Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Thoughts

When Helpful Ideas Replace Central Ideals: On Being Totally Radical

by Leave a Comment

On Being Radical
David Platt, in his book Radical, challenges Christians that if they would do five things over the course of a year, they would find themselves “coming alive like never before (Platt 186).” Here are the five things (185):

  1. Pray for the entire world;
  2. Read through the entire Word;
  3. Sacrifice your money for a specific purpose;
  4. Spend your time in another context;
  5. Commit your life to a multiplying community.

I’m fairly sympathetic with attempts to rouse the church from its cultural captivity and I think that most of these are laudable practices for any Christian. I would say that a firm grasp of the gospels is more important than reading the whole Bible in a year though. Also, I would say that investing money in a cause is good unless you’re poor. Then your money should be invested in your family. Similarly, spending time in another context, in Platt’s book is going on a foreign mission trip. I would contend that learning to have Christ-like character at work or at home is more important for the individual than going anywhere in particular, unless that person has specific skills to do mission work. Finally, I would say that step five is important (I just wrote about the need to regularly attend worship service), but finding a growing mega-church is nowhere a part of the Christian life in the New Testament.

At least people who do that list are doing something right?
Many genuine Christians never thought about doing some things on that list. Platt’s pastoral concerns are valid in that respect. So what if some of them don’t really make sense? Why care? Well, as a minister to college students and a student returning to college, I find that concern for excellence in studies and in the workplace is at an all-time low. I also find that college age people can have a tendency to be yes-men and yes-women. If you’re a college student who is interested in understanding the Bible and being Jesus’ disciple, watch out. Ten different ministry leaders will probably come ask you to sign up for this or that cause. Many of these causes and ministries are good things. But the question is this: are these the things to which you should dedicate your time at this stage in your life?

A Thought Experiment
A simple logical deduction can be utilized to help you answer the question above. If your parents pay for your school (or if you live with them or they pay your bills), then they have invested in your education. What kind of grades do you owe them? Remember, the Bible says, “Honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12).” I did not understand that as a youngster. If you owe them the best grades you could earn, is it wise to say, “Yes!” to every single ministry opportunity that comes up? Notice the conflict: do extra things to the detriment of my studies or do the thing that I am explicitly told in the Bible.

Similarly, if you’re struggling to have regular devotional time or to wake up in time for church, is it wise to stay up late to be a part of every single ministry event which you’re asked to attend? The issue is that sometimes the extras can get directly in the way of the character the Lord commands us to develop. Jesus commands us to have devotional/prayer time (Matthew 6:6) and to be a part of the church (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). He does not command us to go to every single thing simply because it is good or has his name attached to it.

The Crux of the Issue
There is a double danger of feeling obligated to do all of the things in the world pertaining to ministry that are asked of us:

  1. We can become burned out and fail to be excellent or wise with respect to anything which we do. A martial arts instructor once related to me that a man can try to chase two rabbits and catch neither or catch one rabbit to prevent starvation and then catch several later. Chasing too many things is a sure way to mediocrity.
  2. We can become legalistic with this attitude: I did the five radical things, what are you doing? We can actually replace Christian character to the point that we begin to denigrate those who have it but do not do the current radical paradigm.

Jesus deals with the second of the problems with the Pharisees. See here:

Mark 7:1-13 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, (2) they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (3) (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, (4) and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) (5) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (6) And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; (7) in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ (8) You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” (9) And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (10) For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ (11) But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)– (12) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, (13) thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Jesus’ issue is that the Pharisees, in this instance, have elevated a series of traditions concerning washing above their commitment to loving their neighbor. Or, in a more serious instance, they have found ways to let people dishonor their parents for religious reasons. Thus, the dishonoring of parents (by refusing to care for them in their times of trouble), has been elevated to a higher status than God’s clear command to honor your parents!

Conclusion
Books like David Platt’s, for all the good work they can do to get lazy Christians off their butts, can have a tendency to encourage zeal without knowledge. At their worst, they can elevate certain ideals (being a part of a foreign mission trip or a quickly growing church body) above actual adherence to the actual teachings of Jesus. I remember being at a mission conference as a young man and being encouraged to not buy things unless I could put the same amount of money into foreign missions (let along giving to the poor or, God forbid, to my local church). I remembered thinking, wow, that’s really cool. Then I thought, “Shouldn’t I save money like the ant at this stage in my life?” College students who are Christians should be generous as it is possible, but they might be better served by learning to save, pay off debt, and do really boring things (study) with little in terms of immediate gratification (grades). I’m not opposed to missions or making radical commitments to simplicity or involvement with those who do not know the gospel or the poor. I just think that our efforts to encourage people to stop being lazy Christians should be more connected with the specific teachings of the New Testament. Perhaps they should also be more clearly stated as helpful suggestions unless they are clear teachings of the New Testament. Maybe something like this:

These five steps are from the New Testament. Check to be sure. Putting them into practice could help you follow Jesus:

  1. Meditate daily on the teachings of Jesus and put them into practice and you will be set free from sin and live an indestructible life (Matthew 7:24-28, cf. John 8:31-32).
  2. Pray the Lord’s Prayer often and extend its petitions to the needs of which you’re aware (Matthew 6:6-13).
  3. Be committed to your local church and seek guidance from the elderly and wise there (Heb 10:25).
  4. Be wise and generous with money (Proverbs 1-31 and Luke 16:1-14).
  5. Perform your duties to your employer, teachers, and local civic servant as those who must give and account to the Lord (Colossians 3:17-4:2).

Or even:

These four steps, in my mind, summarize the New Testament’s approach to the good-life. If you put them into practice, they might help you to walk with Christ.

  1. Recite the Apostles Creed Daily
  2. Pray the Lord ’s Prayer and the Psalms daily.
  3. Attempt to love God and neighbor daily.
  4. Grow in knowledge of the Bible at church services and in private study.

Again with the confusing ideas: Jesus and Ethics

by Leave a Comment

As somebody who teaches Bible to college students at my local church, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated by popular misconceptions about Christianity that seem merely to confuse people for the sake of sounding novel. For instance, the claim that Jesus didn’t come to make people good confuses people who do not read theology books for a living.

In a post over at Reknew, Greg Boyd makes the claim (by title and content) that Jesus and by extension the New Testament do not teach ethical behavior. Here are some quotes:

Jesus did the same thing throughout his ministry. He was not calling people to a new ethical system; he was calling people to life. When someone wanted him to settle an inheritance dispute with a brother, for instance, he responded, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). He was telling the man that he did not come to give definitive answers to our many difficult ethical questions. He rather came to offer an alternative way of living to all ethical systems.
The New Testament is not about ethical behavior; it’s about a radical new way of living.
In some sense, the bold portion is true. Jesus invited people to himself, to God, and to eternal life in God’s kingdom. On the other hand, Jesus’ preaching was summarized by these words: “Repent and believe the gospel.” In a famous sermon, Jesus told his disciples, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees you absolutely will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, Jesus taught about ethics.
Let me demonstrate further, here is what my copy of Webster’s dictionary says that ethics means:
The doctrines of morality or social manners; the science of moral philosophy, which teaches men their duty and the reasons of it.
Here is what a recent bible dictionary says ethics is:
A term drawn from Greek philosophy, “ethics” denotes an effort to present norms of behavior in a systematic way that shows their internal, rational coherence.
L. William Countryman, “Ethics,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 431.
Now, where do ethics appear in the New Testament? Well, the word repent, in the gospels, carries the connotation of rethinking one’s life on the basis of Jesus and his gospel. This is a highly ethical notion and the Bible treats it as a summary of Jesus’ message! Similarly, the Sermon on the Mount is intended by its author to be a disclosure of solid ground upon which to base your life and character and it is filled with Jesus’ reflections upon ethical matters (Matthew 7:24-28). Similarly, the great commission includes a command from Jesus for Jesus’ disciples to teach other people how to “observe all which I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19).”
Jesus doesn’t merely teach ethics by way of command and example, but he gives explanation for ethical norms as well as motivations based upon the normal human perceptions of goodness and beauty. His teaching about loving your enemies, for instance, is based upon Jesus’ perception of God’s kindness even to those who are evil.
I think that the problem with Boyd’s piece and others like it is that for the sake of rhetorical punch many authors make absolute statements that melt under simple examination. Boyd makes a true point at the end of his article when he says that our holiness is a gift of grace from God. But, the grace of God comes to train us to renounce evil and to become zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14). So, if ethics is about our behavior, our character, our intentions, the source of character norms and their coherence, and the nature of human duty, then Christianity is precisely about ethics (Bonhoeffer’s argument that ethics is the reason for the fall is silly). Now, Christianity is certainly more than mere ethics. It is an experience with the living God who is revealed in the resurrected Christ. But it is not less than ethics.

Is the political personal? Is the personal political?

by Leave a Comment

One of the weirdest features of life that I’ve noticed since going back to college is that the tone of several aspects of life has radically changed. For instance, criticism of student work is taken personally far more often than it ever was ten years ago when I first attended college. I’ve also noticed that people are far less likely (this is by observation, so I could be wrong) to admit fault when they receive a bad grade.

I’ve been trying to figure out why this may be. I remember in a Calculus class a young man would always waltz in late and try to make silly comments about people. I mentioned this event here. He was never sorry because it was always somebody else that needed to solve a problem. Circumstances of this nature are so common. I even received permission to turn in a late programming assignment because the professor appreciated that instead of blaming somebody else, I said, “It was my fault, the time just got away from me.” I got full credit for it despite it being two weeks late. He was literally amazed that I simply owned my mistake.

But what is it that changed? In some sense, nothing has ever changed. The Bible depicts this as central to the human departure from God’s will:

Genesis 3:11-13  He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”  (12)  The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”  (13)  Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

On the other hand, in ten years something has changed. It could be me. Maybe I’ve gotten old. But, I’ve also noticed that as many of my own students write research papers for a public speaking class, that the journalistic pieces I read have a much greater bent toward sarcasm and feigning offense at other people’s actions, words, and even clothing. While reflecting on this, I recalled a piece that was cited in several books I read for a research assistance job I was preparing for a few years ago. The essay is The Personal is the Political by Carol Hanisch. In it, she essentially sees women as a political and economic class of the oppressed variety who must mobilize. That’s nothing new for feminist authors of that era. What is interesting is this:

So the reason I participate in these meetings is not to solve any personal problem. One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.*

I wonder, I really do, if class based thinking has become so common that the attitude which she articulated here has been absorbed by students. Thus, kids see teachers and students in perpetual form of class conflict.

This could explain why rules, regulations, concepts, logic, and rigor are seen as enemies of student success. There are no personal solutions to these problems because, as far as students are concerned, the problem is political. It must be handled by authority figures who can change the rules. They would not use those words, but think about it:

  1. You should have offered more extra credit.
  2. The reading assignment was too boring.
  3. I don’t think we need proofs in Calculus.

Perhaps as a consequence or simply a coincidence, the categories of personal and political are very blurred these days. It is very difficult for many people to experience a disagreement without shock or anger. Why? They take the philosophical/political to be purely personal or based on preference. Thus, to disagree with me (on these assumptions) is to devalue me as a person. Political disagreements are now personal affronts. This might even be why atheists aim to use mockery against religious people. They’re offended by disagreement.

I mean, The Facebook is filled with rants by people who are mad about differences in preference just as often as they are mad about differences of opinion. I’ve even noticed it in myself while looking at people lifting weights incorrectly. I should have just been happy they were improving themselves. Instead, I was mad at them for doing it differently (seriously though, people suck at lifting weights). I wish there was a way to know for sure if this philosophical shift toward seeing outrage as a sign of political/moral sanity is to blame.

Now, I have no doubt that groups of people do not have success because they are mistreated, overlooked, or disadvantaged. This is observable to anybody who takes the time to look at the world. Indeed, this observation is part of the deposit of Biblical wisdom:

Proverbs 13:23  The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice.

The unjust must repent, and not just with religious symbolism and public shows of sacrifice. We who are unjust must learn what this means:

Hosea 6:6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

On the other hand, I know from experience that nature does not always bestow us with the gifts we would prefer. I have a bone disorder that makes a lot of things painful and difficult for me that otherwise normal people can do with ease. You could ask several of my friends how I’ve responded to that disadvantage. I bring this up because no amount of outrage could have helped me unless I used it for legitimate character transformation. I suspect that a shift in thought away from making every personal problem a matter of politics that somebody else must solve and away from making every political/philosophical/taste disagreement into a personal affront would do us a great deal of good.

*Hanisch does note in an introduction to the essay written some 40 years later that the theory of the paper has been misused. I could be missing her intent, but the sort of collapsing of the political (ideological in general) into the personal as well as their inversion seems to be the result of attempts to apply her theory.

On Weekly Church Attendance and the Gospel in the New Testament

by Leave a Comment

Why Do People Not Go to Church?
It is very easy to find church attendance unpleasant.

I have enjoyed going to church services since my early teenage years, but mostly because my bent has always been toward the philosophical and sermons offer (when done well) a great deal of food for thought.

But I still remember being in high school and finding the singing, the hugs, and the other bits unpleasant. Some people feel that being there Sunday morning is a waste of time, some would rather watch sports, do chores, sleep off a hangover, or make money on Sunday.

Another reason not to go is if church tries to be “cool.” When I’m around people faking being cool I feel embarrassed for them. It’s worse when it is a person doing something that is categorically weird (giving a lecture on a weekend).

Why Might Christians Not Go to Church?
There is an even deeper issue many of us have with church attendance though. Many times the way that the good news of Jesus is explained excludes the church from being a part of the deal. Does this sound familiar:

If you want to go to heaven when you die, then admit to God that you’re sinful, believe that Jesus died for you, and ask God to forgive you. You don’t need to do special good works, you don’t need a priest or church to say so, you’re a Christian.

Now, I have no doubt that the Lord works to redeem us silly creatures with a very minimal or in some cases highly inaccurate understandings of God and God’s will. The point of John 3:16 is that God did everything reasonable, necessary, and possible to make sure that sinners would experience eternal life.

But, the particular way of summarizing the good news of Jesus in question makes church attendance and membership seem utterly peripheral. Thus, if it is boring, then why even go? There is no warrant to treat it as a duty. On top of that, many evangelical teachers claim that duty and ideals are bad things! How could people not be confused about going to church? If church attendance isn’t a duty, isn’t related to being a Christian at all, and has no entertainment value, then why go?

Last Minute Thought: Some people may avoid church due to pangs of conscience like somebody off the wagon who avoids his NA meetings.

The Gospel Message and the Church Community
On the other hand, let us look more clearly at the way the gospel authors summarize Jesus’ message:

Mark 1:14-15 ESV  Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,  (15)  and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Jesus’ version of the gospel is that God’s kingdom is at hand. This phrase means a lot when you dig into the rest of Mark’s gospel, but for now, let’s focus on one reality related to kingdoms. To look at it requires two questions: Who is in charge of a kingdom? Who lives in a kingdom? If you answered

  1. King
  2. People

then you are correct.

Jesus’ very message entailed that there would be a community of people who lived under God’s rule and reign in Israel and indeed, in the whole world. To believe the gospel message that Jesus preached is to believe oneself a citizen of God’s kingdom and thus, in later New Testament lingo, a member of the church.

Grace and Form
So evangelicals who are zealous to explain how God saves us by grace and not meritorious works, need to learn to explain that the message of grace is given in order to create a community.

Here is a concept that might help. Grace, like any other gift must be received as it is. Grace has form.

To Illustrate: If I am offered a gift card for a burger, and I go in and demand free lasagna, I have misapprehended the form of the gift. To receive the free gift, I must receive that gift. Similarly, if I try to accept God’s grace of salvation, but do not accept the form in which it is offered (entrance into a community), then am I really receiving it? God, in his graciousness, forgives us of many misunderstandings, but if God’s grace is meant to make a “people of his own possession, zealous for good works (Titus 2:14),” then receiving God’s grace without being part of such a community seems like a questionable proposition. Surely it can and has been done, but why try?

Many popular preachers define grace as “unmerited forgiveness.” A better definition of it is “unmerited gift.” Even then, this short-circuits its meaning in ancient culture. Grace by definition was offered freely, but receiving grace came with an expectation of loyalty or at least of thanksgiving in return (see DeSilva Honor, Patronage Kinship, and Purity). As Dallas Willard would say, “Grace is opposed to earning not to effort,” or in this case grace is opposed to earning, not to responding and receiving.

Now, the form of grace  that Jesus offers in the New Testament is an invitation to be Jesus’ disciple with Jesus’ people. One could also say that grace is offered as an invitation to believe Jesus’ message because it comes from Jesus, who is completely trustworthy. So, to receive the grace Jesus offers is to receive Jesus. To receive the message of God’s kingdom is, by implication, to accept the invitation to become citizens of God’s kingdom or members of God’s family.

Conclusion
Reframing the gospel message to include what Jesus and the gospel authors say about the gospel is very important for helping people to understand why going to church is important. Church attendance is important because we believe the gospel message. The gospel message offers entrance into a kingdom filled with God’s people. No people, no kingdom; and no kingdom means, no gospel. The people of God meet for church services every week to offer praise to God and to build one another up. The church is and does more than weekly services. But the church is not less than it’s services. To believe the gospel is to agree that barring impossible circumstances, we will be with God with his people regularly.

Mood Music

by Leave a Comment

Over at voxpopuli, Vox posted on mood programming music. I would not have chosen most of his choices, but he apparently was in the band psychosonik (I’m pretty sure they made music for the Mortal Kombat films). I shouldn’t expect his musical tastes to be similar to mine or even to standard humans. His categories are:

Best 5 fire-it-up songs

Best 5 philosophy songs

Best 5 get-off-the-canvas songs

Best 5 romance songs

I thought this was a cool idea. Here are my thoughts:

Best 5 fire-it-up songs (for the weight room or punching bag anyway)

  1. Fuel by Metallica (S&M version)
  2. Animal I have become by Three Days Grace
  3. Mars the Bringer of War by Gustav Holst
  4. The Crowing by Coheed and Cambria
  5. Black Wind, Fire, and Steel by Manowar

Best 5 philosophy songs (songs about philosophy or songs for reading philosophy?)

  1. Every Thought a Thought of You by mewithoutYou
  2. Somebody Told Me by The Killers (this might be about the Gettier Problem)
  3. Vesuvius by Sufjan Stevens
  4. Carnival of Souls by Saviour Machine
  5. Ready to Die by Andrew W.K.

Best 5 get-off-the-canvas songs

  1. Can’t Stop by The Red Hot Chili Peppers
  2. Defy You by The Offspring
  3. Harder Better Faster Stronger by Daft Punk
  4. FMZ4 by Mortal (this might be about revenge against a vampire from space)
  5. Here We Are Juggernaut by Coheed and Cambria

Best 5+2 romance songs (I like more romance songs than I thought…)

  1. Pearl of the Stars by Coheed and Cambria
  2. George Romero Will Be At Our Wedding by Showbread
  3. Does this Inspire You by Josh D.I.E.S.
  4. Burn by The Cure
  5. Dance Dance Christa Paffgen by Anberlin
  6. She is Beautiful by Andrew W.K.
  7. Nightcall by Kavinsky

What does it mean to “have faith in Christ?”

by Leave a Comment

What is faith?

What is Christian faith? I don’t mean “what is ‘the Christian faith’?” I mean, when I Christian has faith in Christ, what does ‘faith’ connote? Many Christians carry a meaning of the word faith around in their heads that leaves them with no actual ground to stand on for living the good life hinted at in Deuteronomy 30, the Sermon on the Mount, Micah 6:8, and Romans 12-15.

Dallas Willard on the most basic form of Christian Faith
I think that Dallas Willard has a very import insight into this specific issue:

“Jesus’ disciples are those who have chosen to be with him to learn to be like him. All they have necessarily realized at the outset of their apprenticeship to him is, Jesus is right. He is the greatest and best. Of this, they are sure.” Willard, Dallas (2009-02-06). The Divine Conspiracy (p. 318). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is a good way to see things. Christian faith is a particular stance in life vis-à-vis Jesus as he appears in the four gospels and in the preaching of the earliest church. This faith is, of course, a seed that grows up and discovers more explicit answers to hard questions but it must start with the simple admission and recognition that Jesus really is a wonderful, competent, reliable to guide human life, really is clever enough to save you from sin, and really does know what God and his kingdom are like.

Gary Black, in his book The theology of Dallas Willard, elaborates upon Willard’s brief description of Christian faith in Jesus:

“Willard asserts that confidence in Jesus should proceed from trusting him as a competent, verifiable master and guide into the vagaries of all human existence and endeavor. This would include placing confidence in Jesus’ own claims regarding his divinity and his resurrection. But belief in only these two propositional doctrines is not, in Willard’s view, positioning confidence in Jesus as the holistic Christ offering a total whole life soteriology proclaimed in Scripture.” Black Jr., Gary (2013-08-06). The Theology of Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith (p. 123). Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Conclusion
Faith in Christ is not simply right ideas about Jesus. Faith in Christ is a particular way of respecting Jesus as a person in relationship to yourself.