Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Christianity

Will it die?

by Leave a Comment

In an article by Father Longenecker it is predicted that progressive Christianity will soon die out whereas historic Christianity will remain. Here are his definitions:

The historic Christians believe their religion is revealed by God in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, and that the Scriptures are the primary witness of that revelation. They believe the church is the embodiment of the risen Lord Jesus in the world and that his mission to seek and to save that which is lost is still valid and vital. Historic Christians believe in the supernatural life of the Church and expect God to be at work in the world and in their lives.

Progressive Christians believe their religion is a historical accident of circumstances and people, that Jesus Christ is, at best, a divinely inspired teacher, that the Scriptures are flawed human documents influenced by paganism and that the church is a body of spiritually minded people who wish to bring peace and justice to all and make the world a better place.

In the article he gives eleven reasons, all of which are important. Over all I think he’s right. Rodney Stark observed this empirically:

Not all denominations shared in the immense rise in membership rates, and to the degree that denominations rejected traditional doctrines and ceased to make serious demands on their followers, they ceased to prosper. The churching of America was accomplished by aggressive churches committed mitted to vivid otherworldliness.

Roger Finke;Rodney Stark. The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (Kindle Locations 78-80). Kindle Edition.

What is deemed progressive Christianity by Longenecker will, in my opinion cease to exist on a long enough timeline because people who practice religion merely as a matter of identity are typically less concerned about dogma and practice than those who convert. Progressive Christianity does not convert or tend to evangelize. Therefore, it will either morph beyond any resemblance to historic Christianity (which it is close to doing) or it will simply die out by attrition and low birthrates.

Give his article a read.

Jesus the Good Shepherd

by Leave a Comment

Mark’s Jesus

A common claim in New Testament studies is that Mark’s gospel must be first because it apparently contains the least developed understanding of Jesus, but John’s gospel was last because it clearly refers to Jesus’ divinity.

The problem with this is that Mark’s gospel alludes to and presupposes Jesus’ divinity by what it makes plain throughout its pages. The problem is that these assumptions only surface by means of certain allusions. In other words, Mark believes in Jesus’ divinity, but he only expresses this by “telling it slant.”[1]

Mark 6 and Psalm 23

In Mark 6, the story of the feeding of the five thousand has some wonderful allusions to the twenty-third Psalm. I recommend that you read the Psalm and the section of Mark in the ESV below:

Psalms 23:1-6 ESV A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. (2)   He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. (3) He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.   (4) Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.   (5) You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. (6) Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Mark 6:34-52 ESV When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. (35) And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. (36) Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” (37)   But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?”   (38) And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” (39)   Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. (40) So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. (41) And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. (42) And they all ate and were satisfied. (43)   And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. (44) And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men. (45) Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. (46) And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray.   (47) And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. (48)   And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,   (49) but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, (50)   for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” (51) And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, (52) for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

If you compared the above texts you may have noted that Jesus:

  1. Has compassion for people who were as a sheep without a shepherd
  2. That he teaches them (presumably about repentance/righteousness and God’s kingdom as in the rest of Mark)
  3. Has people sit in green grass beside the water
  4. Feeds them
  5. Calms (stills) the waters of the sea
  6. Tells them not to fear sinking (the sea symbolizes chaos and death, see Jonah)

Mark adds the “green grass” bit where it is missing in the other gospels. Also, his is the only gospel that connects the description of the people as sheep without a shepherd to the story of feeding of the five thousand. This is significant for two reasons:

  1. It shows us Mark’s rhetorical point: Jesus is a shepherd like the Lord.
  2. It shows us that, despite claims to the contrary, the gospel writers were not literarily unsophisticated.

The point I wish to focus on is the first. Mark’s gospel, in my estimation, is an expanded statement of the Christian gospel and a manual for repentance (Mark 1:1 and Mark 1:14-17).

In Mark 6, Jesus is presented as having characteristics that make him utterly trustworthy. He is portrayed as utterly competent to guide humanity into life in the house of God. Therefore, part of the Christian gospel is the competence of Jesus. Jesus, according to Mark, is at minimally a human being who is supremely capable of being a broker bringing humanity to God. Maximally, Jesus is presented as the divine Shepherd incarnate.

Concluding Devotional Postscript

For the Christian who accepts the truth of the gospel, this section in Mark is especially valuable. For one, Mark 6 depicts Jesus beyond just a man to know about. He is presented as the most trustworthy figure on the scene of human history. This means that all of his teachings can be relied upon as a foundation for a life of eternal safety.

Second, Mark 6 helps us look back to Psalm 23 as a wonderful summary of the type of life Jesus offers to those who place their confidence in him and faithfully base their lives upon his teachings (see Matthew 7:24-27 and John 8:31-32).

While Psalm 23 not thematically central to the New Testament, over time it has emerged as one of the most significant portions of the Old Testament for Christian living. Learning to read it as a picture of our life with Christ can be a powerful motivating myth for our daily lives. A challenging spiritual exercise might be spending a week looking for ways that God provides each element of the Psalm for you as you attempt to follow Christ.

Footnotes

[1] This is a reference to a poem by Emily Dickinson:

Tell all the truth but tell it slant —

Success in Circuit lies

Too bright for our infirm Delight

The Truth’s superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased

With explanation kind

The Truth must dazzle gradually

Or every man be blind —

 

 

Interesting Insight from Charles Finney on Justification

by Leave a Comment

In the lecture on justification in his Lectures on Systematic Theology Charles Finney uses the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive functions of government to consider the doctrine of justification:

Justification is the pronouncing of one just. It may be done in words, or, practically, by treatment. Justification must be, in some sense, a governmental act; and it is of importance to a right understanding of gospel justification, to inquire whether it be an act of the judicial, the executive, or the legislative department of government; that is, whether gospel justification consists in a strictly judicial or forensic proceeding, or whether it consists in pardon, or setting aside the execution of an incurred penalty, and is therefore properly either an executive or a legislative act. We shall see that the settling of this question is of great importance in theology; and as we view this subject, so, if consistent, we must view many important and highly practical questions in theology.

Now, I’d never even considered that such a distinction in the roles of government might apply conceptually to the kingdom of God. But it seems to make some sense. For instance, while obeying the law gives life, the Bible also teaches that nobody will be justified by works of the law (for all sinned according to Romans 3:23). It also teaches that justification comes by faith, by grace, through Christ, and strangely enough, to those who are obedient to the law (Romans 2:13).

But with the exception of Romans 2:13, the meaning of which is contested, most other passages about justification (being declared righteous by God or the resumption of a properly ordered relationship with God) treat it as a rather personal reality (through grace, by faith, in Christ, etc). It’s not about whether or not somebody has done as much good as they can, because no matter how much good is done, guilt is still guilt. In Finney’s taxonomy, the judicial office of government is purely that of determining whether or not the law has been broken by this or that person. So for him, as far as the law goes, there can be no justification for anybody who has done anything wrong, ever (Romans 3:20 seems to say exactly this). But as far as appeal to the law-giver (legislator) or the branch of government responsible for action (executive) justification, pardon, and reconciliation are possible. So sinners cannot, by any means, appeal to the law for forgiveness (though the Law of Moses offers conditions of pardon, these do not come through the system of elders/judges). But sinners can appeal directly to the law-giver and king of God’s kingdom for forgiveness: a gracious and kind God.

But I’ve never seen this taxonomy God’s role in justification in a Bible commentary and I’d never noticed it from reading Scripture. This doesn’t mean that Finney is wrong, but it’s just gone unnoticed for a while, now.

Power: Does it corrupt or ennoble us?

by Leave a Comment

Power: An Evil Desire?

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is this true? Does seeking power make us evil[1]?

No. Absolutely not. You morally authorized to seek power. In fact, you are obligated to do so if you wish to be happy and a good person.

The Ability to Produce an Effect

The dictionary definition of power is this: the ability to produce an effect.

A definition concerning human action would be: what is necessary to bring about what one desires.

Such a thing is amoral. It is no different from a hammer, a shaving razor, or knowledge.

Moral power would be this: what is necessary to bring about the good.

Immoral power would be what is necessary to bring about my desires without thought to the good.

Here’s the difference:

  1. Moral Power
    Charisma, know-how, and resources for pursuing the good by means of virtue. Think of somebody who uses their prudence to gain large sums of wealth in order to quietly fund rationally altruistic charities.
  2. Immoral Power
    Charisma, know-how, and resources for pursuing goods by evil means or in a disordered fashion (pursuing fame above health, honor above wisdom, etc). Think of somebody who pursues a political agenda (like socialism) in the name of the poor despite the body count of that ideology being in the hundreds of millions.

Many people associate power solely with the second example and they miss the importance having power and feeling powerful for a life of meaning and happiness.

As a result many throw both forms of power out the window and then resent their lot. There are lots of social reasons for this in the lives of men and young boys.[2] I’m not sure about the rest of our culture. But it appears on social media, amongst the young, and in the political world that claiming to be a victim is a badge of honor. Consequently, bragging about weakness, illness, and ineffectuality is a form of social credibility.[3] Regardless of that, the fact is that living without a sense of power leads to depression, inactivity, and destructive behavior like drug addiction and intimate partner abuse.[4]

Nice Guy Syndrome

A name has been given this unfortunate state of feeling helpless and powerless as a result of doing what you’re “supposed to do.”

Robert Glover calls it “nice-guy syndrome.”[5] Nice-guy syndrome is the state of perpetually refusing to do what you want and pretending to be gracious while secretly resenting the world and yourself. According Dr. Glover “nice guys” have a tendency to be incapable of breaking bad habits, unwilling to allow their flaws to become public (though he didn’t deal with victom culture when he wrote), and they also have a tendency to blow up friendships, lose their temper, and to sabotage their success in ways that they can easily blame on circumstances.[6] Such people have no power. With this in mind, the prescription is not to follow stupid platitudes like “power corrupts.” The correct response is to assess oneself and start making decisions that tend toward the power necessary to achieve happiness. To fail to pursue power when living in such a state clearly causes unhappiness is immoral.

Based on my definition of virtue (a good habit), the pursuit and maintenance of personal power is itself virtuous. Like all virtues, there are vices on either side (even Eden had a serpent!). In this case, obsession with power beyond one’s reach or laziness with respect to reaching it fit the bill.

A typology of power

Here are types of power, as far as I can tell, and how they’re related to virtue:

  1. Physical power –

    The ability to accomplish and endure what is necessary for one’s circumstances with the grace and resilience possible for their specific body. Obviously, keeping one’s body in proper shape can help one to be generous, courageous, or self-controlled.

  2. Cognitive Power –

    The approach of the height of one’s cognitive abilities with respect to their circumstances. Cognitive power, of course overlaps almost perfectly with the intellectual virtues. The difference being that two people could have equally good habits of mind with respect to their individual differences, but one of them might have more “cognitive power” with respect to their IQ or their calling.

  3. Social Power –

    Social power could be either magnetic charisma or hierarchical power-over. Both matter, both can be good, and both can be abused. Men and women with dark-triad traits are typically better at seducing the opposite sex. Bosses can destroy or make the careers of their subordinates. But the pursuit of social power is connected to virtue in that one can be just, generous, and loving much more effectively from a position of authority or charismatic influence.

  4. Economic Power –

    Economic power is power to bring about change due to access to resources. It doesn’t have to be money and it doesn’t have to be from accumulation of resources, although that is the primary way to get it. Somebody who has a tremendous amount of charisma may also have economic resources. Many great ethical thinkers warn about the danger to virtue in those who have economic resources because they can lead to pride, a life style with no struggle, or access to immoral pleasures. I think those warnings are wise, but they do not change the fact that the management of resources that leads to wealth is a result of virtue (self-control, prudence, courage, loyalty, etc).

  5. Spiritual Power –

    Spiritual power is simply result of acquiring the moral virtues as well as the intellectual virtues. Some good habits are had by evil men. But some good habits (courage, justice, prudence, and self-control) do not exist in them. Spiritual power, in this sense, is simply living in a state wherein doing what is right comes naturally. Incidentally, even the most virtuous of men claim to never really reach such a perfect state in this life. In my mind the human race is incapable of complete spiritual power.

Conclusion

It is not immoral to acquire power, instead, it is immoral to ignore your need for power. There are many types of power and understanding what they are and why it’s good to have them will help give you permission to seek them so that you can get what is truly good for you out of life.

References

[1] Interestingly, the Latin word from which virtue is derived could originally mean strength or power. Collins Latin Dictionary Plus Grammar (Glasgow: HarperCollins, 1997 Check out the full range of meaning from this dictionary: “manhood, full powers, strength, courage, ability, worth; (MIL) valour, prowess, heroism; (moral) virtue; (things) excellence, worth.”

[2]  Christina Hoff. Sommers, The War against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[3] There is a powerful sense in which this can be true. See 2 Corinthians 10-13 in the New Testament for an example.

[4] Albert Bandura, “Regulation of Cognitive Processes through Perceived Self-Efficacy,” Developmental Psychology 25, no. 5 (1989): 729–735, Carlo C. DiClemente, Scott K. Fairhurst, and Nancy A. Piotrowski, “Self-Efficacy and Addictive Behaviors,” in Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment, ed. James E. Maddux, The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology (Springer US, 1995), 109–141, accessed July 5, 2016, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_4, Albert Bandura et al., “Self-Efficacy Pathways to Childhood Depression,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, no. 2 (1999): 258–269. Steve M. Jex et al., “The Impact of Self-Efficiency on Stressor-Strain Relations: Coping Style as an Explanatory Mechanism,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 3 (June 2001): 401–409. Farhad Shaghaghy et al., “The Relationship of Early Maladaptive Schemas, Attributional Styles and Learned Helplessness among Addicted and Non-Addicted Men,” Addiction and Health 3, no. 1–2 (November 10, 2011), accessed July 5, 2016, http://www.ahj.kmu.ac.ir/index.php/ahj/article/view/55, Victor J. Strecher et al., “The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change,” Health Education & Behavior 13, no. 1 (March 1, 1986): 73–92.

[5] Robert A Glover, No More Mr. Nice Guy!: A Proven Plan for Getting What You Want in Love, Sex, and Life (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2003).

[6] They might be similar to what Vox Day calls a “gamma male” in Helen Smith’s excellent book Men on Strike.

On the Accumulation of Tradition in Christianity

by Leave a Comment

Nicholas Taleb helps us understand why tradition is helpful::

Consider the role of heuristic (rule-of-thumb) knowledge embedded in traditions. Simply, just as evolution operates on individuals, so does it act on these tacit, unexplainable rules of thumb transmitted through generations— what Karl Popper has called evolutionary epistemology. But let me change Popper’s idea ever so slightly (actually quite a bit): my take is that this evolution is not a competition between ideas, but between humans and systems based on such ideas. An idea does not survive because it is better than the competition, but rather because the person who holds it has survived! Accordingly, wisdom you learn from your grandmother should be vastly superior (empirically, hence scientifically) to what you get from a class in business school (and, of course, considerably cheaper). My sadness is that we have been moving farther and farther away from grandmothers.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2012-11-27). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Kindle Locations 3841-3847). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Now, in Christianity tradition includes, but is not limited to Scripture. The idea is that Scripture is the measuring rod against which other traditions are judged. Scripture takes pride of place whether the church is examining practices, beliefs, or ways of speaking about God. But this does not mean that traditions are always wrong.

Socrates is right that everything should be questions. Postmodernists are wrong that they should be rejected.

Power and Christian Spirituality

by Leave a Comment

The Christian and Power

Christians are understandably nervous about power.

You know the saying, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But at its most basic level, power is “being able to do what you want.”  Therefore it is no different from strength, except that its associations transcend the athletic capacities of the physical body. And while we often want what is evil, this is not always so. Power is morally neutral in this sense.

I do not think that power is bad. Sought for its own sake, power is an idol. But that is true of food, sex, spiritual disciplines, romance, justice, and essentially everything but God or “the good.”

Power is a good, and as such has its place in the Christian moral landscape. I’ve written about Proverbs 24 before, but there’s more to say about it.

Go ahead and read this twice:

Pro 24:1-12 ESV Be not envious of evil men, nor desire to be with them, (2) for their hearts devise violence, and their lips talk of trouble. (3) By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; (4) by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. (5) A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, (6) for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.

 

(7) Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate he does not open his mouth. (8) Whoever plans to do evil will be called a schemer. (9) The devising of folly is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to mankind. (10) If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. (11) Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. (12) If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?

Now, there are different kinds of power/strength. But nevertheless this chunk of Proverbs says at the very least to get:

  1. wisdom
  2. knowledge
  3. might/strength
  4. wise counsel

A favorite genre in the Bible is that of praising/shaming two groups. One of ideal goodness and the other of typological badness. This rhetoric encourages us to place ourselves firmly in one category. The passage above praises:

  1. The wise
  2. Those with knowledge
  3. The strong
  4. Those who increase their might
  5. Those who use wise counsel to overcome obstacles
  6. The steadfast
  7. Those who protect the weak

The passage is shaming:

  1. The wicked
  2. Those who envy the wicked
  3. Individuals who do not increase their strength, wisdom, knowledge
  4. Those who plan evil instead of good
  5. Any who pretend not to see the plight of the weak

Why Seek Power?

I propose that if you have power and use it wisely and justly, you do not have to envy the wicked and you can wage your various wars*, survive adversity, and assist/protect the weak. Solomon praises several dimensions of power throughout Proverbs:**

  1. Financial – earnings, savings, and generosity
  2. Physical – heath of body
  3. Vocational skill – the ability to do something well
  4. Personal – ones persuasiveness and charisma
  5. Cognitive – ones problem solving ability
  6. Emotional – managing  your feelings is crucial
  7. Spiritual/moral – one’s habitual reliance on God and ability to say no to sin (see Hebrews 12 especially), it encompasses all the others because a spiritually strong person can manage poverty or wealth well, can deal with a strong or weak body, and so-on.

Indeed, the biblical authors only disparage human strength when it is arrayed against the purposes of God. The Bible assumes that humanity, with God’s grace, will develop strength. Taking dominion over nature requires persistent growth in power (in all its dimensions).

My point is to encourage Christians to actually seek power and strength. That sounds so weird to say, but again, Jesus says, “Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” Grow in goodness, including the ability to make the good happen. That’s what he’s saying. His statement assumes the background of passages like Proverbs 24.

Closing Questions:

  1. What are you doing to grow in power?
  2. Is it working?
  3. Finally, are you growing in spiritual and moral power?

Notes

*The text may refer to literal wars if Proverbs was written for kings, but warfare is a metaphor in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes for the scribal struggle for wisdom.

**I intentionally left political power out.