caliber unbiased look at how we have taken this debate in a completely wrong direction. I would recommend it to everyone.
While primarily advocating for Transgender faith issues, which are a concept many denominations or individuals have not even begun to grasp with, I am involved in wider LGBT faith advocacy, particularly through GIFT, a group that exists to advocate and support LGBT Christians. And in my own organization, the Transgender Education Collaboration. In my experiences I have encountered a multitude of opinions on these topics, and I am sure that many of you readers may find yourself of differing opinions than myself.
But I hope that with this dialogue we can all come away with an understanding that these are deeply personal issues, and should perhaps not be the focus of such public debate and vitriol. I also hope that we as Christians can move away from using language, regardless of where we stand on the issues, which can lead some individuals to depression and self harm or suicide.
I look forward to the conversation to Ben, and hope you all find it to be a blessing.
*Note* This is MK's first submission. It has been reformatted from an original document in order to fit the desired format. The original letter will be posted later.
Ben: First of all, for those who don't know, what does LGBT stand for, and who are these people?
MK: For those that are not as familiar with that acronym as I am, LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. It is used as a quick and easy way to summarize all of those who fall outside the norms of understanding and expressing their sexuality and gender identity. These are those who find that their sexual attraction does not fall neatly into the heterosexual norm, or those who find that their gender identity does not match the biological sex which they were born into. And this is a community of people who have been hurt and ostracized. By friends, family, and their church homes.
Ben: How would you describe yourself among those terms?
MK: I have experienced the pain and the hurt first hand, as I identify under the broad transgender terminology. I felt the pain of spending the first 20 years of my life hiding a part of my identity, but I have also felt the pain of losing friends who want nothing to do with me after they find out. I knew from a young age that the boy box did not seem to fit me properly, but did not find out that my feelings fit a broader concept of being transgender till about middle school. I tried to pray it away, I tried to hide it, I tried to be someone else, but I just could not escape that it was a part of my identity. I am a Christian, who happens to also be transgender
Ben: In your opinion, what do you find are some common misperceptions regarding the LGBT community and where do you stand as someone trying to change those misperceptions?
MK: One author whose dialogue on this issue that I particularly enjoyed, is Jenell Williams Paris, who is a professor at Messiah College, and wrote The End of Sexual Identity, which is a high caliber unbiased look at how we have taken this debate in a completely wrong direction. I would recommend it to everyone.
While primarily advocating for Transgender faith issues, which are a concept many denominations or individuals have not even begun to grasp with, I am involved in wider LGBT faith advocacy, particularly through GIFT, a group that exists to advocate and support LGBT Christians. And in my own organization, the Transgender Education Collaboration. In my experiences I have encountered a multitude of opinions on these topics, and I am sure that many of you readers may find yourself of differing opinions than myself.
But I hope that with this dialogue we can all come away with an understanding that these are deeply personal issues, and should perhaps not be the focus of such public debate and vitriol. I also hope that we as Christians can move away from using language, regardless of where we stand on the issues, which can lead some individuals to depression and self harm or suicide.
I look forward to the conversation to Ben, and hope you all find it to be a blessing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
2012
In 2003, Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" was released to the public and by 2009 it had already sold over 80 million copies worldwide and been adapted to a major motion picture. It's the story of Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor who studying symbols, and a cryptographer named Sophie Nevue of the Paris police department. Robert is supposed to be in Paris on business and ends up getting roped into helping a murder investigation which ends up spiralling them into all sorts of fanciful adventures involving an alternative history of the Christian Church. Dan Brown's ideas were partially inspired by real historical events and partially by conspiracy theories such as Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, and so-called secret societies like Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion.
Aside from the enjoyment of a mystery-detective novel, what the popularity of the book revealed is that many people have a fascination with the possibility of conspiracies in church history, and that not many people know anything about church history in the first place. The main problem, of course, is the use of factual events with a predominantly fabricated history. If you didn't already know better, there was no way to distinguish what was real and what wasn't. Seeking to fill that void in understanding there are many historians who wrote up detailed rejoinders for the book's numerous inaccuracies.
In just this past year, 2011, Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" quickly rose to the top of the best-seller list, clearly striking a chord with a culture that wants to know about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. The blogosphere furiously erupted, giving the book far more publicity than Harper Collins could've hoped for. The book drew vast criticisms against Bell, charging him with the label of a bona-fide universalist. More than that, however, it revealed that many people, believing Christians included, often knew little about the historic doctrines of Heaven and Hell.
Many Christians have denounced these books as heretical, but by virtue of the controversies surrounding them it helped bring a renewed interest in important issues that many people had little or no previous understanding. In fact, many of the questions that were brought up by these books may not have been asked or been taken seriously before by our contemporaries.
Obviously each generation has its particular controversies, and faithful Christian leaders have done well to help answer those questions biblically. In our day we see our countries go to war with questionable justification, we see radical changes in definition of marriage, the prevalence of abortions and even doctor-assisted suicides. We see the growing challenges of maintaining liberty among diverse cultures, an ever-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest, and a world which seems to be moving faster every day. But as the writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us, "What has been will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9). History can teach us many lessons, but we cannot begin to come to grips with these issues without first engaging them.
And that brings us to the theme of my blog for 2012. My aim is not to bring up controversy for the sake of seeking attention, but to provoke serious thought about important issues. To do that this year I will be introducing to you to some personal friends and family members with discussions about some interesting and possibly very personal topics. Some of them hold views that are contrary to my own, but by engaging in dialogue I hope that we will ask the sort of questions that will garner a deeper, richer understanding of God's grace and wisdom in all things.
Join in the conversation, and check back soon for the first dialogues.
Many Christians have denounced these books as heretical, but by virtue of the controversies surrounding them it helped bring a renewed interest in important issues that many people had little or no previous understanding. In fact, many of the questions that were brought up by these books may not have been asked or been taken seriously before by our contemporaries.
Obviously each generation has its particular controversies, and faithful Christian leaders have done well to help answer those questions biblically. In our day we see our countries go to war with questionable justification, we see radical changes in definition of marriage, the prevalence of abortions and even doctor-assisted suicides. We see the growing challenges of maintaining liberty among diverse cultures, an ever-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest, and a world which seems to be moving faster every day. But as the writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us, "What has been will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9). History can teach us many lessons, but we cannot begin to come to grips with these issues without first engaging them.
And that brings us to the theme of my blog for 2012. My aim is not to bring up controversy for the sake of seeking attention, but to provoke serious thought about important issues. To do that this year I will be introducing to you to some personal friends and family members with discussions about some interesting and possibly very personal topics. Some of them hold views that are contrary to my own, but by engaging in dialogue I hope that we will ask the sort of questions that will garner a deeper, richer understanding of God's grace and wisdom in all things.
Join in the conversation, and check back soon for the first dialogues.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
A Bone to Pick
Just so we're clear, I don't like the show Bones. That will probably become abundantly clear as you read this. I find it difficult getting past the predictable plot lines, the shameless plugs from sponsors, and the silly 3D holographic computer an art student brilliantly designed that can re-enact entire sequences of events with nary a mouse click. This computer, with its obligatory pointless beeps, is able to do in 5 seconds what would take weeks to accomplish in real life. It just seems far too convenient for making a 1 hour program. It's all so hokey.
But it's the main character, Bones, with whom I really have a ...uh... bone to pick. If you've seen the show, you probably already know what I'm on about. If not, here goes. Every episode of Bones, at least from what I've seen, follows the same basic pattern. They find a dead body, and a bunch of nerdy people in a lab examine the bones and other microscopic nonsense and are magically able to figure out exactly how, where, and when the victim was killed. Meanwhile, Mr. FBI uses this information to pin down the villain in some clever and entertaining fashion. And there you have a simple recipe for a run-of-the-mill American crime drama.
The main character, Bones, is the brain behind most of the operation. That is, its her expertise as a forensic anthropologist (I'm not making that up) that helps them figure everything out. Her character is very socially awkward, and as a result, very annoying, and one of the reasons for that is her irrational insistence on her own superior rationality.
Now, obviously, that's her schtick. But I wouldn't find it so unbearable if her colleagues could at least give her a good smack upside the head with some good old common sense. But that's not important right now. You see, Bones takes on the persona of a person completely convinced by what we'll call the "scientific worldview." The scientific worldview really isn't scientific at all, it's actually quite philosophical. It basically assumes that all that exists is entirely material, and all can be explained rationally and logically. Like science. I could go on about the inherent inconsistencies within her worldview, but worldviews aren't necessarily consistent to begin with, so I'm not concerned about that.
For Bones anything to do with God is absurd, the stories in the Bible are "myths", and morals, while useful, are merely shaped by cultural contexts. Interestingly, the writers have been able to develop her pattern of thinking quite a lot. They're clever enough to think things through enough to suggest that, perhaps, some of them are convinced by it themselves. And, from what I can tell, there hasn't been much in the way of quality intellectual retorts either. A shame really.
If you found my posts on secularism too boring to read through, watch a few episodes of Bones. She represents that worldview pretty well. And if you did read them you may recall that we shouldn't be surprised by the logic of the ardent secularist. That's because it's the presuppositions that are the problem. I think Bones and the secularists are just too naive to realize that.
The thing about Bones, despite her social ineptitude, is that she is very brilliant and has an incredibly high IQ. She has no problem telling others about it either, which tends to make people feel a little insecure. I think the same is true with secularism against Christianity. It gloats about its own superior rationality. It attempts to relegate Christianity to the fringes, dismissing it as unscientific, irrational nonsense. As a result, many Christians have felt the insecurity of sounding stupid.
But if there is a God, and the word is his revealed Truth, then Christianity cannot be the unscientific, irrational nonsense the secularist makes it out to be. In fact, it's they very height of rationality. The denial of God, of a higher moral order, the original created order of things, and our need of repentance, is the height of irrationality. It's a blatant denial of the Truth.
The Bible talks about the cross being foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) to those who are perishing. It should be no surprise that we sound silly. In fact, even as believers we often have a difficult time accepting the cross. But the real folly is to buy into the idea that Christianity is as much nonsense as the secularist would have us believe.
But it's the main character, Bones, with whom I really have a ...uh... bone to pick. If you've seen the show, you probably already know what I'm on about. If not, here goes. Every episode of Bones, at least from what I've seen, follows the same basic pattern. They find a dead body, and a bunch of nerdy people in a lab examine the bones and other microscopic nonsense and are magically able to figure out exactly how, where, and when the victim was killed. Meanwhile, Mr. FBI uses this information to pin down the villain in some clever and entertaining fashion. And there you have a simple recipe for a run-of-the-mill American crime drama.
The main character, Bones, is the brain behind most of the operation. That is, its her expertise as a forensic anthropologist (I'm not making that up) that helps them figure everything out. Her character is very socially awkward, and as a result, very annoying, and one of the reasons for that is her irrational insistence on her own superior rationality.
Now, obviously, that's her schtick. But I wouldn't find it so unbearable if her colleagues could at least give her a good smack upside the head with some good old common sense. But that's not important right now. You see, Bones takes on the persona of a person completely convinced by what we'll call the "scientific worldview." The scientific worldview really isn't scientific at all, it's actually quite philosophical. It basically assumes that all that exists is entirely material, and all can be explained rationally and logically. Like science. I could go on about the inherent inconsistencies within her worldview, but worldviews aren't necessarily consistent to begin with, so I'm not concerned about that.
For Bones anything to do with God is absurd, the stories in the Bible are "myths", and morals, while useful, are merely shaped by cultural contexts. Interestingly, the writers have been able to develop her pattern of thinking quite a lot. They're clever enough to think things through enough to suggest that, perhaps, some of them are convinced by it themselves. And, from what I can tell, there hasn't been much in the way of quality intellectual retorts either. A shame really.
If you found my posts on secularism too boring to read through, watch a few episodes of Bones. She represents that worldview pretty well. And if you did read them you may recall that we shouldn't be surprised by the logic of the ardent secularist. That's because it's the presuppositions that are the problem. I think Bones and the secularists are just too naive to realize that.
The thing about Bones, despite her social ineptitude, is that she is very brilliant and has an incredibly high IQ. She has no problem telling others about it either, which tends to make people feel a little insecure. I think the same is true with secularism against Christianity. It gloats about its own superior rationality. It attempts to relegate Christianity to the fringes, dismissing it as unscientific, irrational nonsense. As a result, many Christians have felt the insecurity of sounding stupid.
But if there is a God, and the word is his revealed Truth, then Christianity cannot be the unscientific, irrational nonsense the secularist makes it out to be. In fact, it's they very height of rationality. The denial of God, of a higher moral order, the original created order of things, and our need of repentance, is the height of irrationality. It's a blatant denial of the Truth.
The Bible talks about the cross being foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) to those who are perishing. It should be no surprise that we sound silly. In fact, even as believers we often have a difficult time accepting the cross. But the real folly is to buy into the idea that Christianity is as much nonsense as the secularist would have us believe.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Justice and the Christian - Part 2
This is part 2 of a series of justice and Christianity.
In the last article I talked about a protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's finds its ground zero in the geographical epicentre of a corrupt, greedy, capitalist system: Wall Street. The name refers to the 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller amount of wealth than the top 1%. So, being the vast majority of the human populace, there are obviously quite a large number of Christians among them.
And what exactly are they doing about it? Well, it could be anything really.
The ideas of ethics, inalienable rights, fairness, justice and responsibilities owe so much to the foundations of Christian thought. It's difficult to argue for human rights without grounding them in something outside ourselves. So it's no surprise then that Christians are often amongst the forefront of social justice.
In fact, Christians have been involved in social justice in at least two significant movements within the past century. One of those saw the rise of liberation theology in Latin America through the middle of the 20th century. It arose mainly as a response to the growing injustices against the poor in that region, arguably similar to the movement we're seeing today.
Liberation theology, although frowned upon by the Vatican, was mainly a Roman Catholic response. The 99%, on the other hand, seeks to involve anyone earning less than the top 1% of the world's earners. But if the occupy Toronto movement is indicative of the movement at large, it's far less monolithic than liberation theology. The protests were not simply against the growing economic hardships of the middle and lower class, but against wars, the prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, and even bad grammar. One sign read, "Emancipation proclation." I think he meant "proclamation." With no clear message it's difficult to see whether there's really a message at all.
If I could see one thing, however, something that is both implicit and occasionally explicit, is the growing marxist interpretations of the societal problems, and that has definite similarities to the liberation theology movement in Latin America. For them, cooperation, not competition, is the only way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, to promote justice and dignity for the individual, and opportunity and fairness for all.
To be perfectly fair, nowhere does Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter, give us a blueprint for political and economic systems. Neither marxism nor free-market capitalism bears God's proverbial stamp of approval. But that's not to say there haven't been forms of either one that have been influenced, at least in some part, by Christian thought. Christian socialist parties continue to exert influence throughout the world as well as more right-of-centre parties. Churches in America have congregations where both Republicans and Democrats in good conscience sit next to each other in the pew, sharing the same cup and loaf in the supper.
Marxism will not be the saviour to those whose misfortune has been blamed by greedy capitalism. Nor is capitalism the beacon of freedom for those under the tyrannical rule of a communist government. But whatever sort of society you find yourself, good theology forces you to think seriously about how you relate to your neighbour and how you can positively influence the world around you. People like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and Abraham Kuyper probably all had differing ideas on political and economic systems. But each of them, driven by their theology, brought about significant change.
More on this later...
In the last article I talked about a protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's finds its ground zero in the geographical epicentre of a corrupt, greedy, capitalist system: Wall Street. The name refers to the 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller amount of wealth than the top 1%. So, being the vast majority of the human populace, there are obviously quite a large number of Christians among them.
And what exactly are they doing about it? Well, it could be anything really.
The ideas of ethics, inalienable rights, fairness, justice and responsibilities owe so much to the foundations of Christian thought. It's difficult to argue for human rights without grounding them in something outside ourselves. So it's no surprise then that Christians are often amongst the forefront of social justice.
In fact, Christians have been involved in social justice in at least two significant movements within the past century. One of those saw the rise of liberation theology in Latin America through the middle of the 20th century. It arose mainly as a response to the growing injustices against the poor in that region, arguably similar to the movement we're seeing today.
Liberation theology, although frowned upon by the Vatican, was mainly a Roman Catholic response. The 99%, on the other hand, seeks to involve anyone earning less than the top 1% of the world's earners. But if the occupy Toronto movement is indicative of the movement at large, it's far less monolithic than liberation theology. The protests were not simply against the growing economic hardships of the middle and lower class, but against wars, the prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, and even bad grammar. One sign read, "Emancipation proclation." I think he meant "proclamation." With no clear message it's difficult to see whether there's really a message at all.
If I could see one thing, however, something that is both implicit and occasionally explicit, is the growing marxist interpretations of the societal problems, and that has definite similarities to the liberation theology movement in Latin America. For them, cooperation, not competition, is the only way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, to promote justice and dignity for the individual, and opportunity and fairness for all.
To be perfectly fair, nowhere does Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible for that matter, give us a blueprint for political and economic systems. Neither marxism nor free-market capitalism bears God's proverbial stamp of approval. But that's not to say there haven't been forms of either one that have been influenced, at least in some part, by Christian thought. Christian socialist parties continue to exert influence throughout the world as well as more right-of-centre parties. Churches in America have congregations where both Republicans and Democrats in good conscience sit next to each other in the pew, sharing the same cup and loaf in the supper.
Marxism will not be the saviour to those whose misfortune has been blamed by greedy capitalism. Nor is capitalism the beacon of freedom for those under the tyrannical rule of a communist government. But whatever sort of society you find yourself, good theology forces you to think seriously about how you relate to your neighbour and how you can positively influence the world around you. People like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and Abraham Kuyper probably all had differing ideas on political and economic systems. But each of them, driven by their theology, brought about significant change.
More on this later...
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Justice and the 99 percent - Part 1 - Introduction
I'm only an observer of the protest movement called "the 99 percent" that's now beginning to make headlines in mainstream news. In fact, I've only been introduced to it within the last couple weeks. Part of what I see is a people deeply concerned about the increasing difficulties of surviving in tough economic times. The other part is anger and resentment towards the privileged. So how ought Christians think about social justice, wealth, and government? Christians have experienced hard times like this before, so what wisdom have they to pass on? Part 1 - An Introduction...
Thanks to various media outlets covering the riots on Wall Street people have been introduced to a movement that has, apparently, been around for over a decade. They call themselves the 99 percent, a homage to 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller share of national (and indeed international) wealth than the top 1%.
During the economic boom through the late 90s and before 2007 a movement of people disenfranchised with with the rich/poor divide was barely noticeable. But as the recession hit those of us who used to live comfortably with secure jobs suddenly found it hard to pay bills. The United States in particular started witnessing unseen numbers of home foreclosures, and for many more going to the hospital was strictly for emergencies only. After nearly four years of hardly any recovery, the top 1% continue to earn in greater numbers.
It seems there were cracks in the system. Now it's left in a state of woeful disrepair. A movement like this shouldn't be surprising.
Economies rise and fall. There are times of growth, and times of recession. But this recession has shown something remarkably different, and not just in its size and scale. In the past, as recessions hit and demand for products and services diminish, a proportionate amount of the workforce would be laid off. As demand began to return, so would the workforce. In this case, however, increased demand hasn't been bringing back the workforce. Instead, the workload has increased for those who are still lucky enough to have a job. For a variety of reasons employers aren't bringing back the workforce.
And this is where movements like this begin to get angry. Because more work is being accomplished with less labour (typically through what's called company restructuring) this leads to much higher profit margins. Business are sitting on much more money than they have in the past and are either too fearful to spend it or they spread it amongst their own top earners. Hence the big bonuses and pay-raises of the 1%. Apparently "trickle-down" economics just isn't working like it's supposed to.
If the top 1% are taking more for themselves and not spreading it around this leaves a much smaller share of the overall monetary fund for the other 99%. Things are getting tight and now they're beginning to protest. The demands are simple and straightforward. Decent wages, accessible healthcare, and affordable food and shelter. Only they're taking straight aim at what they call the corporate takeover of American democracy.
So where do Christians stand in the crisis? And what does Christianity say about social justice in a suffering system? Check back for part 2...
Thanks to various media outlets covering the riots on Wall Street people have been introduced to a movement that has, apparently, been around for over a decade. They call themselves the 99 percent, a homage to 99% of people who share a proportionately smaller share of national (and indeed international) wealth than the top 1%.
During the economic boom through the late 90s and before 2007 a movement of people disenfranchised with with the rich/poor divide was barely noticeable. But as the recession hit those of us who used to live comfortably with secure jobs suddenly found it hard to pay bills. The United States in particular started witnessing unseen numbers of home foreclosures, and for many more going to the hospital was strictly for emergencies only. After nearly four years of hardly any recovery, the top 1% continue to earn in greater numbers.
It seems there were cracks in the system. Now it's left in a state of woeful disrepair. A movement like this shouldn't be surprising.
Economies rise and fall. There are times of growth, and times of recession. But this recession has shown something remarkably different, and not just in its size and scale. In the past, as recessions hit and demand for products and services diminish, a proportionate amount of the workforce would be laid off. As demand began to return, so would the workforce. In this case, however, increased demand hasn't been bringing back the workforce. Instead, the workload has increased for those who are still lucky enough to have a job. For a variety of reasons employers aren't bringing back the workforce.
And this is where movements like this begin to get angry. Because more work is being accomplished with less labour (typically through what's called company restructuring) this leads to much higher profit margins. Business are sitting on much more money than they have in the past and are either too fearful to spend it or they spread it amongst their own top earners. Hence the big bonuses and pay-raises of the 1%. Apparently "trickle-down" economics just isn't working like it's supposed to.
If the top 1% are taking more for themselves and not spreading it around this leaves a much smaller share of the overall monetary fund for the other 99%. Things are getting tight and now they're beginning to protest. The demands are simple and straightforward. Decent wages, accessible healthcare, and affordable food and shelter. Only they're taking straight aim at what they call the corporate takeover of American democracy.
So where do Christians stand in the crisis? And what does Christianity say about social justice in a suffering system? Check back for part 2...
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
A Defense of the Rational - Part 2 - Dealing with Doubt
This is part 2 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt.
In the last post I argued that both special and general revelation must, by definition, be mutually true. So when we see an apparent contradiction between the two that brings up questions of whether or not our understanding of the Bible is true or our interpretation of the scientific findings are misinterpreted. Questioning our preconceived Biblical convictions can be a frightening thing. It's usually easier to just dismiss the findings, but the questions won't go away if you just ignore them. In other words, we begin to doubt.
Nobody comes to the faith for purely intellectual reasons. While arguments, logic, and evidence can certainly aid in bringing one closer to the faith, there are many other emotional and sociological influences that can make someone accept or refuse. At the end of the day, it is God who brings about the faith in someone. The point is that there are more than simply "logical" reasons for one to deny the faith, or at the very least, doubt.
But what is doubt? It's is one of those loaded words in the Christian faith that, I will start by saying, may not be what you might think. Essentially doubt is having an alternative set of beliefs. The question is whether what you believe or the alternative "doubting" is more credible.
One simple example is miracles. Chances are you've never seen them, and by definition, as an act of God, you just can't repeat them or study them. They're anomalies to the typical patterns of nature. So when the Bible records accounts of the miraculous a "rational" person would obviously doubt it.
It was once argued that because miracles don't happen, they therefore can't happen. One out of every one dead person has remained dead, therefore resurrection is impossible. Actually, this is circular logic, and one does not necessarily follow the other. But more importantly, the assumption that miracles can't happen stems not from empirical study but from philosophical presuppositions. Namely, that God does not exist. If God exists, it's perfectly plausible miracles could happen. It's well within reason that if God can create the entire world, there's nothing to stop Him from doing anything else miraculous.
So, as Christians we accept God as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and the Bible to be his True and inspired word. We know that our sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, and that we are granted new life because He also defeated the curse of death through His resurrection. If we begin to doubt his resurrection, for whatever reason, then we are presented with two sets of propositions.
One is that Jesus really did die and rise again. The other is that he did not. Both of them carry the weight of enormous implications, and the question is which one is more credible. Just as doubts don't all necessarily stem from intellectual obstacles, they won't simply go away through rational argument. But they do need to be examined for what they are. It may be short and simple, it may be a very long process, and you may find that your doubts ended up being more truthful than your original beliefs. By the time you come out at the end you're more than likely going to find your faith has been strengthened.
Doubts will never disappear. As one goes away, another will come. But doubt, it must be said, is not the same as unbelief. Our faith may falter greatly at times. Indeed, it is never perfect. But it is not our fervour that saves, it is the object of our faith. We are not saved because of faith but through faith. Though we continue to doubt, it is Christ who accomplishes his good work until the end.
In the last post I argued that both special and general revelation must, by definition, be mutually true. So when we see an apparent contradiction between the two that brings up questions of whether or not our understanding of the Bible is true or our interpretation of the scientific findings are misinterpreted. Questioning our preconceived Biblical convictions can be a frightening thing. It's usually easier to just dismiss the findings, but the questions won't go away if you just ignore them. In other words, we begin to doubt.
Nobody comes to the faith for purely intellectual reasons. While arguments, logic, and evidence can certainly aid in bringing one closer to the faith, there are many other emotional and sociological influences that can make someone accept or refuse. At the end of the day, it is God who brings about the faith in someone. The point is that there are more than simply "logical" reasons for one to deny the faith, or at the very least, doubt.
But what is doubt? It's is one of those loaded words in the Christian faith that, I will start by saying, may not be what you might think. Essentially doubt is having an alternative set of beliefs. The question is whether what you believe or the alternative "doubting" is more credible.
One simple example is miracles. Chances are you've never seen them, and by definition, as an act of God, you just can't repeat them or study them. They're anomalies to the typical patterns of nature. So when the Bible records accounts of the miraculous a "rational" person would obviously doubt it.
It was once argued that because miracles don't happen, they therefore can't happen. One out of every one dead person has remained dead, therefore resurrection is impossible. Actually, this is circular logic, and one does not necessarily follow the other. But more importantly, the assumption that miracles can't happen stems not from empirical study but from philosophical presuppositions. Namely, that God does not exist. If God exists, it's perfectly plausible miracles could happen. It's well within reason that if God can create the entire world, there's nothing to stop Him from doing anything else miraculous.
So, as Christians we accept God as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and the Bible to be his True and inspired word. We know that our sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, and that we are granted new life because He also defeated the curse of death through His resurrection. If we begin to doubt his resurrection, for whatever reason, then we are presented with two sets of propositions.
One is that Jesus really did die and rise again. The other is that he did not. Both of them carry the weight of enormous implications, and the question is which one is more credible. Just as doubts don't all necessarily stem from intellectual obstacles, they won't simply go away through rational argument. But they do need to be examined for what they are. It may be short and simple, it may be a very long process, and you may find that your doubts ended up being more truthful than your original beliefs. By the time you come out at the end you're more than likely going to find your faith has been strengthened.
Doubts will never disappear. As one goes away, another will come. But doubt, it must be said, is not the same as unbelief. Our faith may falter greatly at times. Indeed, it is never perfect. But it is not our fervour that saves, it is the object of our faith. We are not saved because of faith but through faith. Though we continue to doubt, it is Christ who accomplishes his good work until the end.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
A Defense of the Rational - Part 1
This is part 1 of a series of reflections on disciplines in the sciences and humanities in relation to Christian faith and doubt.
If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.
I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.
As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.
Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.
Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).
Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.
But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.
It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.
This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.
Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.
That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.
Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.
Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?
...
If you know me well you know that I love reading about theology, philosophy, science, and apologetics. Aside from the mere fascination I have with reading and learning it's helped to solidify and strengthen my faith in many things which I've already believed. So I was struck when I heard a comment last month to be wary of such things.
I'm not entirely certain what precipitated the concern in this particular situation, but it did lead me to ponder the possible pitfalls of reading such "rational" material. In my own defence, having an inquisitive and often skeptical mind drives me into the study of matters that I find deeply important, as it would for anybody. I don't read for the sake of gaining knowledge as an end in itself. Nor do I read without discernment in both the Christian and non-Christian writings. And as much as I enjoy the intellectual aspect of Christian belief, it's impossible to separate Christianity into its so-called rational and existential sides. They're both equally important and it would be a false dichotomy to try to drive a wedge between the two. They coexist as part of the whole of reality. Christianity, as it was once said, is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I would add that one cannot be true without the other.
As Christians we believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That is, we believe it to be Truth, or what the reformers called "special revelation." In the different disciplines in the sciences and humanities, you find the study of creation, or what the reformers called "general revelation." Through study we come to know about the truth of the world around us. In the Christian understanding of reality it would make absolutely no sense to pit one against the other. General revelation and special revelation, if properly understood, must be in mutual agreement with each other.
Therefore if you find something in the Bible that seems to contradict scientific findings you find yourself in a dilemma. Is the Bible false? Or is your interpretation of the Bible mistaken? Is the scientific findings false? Or is your interpretation of the scientific findings mistaken? If we believe both special and general revelation to be mutually true we are inevitably going to have to wrestle with these questions at some point. I imagine this is where the concern may have come from.
Questions like these aren't limited to the natural sciences but apply equally to questions of ethics and morality. For example, Christians believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. We believe it to be part of God's original order of creation and therefore it serves a specific purpose both in relation to God and in relation to each other in society. To allow that to fall apart is not only detrimental in our relationship to God (i.e. disobedience) but to society as a whole (i.e. causing instability).
Now suppose a sociological study is undertaken that looks at the effects of stability on societies where there are essentially no marriages as Christians understand it. It might be measured in terms of crime statistics, economy, etc. If the study were to conclude that there is essentially no difference whatsoever compared to societies with strong marriages what are we to say? Even though Christians feel morally obligated to keep to a Biblical view of marriage, we would rightfully say that it's important for the rest of society at large regardless of competing religious views. It's fairly likely we would either doubt the findings or simply dismiss it altogether.
But what if the study was done in honesty? What if there were no underlying agendas in mind and those were simply "the facts." The truth of Christianity does not depend on the effectiveness of strong marriages on the welfare of society, but it would beg the question about the purpose of marriage outside of Christian circles.
It's merely hypothetical of course. No such study has ever existed that has made that conclusion. But it demonstrates how we might come to question our Biblical interpretations or our understanding of marriage. I, for one, am one of those people who say, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. But to simply be dismissive of studies that appear to contradict my understanding of Biblical truth would be, in itself, logically inconsistent.
This goes back to the relation between special and general revelation. General revelation isn't going to be able to tell us about who God is, but it can certainly give us enough to know He's there, He's personal, and that there is some kind of moral code to be followed. It's implicit both in nature and our inescapable experiences. Special revelation, on the other hand, reveals to us what General revelation cannot. It speaks of who God is, his relationship to us, and what he has done. In either case, what is revealed in one is only going to confirm what is revealed in the other. They cannot contradict one another.
Indeed, both special and general revelation are uniquely intertwined. Every other religion has its own moral codes and its own dogmas. But those moral codes and dogmas (in varying degrees) are distinct from science and history. That is, they don't depend on any kind of historical or physical realities. They cannot be proven. This is why you see the prevalence of the privatization of religion (the belief that they are merely personal preferences and have little bearing on anyone or anything else). In Christianity its truth depends on historical and physical realities.
That is to say Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of moral standards and customs to adhere to. It is not some wisdom passed on through the pens of certain men in the past but is about God being directly involved in our realities. Creation demonstrates the handiwork of God, and the truth of Christianity depends on the veracity of real historical events. Special revelation is the unfolding drama of what God has done in what we call general revelation.
Therefore, if the Bible truly is the word of God, everything that we find in the world around us, rightly understood, will necessarily bear witness to it. So then, what does the evidence suggest? That God is real, and that Christ has risen! The more I discover, the more my faith is strengthened.
Coming next time
Part 2 - What about doubts?
...
Monday, October 03, 2011
Back from break...
Look! No posts for an entire month. That's ok, this blog is still alive. This past September I enjoyed my first week long vacation since my honeymoon four years ago. It was a well timed and much needed break. In the past month I was able to do a lot of interesting reading, although not as much as I had hoped. But also, beginning yesterday, the church I attend began a new Sunday evening DVD series based on Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God." There's a great many things to reflect on which I hope to distill in this blog for your reading pleasure. In the mean time, I'm back, and keep an eye out for some posts coming in the new future. Have a nice day, God bless.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
What is Ben Reading? Self-Esteem, Postmodernism
Another big-name newspaper editorial on self-esteem. As I've said before, I'm glad this is catching on.
And, for a quick preview on a future blog post, check out this article on the Death of Postmodernism. It's one of those rare moments when I can look around and say, "I told you so!" More on that later.
And it would only be fair to thank the editors over at The Gospel Coalition website for directing me to these pages. If you haven't seen what this group is about I highly recommend you check them out. They've had a few conferences now and all the media is available online.
And, for a quick preview on a future blog post, check out this article on the Death of Postmodernism. It's one of those rare moments when I can look around and say, "I told you so!" More on that later.
And it would only be fair to thank the editors over at The Gospel Coalition website for directing me to these pages. If you haven't seen what this group is about I highly recommend you check them out. They've had a few conferences now and all the media is available online.
Monday, August 15, 2011
On Under-programming Your Church
Here's a blog post I came across that I heartily agree with -- 10 reasons to under-program your church. Or rather, de-program your church. In other words, 10 reasons why maybe you should start removing some programs from your church even if you think they're good ideas.
Better than just removing programs to allow breathing space is to understand their inherent limitations. All good church programs are well meaning, and many of them can be very important and uplifting for those involved. The best programs are those that are organically grown from within the church as a worshipful response to the message of the Gospel from the pulpit. God certainly has, and continues to bless those efforts. But they are not his ordinary, prescribed means of grace.
The means of Grace refers to that which God has prescribed as a means of creating faith in the hearts of believers. It includes Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and of course, the written Word and proclamation of the Gospel. John Calvin wrote that there are three marks of a true church; the Gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, and discipline is exercised.
If a church didn't have any special programs I'd be suspicious of whether it even cared for its congregation or its surrounding community. But many programs are nothing more than bells and whistles, pernicious ceremonies, and amusing but meaningless activities. When the ordinary seems boring our reaction is often to craft our own experiences under the guise of worship. We busy ourselves with the experiential and the practical. More is better, we tell ourselves. But at the heart of these is a lack of faith in God's power to save through the ordinary.
Churches are often known for this program or that, its dynamic worship, its energetic leadership. These can often impress us and might help to attract a crowd. But there is an enormous multi-billion dollar entertainment industry that does a far better job of amusement than any church could do. But this should not be our worry. The more critical question is whether a church remain steadfast to the calling God has ordained for it.
Programs are designed to meet particular needs within a church and its community, (sometimes just felt needs) but they are only supplemental. It is Christ who made the supper, we only serve what he made. God knows what he's doing.
Better than just removing programs to allow breathing space is to understand their inherent limitations. All good church programs are well meaning, and many of them can be very important and uplifting for those involved. The best programs are those that are organically grown from within the church as a worshipful response to the message of the Gospel from the pulpit. God certainly has, and continues to bless those efforts. But they are not his ordinary, prescribed means of grace.
The means of Grace refers to that which God has prescribed as a means of creating faith in the hearts of believers. It includes Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and of course, the written Word and proclamation of the Gospel. John Calvin wrote that there are three marks of a true church; the Gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, and discipline is exercised.
If a church didn't have any special programs I'd be suspicious of whether it even cared for its congregation or its surrounding community. But many programs are nothing more than bells and whistles, pernicious ceremonies, and amusing but meaningless activities. When the ordinary seems boring our reaction is often to craft our own experiences under the guise of worship. We busy ourselves with the experiential and the practical. More is better, we tell ourselves. But at the heart of these is a lack of faith in God's power to save through the ordinary.
Churches are often known for this program or that, its dynamic worship, its energetic leadership. These can often impress us and might help to attract a crowd. But there is an enormous multi-billion dollar entertainment industry that does a far better job of amusement than any church could do. But this should not be our worry. The more critical question is whether a church remain steadfast to the calling God has ordained for it.
Programs are designed to meet particular needs within a church and its community, (sometimes just felt needs) but they are only supplemental. It is Christ who made the supper, we only serve what he made. God knows what he's doing.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
On Machen and our view of God and Man
J. Gresham Machen is probably more important to modern Christianity than people realize. Apart from the fact that he's not a well-known name like Calvin, or Luther, or more contemporaries like Tim Keller or John Piper, his book "Christianity and Liberalism" is one of those prophetic books that seems to become more relevant as time progresses. Despite its relatively small size, it represents a "tour de force" against the ongoing influence of the mainline liberal churches.
The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task--she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible--especially in the life of Jesus--something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.
J. Gresham Machen - Chapter 2
In Chapter 2 Machen points out that the modern liberal preacher has a very different conception of God and man than that which is found in Scripture. What Machen has effectively done here is set you up for a proper understanding of the Law and Gospel. God reveals himself most specifically through the written word, and while our conception of God may be in part experiential, our experience isn't what has the last word on who we know God to be. In other words, experience is enough to grasp that there is a God, and that he is even a good and personal God. But experience alone cannot dictate our understanding of who God is. He has revealed himself to us through Scripture as well.
And we cannot have a proper understanding of ourselves apart from an understanding of God. One has to follow the other. Therefore, if our conception of God is contrary to that which is found in Scripture, so our view of man be inaccurate. We will inevitably make ourselves look better than we are.
Our understanding of who God is and who we are are summed up in Doctrinal terms. In other words, we need good Doctrine.
The word doctrine these days often conjures up feelings of old, boring, dry, "dead orthodoxy." The phrase "dead orthodoxy" is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms and more of a perception than anything possibly true. But where "doctrine" is dismissed it is invariably replaced with a heap of exhortations which are powerless to save and burdensome to those who try to obey.
Hence the conclusion of Machen. A wrong view of God (ignorance of Biblical doctrine) leads to a view of man that presupposed the inherent goodness of man, which then reduces the task of the preacher to calling his congregation to mere good deeds. It does not create a repentant heart, and certainly doesn't lead to holiness.
Most importantly, it removes the Gospel, which has the power to save...
The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task--she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible--especially in the life of Jesus--something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.
J. Gresham Machen - Chapter 2
In Chapter 2 Machen points out that the modern liberal preacher has a very different conception of God and man than that which is found in Scripture. What Machen has effectively done here is set you up for a proper understanding of the Law and Gospel. God reveals himself most specifically through the written word, and while our conception of God may be in part experiential, our experience isn't what has the last word on who we know God to be. In other words, experience is enough to grasp that there is a God, and that he is even a good and personal God. But experience alone cannot dictate our understanding of who God is. He has revealed himself to us through Scripture as well.
And we cannot have a proper understanding of ourselves apart from an understanding of God. One has to follow the other. Therefore, if our conception of God is contrary to that which is found in Scripture, so our view of man be inaccurate. We will inevitably make ourselves look better than we are.
Our understanding of who God is and who we are are summed up in Doctrinal terms. In other words, we need good Doctrine.
The word doctrine these days often conjures up feelings of old, boring, dry, "dead orthodoxy." The phrase "dead orthodoxy" is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms and more of a perception than anything possibly true. But where "doctrine" is dismissed it is invariably replaced with a heap of exhortations which are powerless to save and burdensome to those who try to obey.
Hence the conclusion of Machen. A wrong view of God (ignorance of Biblical doctrine) leads to a view of man that presupposed the inherent goodness of man, which then reduces the task of the preacher to calling his congregation to mere good deeds. It does not create a repentant heart, and certainly doesn't lead to holiness.
Most importantly, it removes the Gospel, which has the power to save...
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
What is Ben Watching? - A Writer's Responsibility to Truth
By no means am I a professional writer. Writing isn't exactly something that comes naturally to me. It often feels about as cumbersome as reading, which I do slowly and laboriously. This is why I admire those prolific writers out there, and I'm thankful it's them and not myself who are able to write so many wonderful books. But even if I'm not gifted in writing, I really don't believe that just "blogging" gives me an excuse to write poorly.
Forgive me for possibly sounding elitist but I think writing is something we should take seriously. There's a certain degree of credibility that comes from writing well, but more importantly, I believe, is that we should write truthfully. In other words, instead of miring the literary world (and that includes the internet) with clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musings I would hope that what we read is actually worth our time. For goodness sake, I think your own dignity is at stake.
How refreshing, then, to come upon this video. I've never heard of either of these two gentlemen, but I couldn't help but respect what the author being interviewed has to say.
Clumsy, opinionated, and feckless musing:
For the record, 10 years ago I would probably never have said anything like this. But 10 years ago I was still taking grammar and English lessons, which, to be honest, I'm still not terribly interested in. Although some of my American friends may criticize me for being a "grammar nazi." Even that's only because American vernacular has terrible grammar by nature. Seriously, you should know better. I digress.
The point is, Truth is something we should all take seriously. If you take Truth seriously it will invariably show up in your writings, even if you do have poor grammar and spelling. I find those that take Truth seriously end up writing less about themselves, and more about what is. They understand that Truth is something outside of themselves, so they're less inclined to write personal opinion. Yet Truth relates to us in such deep and profound ways it's nevertheless personal anyway.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Notable Quote - J. Gresham Machen
Here's the first, and it certainly won't be the last, of some notable quotes pulled from the book, "Christianity and Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen as I read along.
The following is from the introduction, and it's one of those moments where I think the author veers a little off topic to add his own commentary on the context he finds himself. He's an American author, but having lived in the U.S. myself for 7 years I couldn't help but feel that his remarks still hold very true today. It's in regards to American politics, and while you may not be into that sort of thing I think it's still worth listening to.
...The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself today even in those communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the majority has determined that a certain regime is beneficial, that regime without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although "welfare" is good, forced welfare may be bad. In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.
The following is from the introduction, and it's one of those moments where I think the author veers a little off topic to add his own commentary on the context he finds himself. He's an American author, but having lived in the U.S. myself for 7 years I couldn't help but feel that his remarks still hold very true today. It's in regards to American politics, and while you may not be into that sort of thing I think it's still worth listening to.
...The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself today even in those communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the majority has determined that a certain regime is beneficial, that regime without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although "welfare" is good, forced welfare may be bad. In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
What Is Ben Reading - J. Gresham Machen
This isn't a blog post or newspaper article, this is a book I'd like to share. I'm assuming for those of you with those fancy iThingy e-Reader devices would prefer to see this in digital book format. For all I know there's one available, but I'll leave it to you to search for yourselves. I can promise you it's definitely worth the read. In fact, I think I'm gonna sit down and read it again as it's been a number of years.
J. Gresham Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism" is available online.
The book was written in 1923, around the time the word "fundamentalism" was becoming more widely used. Although it should be noted that fundamentalism back then had a far different meaning than it does today. Fundamentalism once referred more to what we would now call a firm stand on historic Christian orthodoxy rather than blind dogmatism. The issues addressed in this book are surprisingly pertinent to todays issues.
The thrust of his argument is that the Liberal interpretations and ideas of Christianity are really not Christianity at all, but an entirely different religion. As he makes his case he demonstrates why orthodoxy is so important, because at some point crossing the boundaries into heresy means stepping into the realms of something that isn't recognizable Christianity anymore.
Anyway, it's a fairly straightforward read and definitely one to keep in your personal, uh, "e-library"...or something.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
What is Ben Reading?
Hello everyone. It's been far too long since I've posted and that's for a number of reasons. I've been very busy and writer's block likes to step in at random. It's difficult to keep a blog fresh when there are so many other things that demand your attention but given the positive response I've had since I've started this I would very much like to keep going.
In the meantime I can at least refer you to some interesting articles I've come across, including the following...
For years I've been going on about the silliness of the self-esteem movement. I find it particularly troubling among my own reformed-minded brethren. And now, it seems, that even the mainstream is beginning see it for what it really is. How to Land Your Kid in Therapy. It's a fairly lengthy article, and please excuse the expletive at the very beginning. This comes from The Atlantic, a fairly mainstream and secular newspaper.
Enjoy!
In the meantime I can at least refer you to some interesting articles I've come across, including the following...
For years I've been going on about the silliness of the self-esteem movement. I find it particularly troubling among my own reformed-minded brethren. And now, it seems, that even the mainstream is beginning see it for what it really is. How to Land Your Kid in Therapy. It's a fairly lengthy article, and please excuse the expletive at the very beginning. This comes from The Atlantic, a fairly mainstream and secular newspaper.
Enjoy!
Monday, June 20, 2011
On Secularism - Part 3
If secularism charges Christianity with dogmatism it's guilty of the same thing. The difference is what it's dogmatic about. What's ironic is that the rise of secularism owes many of its foundations to what Christianity helped to establish.
I'm not going to do an apologetic for the way in which Christianity helped give rise to the modern sciences. Even the most skeptical historians cannot help but notice its direct influence. But what the sciences offered turned it into an absolute rule, which helped shape the secularism of today. Ancient Greek rationality consisted only of pure speculative logic, but the rise of the sciences sought instead to probe the world. Essentially this shifted thinking towards observation and empiricism.
Gravity is gravity. 10 times out of 10, if you let go of a piece of chalk, it will fall to the ground. Basically this shows an obvious logical pattern. You can then study it and show that there's a certain rate at which it falls (Newton's law of gravity). The more you discover that the world works in an orderly fashion, like a well tuned mechanism, the more you begin to realize that what looked mysterious before can now be explained. So then this begs the question, can all things be explained entirely naturalistically?
And this becomes the crux of Secularist thinking. It believes that even if we can't explain things yet, it must have a perfectly plausible scientific explanation. There are no abnormalities as a result of some sort of spiritual, metaphysical other reality outside of the material. To be fair there's nothing irrational about this. If something strange happens it's always the logical thing to do to look for a plausible explanation other than, well, the boogeyman or something.
Part of it boils down to what makes good science. Generally speaking good science is about testable or falsify-able theories. Using gravity, as an example, you first have the law of gravity. Physical laws are derived from empirical observation which is precisely how Newton had established the law of gravity. (It's useful for practical purposes, but with the development of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics it was rendered "moot".) But this is different from the "theory of gravity" which attempts to explain the "how" instead of the "what." If a model is put forth to theorize how gravity works it's good science if the theory can be falsified by further study.
But the miraculous, by definition, is not testable (i.e. falsifiable) and therefore does not represent good science. This isn't a problem normally, but if you insist on a "scientific worldview" which secularism already assumes, then there is no place for miracles. They are denied outright. This isn't the same as skepticism, but a dogmatic refusal to give it a chance even if the evidence clearly supports it. And this is just one place where the secularist worldview falls short.
A miracle is an event recorded in history and cannot be bound to the rigours of scientific study. It's simply impossible. It represents an entirely different discipline. You can use science to help understand historical events, but there's a certain point where the best evidence is the accounts of the witnesses. Science can help us understand the technology of World War II, but it can not explain the rise and fall of the Nazis. The same is true of the records of the Gospels. They can be cross-examined, studied, and at the end of the day, if the records show to the best explanation that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, then that is what we are left with.
And this isn't to say that the sciences represent the discipline that, by nature, is antithetical to the Christian faith. Christianity uses history and science to bolster its case. You can even consider the testimonies of those Christian historians, philosophers, and scientists that have all deepened in their faith as a result of their study. In fact, some had even become Christians through their respective disciplines. Secularists will accuse Christians for being irrational for their faith, as though faith gives us blinders to logic. But this is simply not true. In fact, I would argue it's the exact opposite. Secularism's blatant refusal to see where the evidence leads and instead deny absolutely that some things cannot be explained in terms of pure materialist naturalism shows it has its own blinders. Secularism attempts to use science to discredit Christianity and explain it away, when it does precisely the opposite. Indeed, Secularism is not the real arbiter of truth that it wants to be.
I'm not going to do an apologetic for the way in which Christianity helped give rise to the modern sciences. Even the most skeptical historians cannot help but notice its direct influence. But what the sciences offered turned it into an absolute rule, which helped shape the secularism of today. Ancient Greek rationality consisted only of pure speculative logic, but the rise of the sciences sought instead to probe the world. Essentially this shifted thinking towards observation and empiricism.
Gravity is gravity. 10 times out of 10, if you let go of a piece of chalk, it will fall to the ground. Basically this shows an obvious logical pattern. You can then study it and show that there's a certain rate at which it falls (Newton's law of gravity). The more you discover that the world works in an orderly fashion, like a well tuned mechanism, the more you begin to realize that what looked mysterious before can now be explained. So then this begs the question, can all things be explained entirely naturalistically?
And this becomes the crux of Secularist thinking. It believes that even if we can't explain things yet, it must have a perfectly plausible scientific explanation. There are no abnormalities as a result of some sort of spiritual, metaphysical other reality outside of the material. To be fair there's nothing irrational about this. If something strange happens it's always the logical thing to do to look for a plausible explanation other than, well, the boogeyman or something.
Part of it boils down to what makes good science. Generally speaking good science is about testable or falsify-able theories. Using gravity, as an example, you first have the law of gravity. Physical laws are derived from empirical observation which is precisely how Newton had established the law of gravity. (It's useful for practical purposes, but with the development of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics it was rendered "moot".) But this is different from the "theory of gravity" which attempts to explain the "how" instead of the "what." If a model is put forth to theorize how gravity works it's good science if the theory can be falsified by further study.
But the miraculous, by definition, is not testable (i.e. falsifiable) and therefore does not represent good science. This isn't a problem normally, but if you insist on a "scientific worldview" which secularism already assumes, then there is no place for miracles. They are denied outright. This isn't the same as skepticism, but a dogmatic refusal to give it a chance even if the evidence clearly supports it. And this is just one place where the secularist worldview falls short.
A miracle is an event recorded in history and cannot be bound to the rigours of scientific study. It's simply impossible. It represents an entirely different discipline. You can use science to help understand historical events, but there's a certain point where the best evidence is the accounts of the witnesses. Science can help us understand the technology of World War II, but it can not explain the rise and fall of the Nazis. The same is true of the records of the Gospels. They can be cross-examined, studied, and at the end of the day, if the records show to the best explanation that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, then that is what we are left with.
And this isn't to say that the sciences represent the discipline that, by nature, is antithetical to the Christian faith. Christianity uses history and science to bolster its case. You can even consider the testimonies of those Christian historians, philosophers, and scientists that have all deepened in their faith as a result of their study. In fact, some had even become Christians through their respective disciplines. Secularists will accuse Christians for being irrational for their faith, as though faith gives us blinders to logic. But this is simply not true. In fact, I would argue it's the exact opposite. Secularism's blatant refusal to see where the evidence leads and instead deny absolutely that some things cannot be explained in terms of pure materialist naturalism shows it has its own blinders. Secularism attempts to use science to discredit Christianity and explain it away, when it does precisely the opposite. Indeed, Secularism is not the real arbiter of truth that it wants to be.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
On Secularism - Part 2
I Serve A Risen Saviour / He Lives
Verse 1 -
I serve a risen Saviour, He's in the world today;
I know that He is living, Whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him He's always near.
Chorus -
He Lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know he lives:
He lives within my heart.
Perhaps you've heard or sung this song in Church. It's seems to be one of the more popular songs of the old hymns, but I can't say I like it very much. It’s not because I don't like old hymns. On the contrary, I'm actually a bit partial to them. They have a beauty and depth that's underscored by having stood the test of time. But this is one song to which I must take exception.
The fellowship of believers may sing this song with kindred spirits, but when it comes to the line in the chorus that says, "you ask me how I know he lives" it gives what is possibly the worst answer to an absolutely crucial question for Christians. Granted, you can make the theological case that Jesus does, in fact, inhabit the heart. Strictly speaking God has given us a new nature and indeed the Spirit now resides within us and empowers us toward sanctification. But the reasons we give for the truth of the resurrection and new life of Jesus are not found in ourselves, through our subjective experiences, or what we feel in our hearts to be true. Like all truth, if it is true it is true outside of ourselves, completely independent of our own existence.
The truth of Christianity is bound to the historical realities of Jesus' death and resurrection, not the feelings of our hearts. And this is an important point not just in defending the truth of Christianity, but it separates itself in this way from all other religions.
You see, where religion tells you how to live, Christianity teaches about what has happened. In other words, religions teach good advice but Christianity teaches good news. This effectively separates the point of reference between Christianity and other religions. Take Islam, for example. The teachings are not bound to the prophet Muhammed himself. For the sake of argument, it could have been an entirely different person, in an entirely different place, at an entirely different time. Muhammed only passed on what he believed to be the revelations of God. At the end of the day Islam is not bound to the historicity of Muhammed himself, so his existence isn't their primary concern. So too is the teaching of Confucius, or Buddha. It’s not Confucius or Buddha that make Confucianism or Buddhism but their teachings. Even Mormonism isn’t terribly concerned with it’s own history as it is with the “burning of the bosom.”
All religions teach certain tenants and all promise something in the end if they’re properly adhered to. Many of them will be existentially satisfying, but that doesn’t make them true. It’s a bit like the placebo effect. A sugar pill will often be enough to convince somebody they’re getting better from an illness because they start to feel better. Sometimes they get better by themselves, and sometimes they weren’t really sick in the first place. Either way, the sugar pill had nothing to do with. But it becomes crucially important when you’re genuinely sick and you’re convinced the sugar pill is working. You can still succumb to the illness even if you believe “in your heart” the placebo is working.
Jesus, on the other hand, is the revelation himself, as a real bona-fide physical reality, regardless of how we feel about it. So, if we were to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus did not, in fact, resurrect from the dead, then everything we believe is all in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).
And this leaves us with an important distinction. Either Christ has been raised, and we must all believe and be saved, or he has not, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. If I may, we have here Christianity or Secularism. In the same way Christianity stands or falls (that is, through genuine, verify-able, observable data), secularism also stands or falls.
It should be noted that secularism doesn’t rise out of a denial of Jesus’ death and resurrection but a dogmatic worldview that says science can explain everything naturalistically. In other words, miracles don’t happen. If there is a so-called miracle, then there is a perfectly plausible scientific explanation for it. This means, of course, that even if Jesus existed he couldn’t do any miracles, and certainly couldn’t rise from the dead. And God, for that matter, well even that is just a figment of our imagination.
The point is that both Christianity and Secularism don’t point to the inward feelings of its worldview as a testament to its truthfulness but to observable datum outside the individual. If secularism can demonstrate that miracles can’t happen, that resurrection is impossible, that the world came about naturalistically, and that our idea of God is nothing more than a mind trick, then it arises as the victor. If, however, it can be demonstrated that miracles have happened, that Jesus’ resurrection did occur, that God had to have created the world, and that God truly reveals himself to us, then it is shown to be true, and Secularism to be based on a false premise.
It’s no wonder that debates between Christians and atheists far outnumber debates between Christianity and other religions. There’s just so much more riding on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)