Baptist Pastor Accused of Expelling Kerry Voters Quits
Nearly three dozen parishioners join Chan Chandler in exiting East Waynesville Baptist ChurchAfter national media attention over a confrontation with church members who supported Democrat John Kerry for President, East Waynesville (N.C.) Baptist Church pastor Chan Chandler resigned yesterday.
"For me to remain now would only cause more hurt for me and my family," he said at a special business meeting last night. "I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family."
"Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary—a silence broken when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the piano," reports the Raleigh News & Observer. The paper says he will continue his M.Div. studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Chandler didn't speak to the media, but his lawyer explained, "He feels like in light of everything that has taken place, instead of continuing to fight with the various factions, he feels it's in the best interest of everyone concerned that he resign."
Actually, Chandler did speak to one media outlet. Baptist Press scored a coup with its exclusive interview yesterday, before the pastor's resignation. But even Baptist Press had a hard time figuring out what really happened at the church:
As Baptist Press tried to clarify whether the nine people were in fact voted out of the church, Chandler said they initially left voluntarily. Since some of those who willingly forfeited their memberships were trustees of the church, other members thought it prudent to make their actions official.
Chandler said the church had undergone several months of disharmony, some of which he speculates was the result of his preaching about Christians' responsibility to be reflective of the Bible in the way that they vote. And more hesitatingly, he also speculated that, since the church had baptized almost 30 people and was growing under his leadership, then those who had been in church leadership positions for years may have felt threatened. …
[At a May 3 church meeting, Chandler told] those who were unhappy with him as pastor that if they could garner a simple majority against him, he'd leave, despite the bylaws provision that such a vote to terminate the pastor requires a two-thirds vote margin.
Chandler also said that if those who were dissatisfied with him couldn't garner a simple majority, then they should leave.
But did Chandler actually say that those who didn't vote for Bush should be expelled?
"I don't know how these folks voted," Chandler told Baptist Press. "And I never endorsed any candidate." But he does admit that he talked about the "unbiblical values" of John Kerry, particularly in regard to abortion and homosexuality. "I also mentioned two Republicans' names" as examples of those whose positions are unbiblical, Chandler said.
"But those were negative endorsements," he explained. There was "never a positive endorsement" of a candidate from the pulpit, he said. The closest he came was to encourage writing in a new name when none of the candidates on the ballot promoted biblical positions.
That may or may not be good advice, but it still violates the tax code and puts the church in danger of losing its tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Manual explains:
IRC 501(c)(3) precludes exemption for an organization that participates in or intervenes in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This is an absolute prohibition, with no requirement that the activity be substantial. (Emphasis added.)
So by actually campaigning against Kerry from the pulpit, Chandler put his church's funds in danger. Apparently he didn't know he was doing so, but there you have it.
As it turns out, though, the debate is more about the new demographics of the congregation than it is about IRS standing.
"The storm that hit the church … divided it along generational lines," The News & Observer's Yonat Shimron explains. "Many of the older members are traditionally Democrats, though some have voted Republican in recent elections. Many of the newest and youngest members have always been Republicans. In this, the church reflected Southern voting habits that have dramatically embraced the Republican Party in recent decades."
Chandler, by the way, is 33. Those reportedly "kicked out" of the church are about twice his age, and they're not crazy about these kids today, what with their conservative ideas and such.
"A lot of these young people had not been in the church more than a year," Maxine Osborne, 70, told The News & Observer. Chandler and his wife, she said, "brought in a lot of young people, but they also brainwashed them."
Misty Turner (or Tucker, depending on the news source) seems to be one of the young 'uns.
"The only thing I want to say is that everything that's been in the press is a lie," she said. "I have never bowed down to Chan. I've only bowed down to the Lord." She's leaving. "I'm not going to serve where there are so many ungodly people."
Thirty-four others joined her in walking out of the church yesterday after Chandler's resignation.
A sad epilogueSo what lesson can be drawn from Chandlergate? Bill Leonard, dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University, says the moral of the story is don't believe everything you read. Weblog agrees in part: Reading the papers this week, especially the op-ed pages (and editorial cartoons like this), it's clear that there was more than one political agenda at work. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary vice president Waylan Owens rightly noted that most press reports exclusively quoted those allegedly voted out and their supporters. Where are "the members of the church who actually did the voting?" he asked.
But Wake Forest's Leonard isn't talking about being skeptical toward the press. For him, the danger is in believing Scripture.
"When you believe in an inerrant Bible, then the next step is to have an inerrant interpreter and then an inerrant morality," he said. And that's a bad thing.
Not even Chandler has made this case a litmus test for biblical authority. Does Leonard really want to go there?
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Sunday, May 08, 2005
A few nights ago, I caught the end of a primetime special where Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the Left Behind series, were being interviewed. Tim Lahaye, in particular, represents the more literal view of Scripture. He believes in taking the book of Revelation very literal. Opposed to Tim Lahaye is the author of the new book The Last Disciple, Hank Hanegraaff. Hanegraaff is a partial preterist who takes the view that most Biblical prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. These two men represent two very visible sides of the debate in evangelical circles. Because of the media’s love for anything that makes evangelicals look bad, the debate has been widely publicized.
Lahaye’s views, however, go far beyond viewing the book of Revelation as literal. The deeper question focuses on how one views the Bible as a literary work. Lahaye chooses to ignore the big picture and instead focuses on a very literal interpretation of events. Unfortunately, men like Lahaye are generally intolerant of anyone within evangelical circles that may disagree with him. Of course, one cannot say too much about Hanegraaff either who has been brought into the debate and lowered himself to Lahaye’s level.
This debate is far bigger than simply eschatology. This debate reaches into the very nature of each school of thought. Although Lahaye may be characterized as an evangelical, he most closely resembles a fundamentalist. The word “fundamentalist” in and of itself is not a bad word. It represents the school of thought that countered Protestant Liberalism that occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, the word has evolved and has come to represent a militant group of believers, usually dispensational Baptists that insist on a greater separation between “the world” and the Christian. They also tend to be very dogmatic on many issues evangelicals would not consider essential. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe mostly what fundamentalists believe, but they do not place such an emphasis on separation and even will engage the culture on many levels. Orthodox evangelicals will not go so far as so-called neo-evangelicals in their engagement with culture, but they will not withdraw themselves so far into a Christian subculture that they become irrelevant. The biggest difference, however, between evangelicalism and fundamentalism is attitude. As the old joke goes, and fundamentalist is an evangelical who is really mad about something.
There is, however, a new breed of evangelicals that characterize a growing number of Christians. This group of Christians would consider themselves evangelicals, but on the conservative side of the group. They would believe all of the fundamentals of the fundamentalists and may even be dogmatic on certain issues that most evangelicals would consider non-essential, but they would not be as big on the issue of separation, except when it is obvious that the Christian should be separate. These Christians may or may not be dispensationalists; they may or may not be Baptists. This group of people would believe that evangelicalism has gone too far in its acceptance of questionable theology such as any theology influenced by postmodernism. In my experience and research I am unable to find a name for such a people, but I have come to believe in recent months that I am one of these people.
Although I respect Tim Lahaye, my eyebrow is raised at the whole idea of the Left Behind series. It has nothing to do with my being a dispensationalist or not. It has everything to do with Lahaye’s arrogance and insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Now before you go and say that I have been influenced by postmodernism, step back a second. I believe that there is a right and wrong and I believe that Lahaye is either right or wrong. But fervent belief is no excuse for being rude and virtually killing any dialogue by misrepresenting your opponent’s views. I do not like Lahaye’s dogmatism. But I do respect it. After all, I have become rather dogmatic on some issues that most evangelicals would say are not essentials for unity. I disagree with Lahaye, but I do respect him. He has the guts to stand up and say that these series of books represent his beliefs.
I do believe that evangelicals, in their quest to be relevant, have started to become just the opposite. By not insisting on some beliefs, they have allowed other beliefs, like the influence of postmodernism and open theism, to come into the evangelical fold, beliefs that should not be there. The term “evangelical” has been watered down by the media and by evangelicals themselves. As an evangelical, I feel like I am part fundamentalist. I am getting mad.
Unlike the big difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists, I no longer see this new breed of Christians as simply being separated by anger. These new breed of Christians seem to be gathering the troops. Rather than be on the defensive, they are preparing for the offensive. They are armed with the Great Commission and are committed to showing that the gospel has never lost its relevancy and does not need reinterpreting or improvement.
I’m not sure where this army is, but I somehow feel I have joined it.
Lahaye’s views, however, go far beyond viewing the book of Revelation as literal. The deeper question focuses on how one views the Bible as a literary work. Lahaye chooses to ignore the big picture and instead focuses on a very literal interpretation of events. Unfortunately, men like Lahaye are generally intolerant of anyone within evangelical circles that may disagree with him. Of course, one cannot say too much about Hanegraaff either who has been brought into the debate and lowered himself to Lahaye’s level.
This debate is far bigger than simply eschatology. This debate reaches into the very nature of each school of thought. Although Lahaye may be characterized as an evangelical, he most closely resembles a fundamentalist. The word “fundamentalist” in and of itself is not a bad word. It represents the school of thought that countered Protestant Liberalism that occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, the word has evolved and has come to represent a militant group of believers, usually dispensational Baptists that insist on a greater separation between “the world” and the Christian. They also tend to be very dogmatic on many issues evangelicals would not consider essential. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe mostly what fundamentalists believe, but they do not place such an emphasis on separation and even will engage the culture on many levels. Orthodox evangelicals will not go so far as so-called neo-evangelicals in their engagement with culture, but they will not withdraw themselves so far into a Christian subculture that they become irrelevant. The biggest difference, however, between evangelicalism and fundamentalism is attitude. As the old joke goes, and fundamentalist is an evangelical who is really mad about something.
There is, however, a new breed of evangelicals that characterize a growing number of Christians. This group of Christians would consider themselves evangelicals, but on the conservative side of the group. They would believe all of the fundamentals of the fundamentalists and may even be dogmatic on certain issues that most evangelicals would consider non-essential, but they would not be as big on the issue of separation, except when it is obvious that the Christian should be separate. These Christians may or may not be dispensationalists; they may or may not be Baptists. This group of people would believe that evangelicalism has gone too far in its acceptance of questionable theology such as any theology influenced by postmodernism. In my experience and research I am unable to find a name for such a people, but I have come to believe in recent months that I am one of these people.
Although I respect Tim Lahaye, my eyebrow is raised at the whole idea of the Left Behind series. It has nothing to do with my being a dispensationalist or not. It has everything to do with Lahaye’s arrogance and insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Now before you go and say that I have been influenced by postmodernism, step back a second. I believe that there is a right and wrong and I believe that Lahaye is either right or wrong. But fervent belief is no excuse for being rude and virtually killing any dialogue by misrepresenting your opponent’s views. I do not like Lahaye’s dogmatism. But I do respect it. After all, I have become rather dogmatic on some issues that most evangelicals would say are not essentials for unity. I disagree with Lahaye, but I do respect him. He has the guts to stand up and say that these series of books represent his beliefs.
I do believe that evangelicals, in their quest to be relevant, have started to become just the opposite. By not insisting on some beliefs, they have allowed other beliefs, like the influence of postmodernism and open theism, to come into the evangelical fold, beliefs that should not be there. The term “evangelical” has been watered down by the media and by evangelicals themselves. As an evangelical, I feel like I am part fundamentalist. I am getting mad.
Unlike the big difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists, I no longer see this new breed of Christians as simply being separated by anger. These new breed of Christians seem to be gathering the troops. Rather than be on the defensive, they are preparing for the offensive. They are armed with the Great Commission and are committed to showing that the gospel has never lost its relevancy and does not need reinterpreting or improvement.
I’m not sure where this army is, but I somehow feel I have joined it.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The Evangelical Scandal
Ron Sider says the movement is riddled with hypocrisy, and that it's time for serious change.
Interview by Stan Guthrie posted 04/13/2005 09:00 a.m.
Ron Sider has been a burr in the ethical saddle of the evangelical world for decades. His 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, took fellow believers to task for materialism in the face of desperate global needs. Sider, who is professor of theology, holistic ministry, and public policy at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has just released a new jeremiad: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker Books, 2005). In it, Sider plays off Mark Noll's critique of American evangelicalism's anti-intellectualism in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Sider says the current crisis encompasses both mind and heart. Stan Guthrie, Christianity Today's senior associate news editor, interviewed Sider.
What troubles you the most about evangelicals today?
The heart of the matter is the scandalous failure to live what we preach. The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit. The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending.
I'm a deeply committed evangelical. I've been committed to evangelical beliefs and to renewing the evangelical church all of my life. And the stats just break my heart. They make me weep. And somehow we must face that reality and change it.
You have often spoken about evangelical failures in society, for example, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. This latest critique covers not only social justice issues but also issues of personal morality. Was that intentional?
I've always been concerned with a whole range of biblical things. My commitment is to be biblically faithful, not to pick out one issue. But a good bit of my writing has dealt with the social issues that have called evangelicals to be more engaged, for example, with questions of poverty here and abroad. But you're right. This book is talking about a range of things that we evangelicals all agree are biblical demands.
Evangelical Christians and born-again Christians get divorced just as often, if not a little more, than the general population. And Barna has discovered that 90 percent of the born-again Christians who are divorced got divorced after they accepted Christ. On sexual promiscuity, we're probably doing a little better than the general population. Josh McDowell has estimated that maybe our evangelical youth are 10 percent better, Lord help us.
So at least it's a measurable difference.
Well it is measurable, although there's not so much hard [data] on that question as with some of the others. John Green, one of the best evangelical pollsters, says that about a third of all evangelicals say that premarital sex is okay. And about 15 percent say that adultery is okay.
Take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question, "Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?" the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.
Several studies find that physical and sexual abuse in theologically conservative homes is about the same as elsewhere. A large study of the Christian Reformed Church, a member of the nae, discovered that the frequency of physical and sexual abuse in this evangelical denomination was about the same as in the general population. One recent study, though, suggests that evangelical men who attend church regularly are less likely than the general population to commit domestic violence.
Materialism continues to be an incredible scandal. The average church member [from across the denominations] today gives about 2.6 percent of his or her income—a quarter of a tithe—to the church. Evangelicals used to be quite a lot better [in giving] than mainline denominations. But their giving has declined every year for several decades, and they're now getting very close to the norm. The average evangelical giving is about 4.2 percent—about two-fifths of a tithe.
Six percent of the "born-again" people tithe; nine percent of evangelicals do. Our income has gone up fabulously over the last 30-plus years. The average household income now in the U.S. is $42,000-plus. If the average American Christian tithed, we'd have another $143 billion.
In an era in which people holding to traditional values appear to be returning to center stage in politics, your book says that all is not well with our day-to-day choices in the private realm. In effect, you're accusing evangelicals of hypocrisy. Is that a fair conclusion?
I'm not doing that gladly. I'm doing that with tears in my eyes. We have to face the reality. It strikes me as being incredibly tragic and, yes, hypocritical for the evidence to show that precisely at a time when evangelicals have more political power to raise the issue of moral values in this society than they've had in a long time, the hard statistics on their own living show that they don't live what they're talking about. And sure, I'm afraid that's hypocrisy. So we have to set our own house in order before we're going to have either any integrity or any effectiveness in terms of helping the larger society recover wholesome two-parent families.
Has there ever been a time when the typical church has lived out the faith much better than now? Some might argue that this is just the nature of a sinful church before the Second Coming.We don't have polling data from the 1860s or the 1700s, so it's hard to answer that question with precision. But as we look back over church history, we see that there has been ebb and flow, and that at times the church was especially unfaithful and full of disobedience and hypocrisy. At other times there was powerful renewal, and large groups of Christians were wonderfully transformed. There are stories from the Welsh Revival in which the prisons were essentially empty and not too many people went to pubs because there had been a radical transformation of large numbers of people.
To what historical era would you compare our own time?
If the question is evangelical obedience, then we're certainly not in a time of revival.
How do we turn the ship around?
We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.
I would think that evangelicals would want to get biblical and define the gospel the way Jesus did—which is that it's the Good News of the kingdom. Then we see that it means that the way to get into this kingdom is through unconditional grace because Jesus died for us. But it also means there's now a new kingdom community of Jesus' disciples, and that embracing Jesus means not just getting fire insurance so that one doesn't go to hell, but it means embracing Jesus as Lord as well as Savior. And it means beginning to live as a part of his new community where everything is being transformed.
You're pinning at least a good chunk of the blame on American individualism.
There's no question that that's at the core of it. We tend to reduce salvation to just forgiveness of sins. And in the New Testament, salvation means that, thank God, but it also means the new transformed life that's possible in the power of the Spirit. And it means the new communal existence of the body of believers.
One of my favorite examples is the story of Zacchaeus. He is involved in social sin as a wicked tax collector. When he comes to Jesus, he gives away half his goods and pays back everything that he's taken wrongly. Jesus says at the end of the story, "Today salvation has come to this house." There's not a word in the text about forgiveness of sins. Now, I'm sure Jesus forgave the rascal's sins; he clearly needed it. But what the text talks about is the new transformed economic relationships that happen when Zacchaeus comes to Jesus.
Salvation is a lot more than just a new right relationship with God through forgiveness of sins. It's a new, transformed lifestyle that you can see visible in the body of believers.
Obviously to be a disciple means there's discipline. Do you see the neglect of church discipline in our day as a factor in this moral crisis?It's part of the larger question of recovering the New Testament understanding of the church. This culture is radically individualistic and relativistic. Whatever feels right for me is right for me; whatever feels right to you is right for you. That's the dominant value. It's considered outrageous for somebody to say somebody else is wrong.
But historic biblical faith understood the church as a new community. The basic New Testament images of the church are of the body of Christ, the people of God, and the family of God. All these stress the fact that we're talking about a new community—a new, visible social order. That new community in the New Testament was living so differently from the world that people would say, "Wow, what's going on here?" Jews were accepting Gentiles. The rich were accepting the poor and sharing with the poor. Men were accepting women as equals. It just astonished people because the church was so different from the world. It was countercultural.
Furthermore, [the New Testament church] understood that being a member of the body of Christ meant that you were accountable to each other. If one suffered, you all suffered. If one rejoiced, you all rejoiced. There was dramatic economic sharing in the New Testament, and there was church discipline. Jesus talked explicitly about church discipline in Matthew 18. Paul clearly had his churches live that out. All of the great traditions at the core of American evangelicalism, whether the Reformed tradition, the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, or the Anabaptist tradition, understood church discipline when they were strong and thriving. But very few evangelical churches these days have any serious appropriation and practice of church discipline.
Isn't that at least in part because church discipline has been abused or become legalistic and mean-spirited?Sure, that's a part of it. But we don't give up on marriage just because a lot of people have messed it up so badly. And we shouldn't give up on church discipline just because we've so often done it in a legalistic way. We have to recover the New Testament understanding. John Wesley put it wonderfully when he said church discipline is watching over one another in love.
Today, when so many congregations are abandoning biblical truth, you say in the book that all congregations need to be connected to a denomination. Are you serious?
Absolutely. It's simply wrong for a local congregation to have no accountability to a larger body. Now I'm not saying it has to be one of the current denominations. There can be new structures of accountability. Any congregations that feel they must break away from older denominations that are no longer faithful theologically or in terms of moral practice should be a part of some new denominational, organizational structure so they're not isolated lone rangers. They need to have a larger structure of accountability. It is flatly unbiblical and heretical for an individual congregation to say, "We'll just be by ourselves and not be accountable to anybody."
What is the church doing right?
The small-group movement is a hopeful sign. One of the most important ways we develop mutual accountability in the local congregation is through small groups. It's almost impossible to follow Jesus either in [matters of] sex and marriage or in money and helping the poor by yourself. You need the strong support of brothers and sisters. While the whole congregation should be like that, we need small groups to struggle with the specifics and talk about our struggles and get encouragement and prayer support. I wish every person in all of our churches with more than 50 members were in a small group.
What other things are contemporary evangelicals doing well?
Over the last 30 years, we've made significant progress in understanding that the mission of the church is both to do evangelism and to do social ministry. There's also growing understanding that we can't have a one-issue agenda as we get involved in public life. The recent National Association of Evangelicals declaration, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," explicitly rejects one-issue politics and says faithful evangelical political engagement will be based on a biblically balanced agenda. That means, yes, by all means, a concern with the sanctity of human life and with the renewal of the family. But it will also mean a concern for justice for the poor. It will mean concern for creation care, for human rights, and for peacemaking. We simply can't allow right-wing or left-wing politics to provide the political agenda.
What areas are you personally working on?
Over the years I've needed to continue to work at making sure that my personal spiritual life is solid in terms of time for prayer and devotions regularly. That continues to be an ongoing challenge. I really, passionately want every corner of my life to be submitted to Jesus Christ and biblical truth. Living that out in terms of my money continues to be a challenge. Nothing is easy. But if we make that our resolve and ask the Spirit to transform us, I think wonderful things can happen.
Are you hopeful about the matters that you've written about? Or are you ready to give up?
I'm personally, by nature, something of an optimist. That may not come through clearly in this book, but I think it's true. I'm genuinely enthusiastic by the renewal of the evangelical world in the last 50 years. It's been a tremendous movement of change and growth since Carl Henry wrote The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. There has been fabulous growth of evangelical colleges and seminaries, evangelical scholarship, evangelical churches. I pointed to the way that we've grown, I think, in understanding the mission of the church as being both evangelism and social ministry.
We've grown certainly in the number of evangelical agencies working with the poor. Fifty years ago World Vision was a Korean orphan's choir. Now it's a huge agency, and there are dozens of other evangelical multi-million-dollar relief-and-development agencies.
On some days I'm discouraged, and other days I think, Wow, the next few decades could be just fabulous. But what I'm sure about is that we won't get close to the promise and the fulfillment of what's possible unless we face head-on the scandalous way that we're currently not living what we're preaching.
Is it going to be the end of the evangelical movement if we don't do something about these problems?
The Lord doesn't take hypocrisy and disobedience lightly. He punishes, and there's an inevitable kind of decline that sets in if you are hypocritical and don't practice what you preach. It won't happen instantly; our institutions are strong. But over a period of time it certainly will mean major decline.
I find it incredibly ironic that in the last few months, the importance of political life nurturing moral values and wholesome families and so on is center stage. And then you have this astonishing data that evangelicals live just like the world in terms of divorce. And it's incredibly ironic that one of the issues—and one I agree vigorously with—is concerned with how public life affects marriage. I'm in favor of the marriage amendment. But at precisely a point in time when our political rhetoric as evangelicals has focused on that, we have to face the fact that we're not any different from the world. And that's just incredible hypocrisy and it undercuts our message to the larger society in a terrible way.
Ron Sider says the movement is riddled with hypocrisy, and that it's time for serious change.
Interview by Stan Guthrie posted 04/13/2005 09:00 a.m.
Ron Sider has been a burr in the ethical saddle of the evangelical world for decades. His 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, took fellow believers to task for materialism in the face of desperate global needs. Sider, who is professor of theology, holistic ministry, and public policy at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has just released a new jeremiad: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker Books, 2005). In it, Sider plays off Mark Noll's critique of American evangelicalism's anti-intellectualism in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Sider says the current crisis encompasses both mind and heart. Stan Guthrie, Christianity Today's senior associate news editor, interviewed Sider.
What troubles you the most about evangelicals today?
The heart of the matter is the scandalous failure to live what we preach. The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit. The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending.
I'm a deeply committed evangelical. I've been committed to evangelical beliefs and to renewing the evangelical church all of my life. And the stats just break my heart. They make me weep. And somehow we must face that reality and change it.
You have often spoken about evangelical failures in society, for example, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. This latest critique covers not only social justice issues but also issues of personal morality. Was that intentional?
I've always been concerned with a whole range of biblical things. My commitment is to be biblically faithful, not to pick out one issue. But a good bit of my writing has dealt with the social issues that have called evangelicals to be more engaged, for example, with questions of poverty here and abroad. But you're right. This book is talking about a range of things that we evangelicals all agree are biblical demands.
Evangelical Christians and born-again Christians get divorced just as often, if not a little more, than the general population. And Barna has discovered that 90 percent of the born-again Christians who are divorced got divorced after they accepted Christ. On sexual promiscuity, we're probably doing a little better than the general population. Josh McDowell has estimated that maybe our evangelical youth are 10 percent better, Lord help us.
So at least it's a measurable difference.
Well it is measurable, although there's not so much hard [data] on that question as with some of the others. John Green, one of the best evangelical pollsters, says that about a third of all evangelicals say that premarital sex is okay. And about 15 percent say that adultery is okay.
Take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question, "Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?" the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.
Several studies find that physical and sexual abuse in theologically conservative homes is about the same as elsewhere. A large study of the Christian Reformed Church, a member of the nae, discovered that the frequency of physical and sexual abuse in this evangelical denomination was about the same as in the general population. One recent study, though, suggests that evangelical men who attend church regularly are less likely than the general population to commit domestic violence.
Materialism continues to be an incredible scandal. The average church member [from across the denominations] today gives about 2.6 percent of his or her income—a quarter of a tithe—to the church. Evangelicals used to be quite a lot better [in giving] than mainline denominations. But their giving has declined every year for several decades, and they're now getting very close to the norm. The average evangelical giving is about 4.2 percent—about two-fifths of a tithe.
Six percent of the "born-again" people tithe; nine percent of evangelicals do. Our income has gone up fabulously over the last 30-plus years. The average household income now in the U.S. is $42,000-plus. If the average American Christian tithed, we'd have another $143 billion.
In an era in which people holding to traditional values appear to be returning to center stage in politics, your book says that all is not well with our day-to-day choices in the private realm. In effect, you're accusing evangelicals of hypocrisy. Is that a fair conclusion?
I'm not doing that gladly. I'm doing that with tears in my eyes. We have to face the reality. It strikes me as being incredibly tragic and, yes, hypocritical for the evidence to show that precisely at a time when evangelicals have more political power to raise the issue of moral values in this society than they've had in a long time, the hard statistics on their own living show that they don't live what they're talking about. And sure, I'm afraid that's hypocrisy. So we have to set our own house in order before we're going to have either any integrity or any effectiveness in terms of helping the larger society recover wholesome two-parent families.
Has there ever been a time when the typical church has lived out the faith much better than now? Some might argue that this is just the nature of a sinful church before the Second Coming.We don't have polling data from the 1860s or the 1700s, so it's hard to answer that question with precision. But as we look back over church history, we see that there has been ebb and flow, and that at times the church was especially unfaithful and full of disobedience and hypocrisy. At other times there was powerful renewal, and large groups of Christians were wonderfully transformed. There are stories from the Welsh Revival in which the prisons were essentially empty and not too many people went to pubs because there had been a radical transformation of large numbers of people.
To what historical era would you compare our own time?
If the question is evangelical obedience, then we're certainly not in a time of revival.
How do we turn the ship around?
We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.
I would think that evangelicals would want to get biblical and define the gospel the way Jesus did—which is that it's the Good News of the kingdom. Then we see that it means that the way to get into this kingdom is through unconditional grace because Jesus died for us. But it also means there's now a new kingdom community of Jesus' disciples, and that embracing Jesus means not just getting fire insurance so that one doesn't go to hell, but it means embracing Jesus as Lord as well as Savior. And it means beginning to live as a part of his new community where everything is being transformed.
You're pinning at least a good chunk of the blame on American individualism.
There's no question that that's at the core of it. We tend to reduce salvation to just forgiveness of sins. And in the New Testament, salvation means that, thank God, but it also means the new transformed life that's possible in the power of the Spirit. And it means the new communal existence of the body of believers.
One of my favorite examples is the story of Zacchaeus. He is involved in social sin as a wicked tax collector. When he comes to Jesus, he gives away half his goods and pays back everything that he's taken wrongly. Jesus says at the end of the story, "Today salvation has come to this house." There's not a word in the text about forgiveness of sins. Now, I'm sure Jesus forgave the rascal's sins; he clearly needed it. But what the text talks about is the new transformed economic relationships that happen when Zacchaeus comes to Jesus.
Salvation is a lot more than just a new right relationship with God through forgiveness of sins. It's a new, transformed lifestyle that you can see visible in the body of believers.
Obviously to be a disciple means there's discipline. Do you see the neglect of church discipline in our day as a factor in this moral crisis?It's part of the larger question of recovering the New Testament understanding of the church. This culture is radically individualistic and relativistic. Whatever feels right for me is right for me; whatever feels right to you is right for you. That's the dominant value. It's considered outrageous for somebody to say somebody else is wrong.
But historic biblical faith understood the church as a new community. The basic New Testament images of the church are of the body of Christ, the people of God, and the family of God. All these stress the fact that we're talking about a new community—a new, visible social order. That new community in the New Testament was living so differently from the world that people would say, "Wow, what's going on here?" Jews were accepting Gentiles. The rich were accepting the poor and sharing with the poor. Men were accepting women as equals. It just astonished people because the church was so different from the world. It was countercultural.
Furthermore, [the New Testament church] understood that being a member of the body of Christ meant that you were accountable to each other. If one suffered, you all suffered. If one rejoiced, you all rejoiced. There was dramatic economic sharing in the New Testament, and there was church discipline. Jesus talked explicitly about church discipline in Matthew 18. Paul clearly had his churches live that out. All of the great traditions at the core of American evangelicalism, whether the Reformed tradition, the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, or the Anabaptist tradition, understood church discipline when they were strong and thriving. But very few evangelical churches these days have any serious appropriation and practice of church discipline.
Isn't that at least in part because church discipline has been abused or become legalistic and mean-spirited?Sure, that's a part of it. But we don't give up on marriage just because a lot of people have messed it up so badly. And we shouldn't give up on church discipline just because we've so often done it in a legalistic way. We have to recover the New Testament understanding. John Wesley put it wonderfully when he said church discipline is watching over one another in love.
Today, when so many congregations are abandoning biblical truth, you say in the book that all congregations need to be connected to a denomination. Are you serious?
Absolutely. It's simply wrong for a local congregation to have no accountability to a larger body. Now I'm not saying it has to be one of the current denominations. There can be new structures of accountability. Any congregations that feel they must break away from older denominations that are no longer faithful theologically or in terms of moral practice should be a part of some new denominational, organizational structure so they're not isolated lone rangers. They need to have a larger structure of accountability. It is flatly unbiblical and heretical for an individual congregation to say, "We'll just be by ourselves and not be accountable to anybody."
What is the church doing right?
The small-group movement is a hopeful sign. One of the most important ways we develop mutual accountability in the local congregation is through small groups. It's almost impossible to follow Jesus either in [matters of] sex and marriage or in money and helping the poor by yourself. You need the strong support of brothers and sisters. While the whole congregation should be like that, we need small groups to struggle with the specifics and talk about our struggles and get encouragement and prayer support. I wish every person in all of our churches with more than 50 members were in a small group.
What other things are contemporary evangelicals doing well?
Over the last 30 years, we've made significant progress in understanding that the mission of the church is both to do evangelism and to do social ministry. There's also growing understanding that we can't have a one-issue agenda as we get involved in public life. The recent National Association of Evangelicals declaration, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," explicitly rejects one-issue politics and says faithful evangelical political engagement will be based on a biblically balanced agenda. That means, yes, by all means, a concern with the sanctity of human life and with the renewal of the family. But it will also mean a concern for justice for the poor. It will mean concern for creation care, for human rights, and for peacemaking. We simply can't allow right-wing or left-wing politics to provide the political agenda.
What areas are you personally working on?
Over the years I've needed to continue to work at making sure that my personal spiritual life is solid in terms of time for prayer and devotions regularly. That continues to be an ongoing challenge. I really, passionately want every corner of my life to be submitted to Jesus Christ and biblical truth. Living that out in terms of my money continues to be a challenge. Nothing is easy. But if we make that our resolve and ask the Spirit to transform us, I think wonderful things can happen.
Are you hopeful about the matters that you've written about? Or are you ready to give up?
I'm personally, by nature, something of an optimist. That may not come through clearly in this book, but I think it's true. I'm genuinely enthusiastic by the renewal of the evangelical world in the last 50 years. It's been a tremendous movement of change and growth since Carl Henry wrote The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. There has been fabulous growth of evangelical colleges and seminaries, evangelical scholarship, evangelical churches. I pointed to the way that we've grown, I think, in understanding the mission of the church as being both evangelism and social ministry.
We've grown certainly in the number of evangelical agencies working with the poor. Fifty years ago World Vision was a Korean orphan's choir. Now it's a huge agency, and there are dozens of other evangelical multi-million-dollar relief-and-development agencies.
On some days I'm discouraged, and other days I think, Wow, the next few decades could be just fabulous. But what I'm sure about is that we won't get close to the promise and the fulfillment of what's possible unless we face head-on the scandalous way that we're currently not living what we're preaching.
Is it going to be the end of the evangelical movement if we don't do something about these problems?
The Lord doesn't take hypocrisy and disobedience lightly. He punishes, and there's an inevitable kind of decline that sets in if you are hypocritical and don't practice what you preach. It won't happen instantly; our institutions are strong. But over a period of time it certainly will mean major decline.
I find it incredibly ironic that in the last few months, the importance of political life nurturing moral values and wholesome families and so on is center stage. And then you have this astonishing data that evangelicals live just like the world in terms of divorce. And it's incredibly ironic that one of the issues—and one I agree vigorously with—is concerned with how public life affects marriage. I'm in favor of the marriage amendment. But at precisely a point in time when our political rhetoric as evangelicals has focused on that, we have to face the fact that we're not any different from the world. And that's just incredible hypocrisy and it undercuts our message to the larger society in a terrible way.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Thinking Straighter
Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
by James A. Beverley posted 04/08/2005 09:00 a.m.
Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers, has changed his mind about God. And he has agnostics worried.
Some are mystified and others are angry. Typical of many responses is this one skeptical blogger: "Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desperate attempt at salvation." Richard Carrier of The Secular Web even accuses him of "willfully sloppy scholarship."
His pedigree in philosophy explains the recent media frenzy and controversy. Raised in a Christian home and son of a famous Methodist minister, Flew became an atheist at age 15. A student of Gilbert Ryle's at Oxford, Flew won the prestigious John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy. He has written 26 books, many of them classics like God and Philosophy and How to Think Straight. A 1949 lecture given to C. S. Lewis's Oxford Socratic Club became one of the most widely published essays in philosophy. The Times Literary Supplement said Flew fomented a change in both the theological and philosophical worlds.
Flew taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading, and has lectured in North America, Australia, Africa, South America, and Asia. The Times of London referred to him as "one of the most renowned atheists of the past half-century, whose papers and lectures have formed the bedrock of unbelief for many adherents."
Last summer he hinted at his abandonment of naturalism in a letter to Philosophy Now. Rumors began circulating on the internet about Flew's inclinations towards belief in God, and then Richard Ostling broke the story in early December for the Associated Press. According to Craig Hazen, associate professor of comparative religions and apologetics at Biola, the school received more than 35,000 hits on their site that contains Flew's interview for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. At his home in Reading, west of London, Flew told me: "I have been simply amazed by the attention given to my change of mind."
So what exactly is the reason for and nature of his "change of mind"?
Jeffersonian DeistFlew has had to assure former students that he does not now believe in revealed religion. "Even one of my daughters asked if this meant we were going to say grace at meals," he said. "The answer is no."
Flew is also quick to point out that he is not a Christian. "I have become a deist like Thomas Jefferson." He cites his affinity with Einstein who believed in "an Intelligence that produced the integrative complexity of creation." To make things perfectly clear, he told me: "I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken."
"Are you Paul on the road to Damascus?" I asked him.
"Certainly not."
Comedian Jay Leno suggested a motive for the change on The Tonight Show: "Of course he believes in God now. He's 81 years old." It's something many agnostics have said more seriously. However, Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. "I don't want a future life. I have never wanted a future life," he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: "I want to be dead when I'm dead and that's an end to it." He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: "Goodbye. We shall never meet again."
Flew's U-turn on God lies in a far more significant reality. It is about evidence. "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads." I asked him if it was tough to change his mind. "No. It was not hard. I've always engaged in inquiry. If I am shown to have been wrong, well, okay, so I was wrong."
The Impact of Evangelical ScholarsActually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator. In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
I studied with Flew in 1985 in Toronto, and he told me then about the positive impression he had of emerging evangelical scholarship. That year Varghese had arranged a Dallas conference on God, and included atheists, like Flew, and theists. That same year Flew had his first debate with historian Gary Habermas of Liberty University on the resurrection of Jesus, recorded in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? They have debated twice since on the same topic.
Flew has also debated Terry Miethe, who holds doctorates in both philosophy and religion, on the existence of God, and he has been involved in philosophical exchanges with J. P. Moreland, another well-known Christian philosopher. In 1998 he had a major debate in Madison, Wisconsin, with William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the famous BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, the brilliant Catholic philosopher.
In Reading, I asked Flew more explicitly about the impact of these and other scholars. "Who amazes you the most of the defenders of Christian theism?"
He replied, "I would have to put Alvin Plantinga pretty high," and he also complimented Miethe, Moreland, and Craig for their philosophical skills. He regards Richard Swinburne, the Oxford philosophy of religion professor, as the leading figure in the United Kingdom. "There is really no competition to him." He said that Habermas has made "the most impressive case for Christian theism on the basis of New Testament writings."
These Christian philosophers have uniform respect for Flew as a person and as a thinker. Craig spoke of him as "an enduring figure in positivistic philosophy" and was "rather surprised by his giving up his atheistic views." He, Miethe, and Habermas have found Flew to be a perfect gentleman both in public debate and private conversations. Swinburne says Flew has always been a tough thinker, though less dogmatic as the years went by. Plantinga, the founder of the Society of Christian Philosophers, said that Flew's change is "a tribute to his open-mindedness as well as an indication of the strength of current broadly scientific arguments against atheism."
What Holds Him Back from Christianity?Flew's preference for deism and continued dislike of alleged revelation emerge from two deep impulses in his philosophy. First, Flew has an almost unshakable view against the supernatural, a view that he learned chiefly from David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Flew, a leading authority on Hume, wrote the classic essay on miracles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is rather surprising in Flew's dogmatism is that he believes Hume did not and could not prove that miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible. "If this is the case, why not be open to God's possible intervention?" I asked. He replied by saying that the laws of nature are so well established that testimonies about miracles are easy for him to ignore. He is not impressed by people who hear regularly from God. He did concede, reluctantly and after considerable discussion, that God could, in principle, puncture his bias against the supernatural.
Of more significance, Flew detests any notion that a loving God would send any of his creatures to eternal flames. He cannot fathom how intelligent Christians can believe this doctrine. He even said in his debate with Terry Miethe that he has entertained the thought that the Creator should punish, though not endlessly, only those who defend the notion of eternal torment. On this matter, Flew is willing to entertain fresh approaches to divine justice. In fact, he had just obtained Lewis's book The Great Divorce in order to assess Lewis's unique interpretation on the topic of judgment.
When I asked Flew about his broader case for deism, he asked rhetorically: "Why should God be concerned about what his creatures think about him anymore than he should be directly concerned with their conduct?" I reminded him of biblical verses that also ask rhetorically: "He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?" (Ps. 94:9) It seems incredible to argue that any human cares more about the world than God does. "Is the Creator really morally clueless?" I asked. Flew responded to what he called this "interesting argument" with openness. Moreland, who teaches at Biola, says he hopes that Flew "will become even more curious about whether or not God has ever made himself clearly known to humanity."
Unlike many other modern philosophers, Flew has a high regard for the person of Jesus. Early in the interview, he stated rather abruptly: "There's absolutely no good reason for believing in Islam, whereas in Christianity you have the charismatic figure of Jesus, the defining example of what is meant by charismatic." By charismatic, he means dynamic and impressive. He dismissed views that Jesus never existed as "ridiculous."
Later I asked, "Are you basically impressed with Jesus?"
"Oh yes. He is a defining instance of a charismatic figure, perplexing in many ways, of course." Beyond this, Flew remains agnostic about orthodox views of Jesus, though he has made some very positive remarks about the case for the Resurrection. In the journal Philosophia Christi he states: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." No, he still does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. However, he told me, the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."
Plantinga, the dean of Christian philosophers, told me that the radical change in Christian scholarship over Flew's career has been remarkable. When Flew originally attacked theism more than 50 years ago, there were few Christians working in philosophy. Now there are a large and growing number of scholars committed to intellectual defense of the gospel. It is, of course, no small matter that one of the world's leading philosophers has moved somewhat closer to the side of the angels.
James A. Beverley is professor of Christian apologetics at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. For more information on the interview with Flew, see Beverley's website at www.religionwatch.ca.
Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
by James A. Beverley posted 04/08/2005 09:00 a.m.
Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers, has changed his mind about God. And he has agnostics worried.
Some are mystified and others are angry. Typical of many responses is this one skeptical blogger: "Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desperate attempt at salvation." Richard Carrier of The Secular Web even accuses him of "willfully sloppy scholarship."
His pedigree in philosophy explains the recent media frenzy and controversy. Raised in a Christian home and son of a famous Methodist minister, Flew became an atheist at age 15. A student of Gilbert Ryle's at Oxford, Flew won the prestigious John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy. He has written 26 books, many of them classics like God and Philosophy and How to Think Straight. A 1949 lecture given to C. S. Lewis's Oxford Socratic Club became one of the most widely published essays in philosophy. The Times Literary Supplement said Flew fomented a change in both the theological and philosophical worlds.
Flew taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading, and has lectured in North America, Australia, Africa, South America, and Asia. The Times of London referred to him as "one of the most renowned atheists of the past half-century, whose papers and lectures have formed the bedrock of unbelief for many adherents."
Last summer he hinted at his abandonment of naturalism in a letter to Philosophy Now. Rumors began circulating on the internet about Flew's inclinations towards belief in God, and then Richard Ostling broke the story in early December for the Associated Press. According to Craig Hazen, associate professor of comparative religions and apologetics at Biola, the school received more than 35,000 hits on their site that contains Flew's interview for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. At his home in Reading, west of London, Flew told me: "I have been simply amazed by the attention given to my change of mind."
So what exactly is the reason for and nature of his "change of mind"?
Jeffersonian DeistFlew has had to assure former students that he does not now believe in revealed religion. "Even one of my daughters asked if this meant we were going to say grace at meals," he said. "The answer is no."
Flew is also quick to point out that he is not a Christian. "I have become a deist like Thomas Jefferson." He cites his affinity with Einstein who believed in "an Intelligence that produced the integrative complexity of creation." To make things perfectly clear, he told me: "I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken."
"Are you Paul on the road to Damascus?" I asked him.
"Certainly not."
Comedian Jay Leno suggested a motive for the change on The Tonight Show: "Of course he believes in God now. He's 81 years old." It's something many agnostics have said more seriously. However, Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. "I don't want a future life. I have never wanted a future life," he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: "I want to be dead when I'm dead and that's an end to it." He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: "Goodbye. We shall never meet again."
Flew's U-turn on God lies in a far more significant reality. It is about evidence. "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads." I asked him if it was tough to change his mind. "No. It was not hard. I've always engaged in inquiry. If I am shown to have been wrong, well, okay, so I was wrong."
The Impact of Evangelical ScholarsActually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator. In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
I studied with Flew in 1985 in Toronto, and he told me then about the positive impression he had of emerging evangelical scholarship. That year Varghese had arranged a Dallas conference on God, and included atheists, like Flew, and theists. That same year Flew had his first debate with historian Gary Habermas of Liberty University on the resurrection of Jesus, recorded in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? They have debated twice since on the same topic.
Flew has also debated Terry Miethe, who holds doctorates in both philosophy and religion, on the existence of God, and he has been involved in philosophical exchanges with J. P. Moreland, another well-known Christian philosopher. In 1998 he had a major debate in Madison, Wisconsin, with William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the famous BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, the brilliant Catholic philosopher.
In Reading, I asked Flew more explicitly about the impact of these and other scholars. "Who amazes you the most of the defenders of Christian theism?"
He replied, "I would have to put Alvin Plantinga pretty high," and he also complimented Miethe, Moreland, and Craig for their philosophical skills. He regards Richard Swinburne, the Oxford philosophy of religion professor, as the leading figure in the United Kingdom. "There is really no competition to him." He said that Habermas has made "the most impressive case for Christian theism on the basis of New Testament writings."
These Christian philosophers have uniform respect for Flew as a person and as a thinker. Craig spoke of him as "an enduring figure in positivistic philosophy" and was "rather surprised by his giving up his atheistic views." He, Miethe, and Habermas have found Flew to be a perfect gentleman both in public debate and private conversations. Swinburne says Flew has always been a tough thinker, though less dogmatic as the years went by. Plantinga, the founder of the Society of Christian Philosophers, said that Flew's change is "a tribute to his open-mindedness as well as an indication of the strength of current broadly scientific arguments against atheism."
What Holds Him Back from Christianity?Flew's preference for deism and continued dislike of alleged revelation emerge from two deep impulses in his philosophy. First, Flew has an almost unshakable view against the supernatural, a view that he learned chiefly from David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Flew, a leading authority on Hume, wrote the classic essay on miracles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is rather surprising in Flew's dogmatism is that he believes Hume did not and could not prove that miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible. "If this is the case, why not be open to God's possible intervention?" I asked. He replied by saying that the laws of nature are so well established that testimonies about miracles are easy for him to ignore. He is not impressed by people who hear regularly from God. He did concede, reluctantly and after considerable discussion, that God could, in principle, puncture his bias against the supernatural.
Of more significance, Flew detests any notion that a loving God would send any of his creatures to eternal flames. He cannot fathom how intelligent Christians can believe this doctrine. He even said in his debate with Terry Miethe that he has entertained the thought that the Creator should punish, though not endlessly, only those who defend the notion of eternal torment. On this matter, Flew is willing to entertain fresh approaches to divine justice. In fact, he had just obtained Lewis's book The Great Divorce in order to assess Lewis's unique interpretation on the topic of judgment.
When I asked Flew about his broader case for deism, he asked rhetorically: "Why should God be concerned about what his creatures think about him anymore than he should be directly concerned with their conduct?" I reminded him of biblical verses that also ask rhetorically: "He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?" (Ps. 94:9) It seems incredible to argue that any human cares more about the world than God does. "Is the Creator really morally clueless?" I asked. Flew responded to what he called this "interesting argument" with openness. Moreland, who teaches at Biola, says he hopes that Flew "will become even more curious about whether or not God has ever made himself clearly known to humanity."
Unlike many other modern philosophers, Flew has a high regard for the person of Jesus. Early in the interview, he stated rather abruptly: "There's absolutely no good reason for believing in Islam, whereas in Christianity you have the charismatic figure of Jesus, the defining example of what is meant by charismatic." By charismatic, he means dynamic and impressive. He dismissed views that Jesus never existed as "ridiculous."
Later I asked, "Are you basically impressed with Jesus?"
"Oh yes. He is a defining instance of a charismatic figure, perplexing in many ways, of course." Beyond this, Flew remains agnostic about orthodox views of Jesus, though he has made some very positive remarks about the case for the Resurrection. In the journal Philosophia Christi he states: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." No, he still does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. However, he told me, the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."
Plantinga, the dean of Christian philosophers, told me that the radical change in Christian scholarship over Flew's career has been remarkable. When Flew originally attacked theism more than 50 years ago, there were few Christians working in philosophy. Now there are a large and growing number of scholars committed to intellectual defense of the gospel. It is, of course, no small matter that one of the world's leading philosophers has moved somewhat closer to the side of the angels.
James A. Beverley is professor of Christian apologetics at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. For more information on the interview with Flew, see Beverley's website at www.religionwatch.ca.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Albert Mohler**Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary**Monday, April 4, 2005**John Paul II--The Man and His Legacy*The death of Pope John Paul II brings one of the Roman Catholic Church's longest papal reigns to an end and closes the last chapter on one of the most significant lives of our times. By any measure, John Paul II was one of the most influential figures on the world scene, leading over a billion Roman Catholics worldwide and exercising a significant influence on world affairs during some of the most tumultuous decades of the 20th century.Inevitably, his death raises fundamental questions about how evangelical Christians should understand the papacy itself, as well as those who hold the papal office. Given the low level of theological knowledge and the high emotionalism of the era, many evangelicals appear confused when confronted with an event like the death of a pope. Furthermore, evangelicals are more likely to have been aware of this pope in contrast with those who held the office in the past. In this age of mass communications and media, John Paul II has been one of the most publicized, televised, and celebrated public figures of our age.For evangelicals, the crucial question comes with the institution of the papacy itself. After all, the Reformation of the 16th century required a rejection of papal power and authority, and the Reformers soon came to understand the papacy as an unbiblical office that inevitably compromised the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Over time, the heirs of the Reformers came to understand that the papacy is a fundamentally unbiblical office that posits an earthly monarch as the earthly head of the church. Furthermore, this office is then invested with claims to spiritual and temporal power that are combined with claims of apostolic succession and serve as foundational pillars for the comprehensive claims of the Roman Catholic Church.The Protestant rejection of the papacy was no small matter, though some liberal Protestants and careless evangelicals seem to have forgotten why. Beyond this, the papacy is inextricably linked to the structure of Catholic theology and the superstructure of truth claims, practices, and doctrines that constitute Catholicism. Evangelical Christians simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation. With the death of John Paul II, evangelicals are confronted with a sensitive question: Can we recognize genuine virtues in a man who for over a quarter of a century held an office we must expressly reject?We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia. With bold strokes and a clear voice, this pope defended human life from the moment of conception until natural death. In his encyclical, /Evangelium Vitae/ (1995), he argued for an implacable opposition to what he called the "culture of death"--an age that would increasingly embrace death rather than life and forfeit human dignity on the altar of human autonomy and individual rights.In /Veritatis Splendor/ (1993), John Paul argued that the modern concept of freedom as unrestrained human liberty would lead to the destruction of Christian ethics and the undermining of all authority. In this powerful statement, the pope defended the very nature of truth against postmodern denials and a culture increasingly attracted to moral relativism.The legacy of this pope cannot be separated from the facts of his life. Born May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, just south of Krakow in Poland, Karol Wojtyla would come to adulthood in the context of Communist oppression. Throughout his life, he would identify himself as a Pole and a Slav, and the twists and turns of his biography would become a focus of world attention.Trained as an actor, Karol Wojtyla would later decide to enter the priesthood, following a calling that brought great respect in his native Poland. With remarkable speed, Father Wojtyla moved into the hierarchy of the church. He was consecrated a bishop in 1958--just 12 years after entering the priesthood. In 1964, he was installed as Archbishop of Krakow, and just three years later he was created a cardinal by Pope Paul VI.Long before he became a cardinal of the church, Karol Wojtyla had attracted the attention of the Vatican. He had studied in Rome and had developed a reputation in the academic circles of the church. Theologically, he was seen as a progressive, and he took an active part in the Second Vatican Council, called into session by Pope John XXIII.When Pope Paul VI died at Castel Gandolfo on August 6, 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla was already discussed as a potential successor. Nevertheless, when the College of Cardinals elected Albino Luciani on August 25, 1978, it looked as if Cardinal Wojtyla had lost his chance to become pope.All this changed on September 28, 1978, when Cardinal Luciani--now Pope John Paul I--died in his sleep during the night, barely a month after his election as pope.The election of Karol Wojtyla as pope came on October 16, 1978, and he immediately announced that he would take the name "John Paul II" as a way of honoring his immediate predecessor. Nevertheless, it was clear that this new pope would take the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church firmly in hand.In his early years, this Polish pope was known by millions of persons around the globe, primarily as a man who opposed Communist tyranny with personal courage and the weight of his papal office. John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope since 1522, and the historical importance of his election became clear as he used the full influence of his papal office to encourage the Solidarity movement in his native Poland.Along with President Ronald W. Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II saw Communism as an assault upon human dignity and the human spirit. Like Ronald Reagan, John Paul II grew in international stature after surviving an assassination attempt. In the case of John Paul II, the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly took his life was organized by the Bulgarian secret police, presumably under orders from the KGB in the Soviet Union.Evangelical Christians should honor the courage of this man and his historic role in bringing Communist tyranny to an end--at least within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. Added to this, we should honor his defense of human dignity and his eloquent and influential witness against abortion and the Culture of Death.Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern.Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces."In the end, evangelicals should be thankful for the personal virtues Pope John Paul II demonstrated, and for his advocacy on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity. Yet we cannot ignore the institution of the papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught, defended, and promulgated. As Roman Catholics mourn the passing of the pope, we should take care to respond with both compassion and conviction, fulfilling our own responsibility to take the measure of this man and his legacy._______________________________________________R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on /The Albert Mohler Program/, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to _www.albertmohler.com_ <http://www.albertmohler.com/>. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to _www.sbts.edu_ <http://www.sbts.edu/>. Send feedback to _mail@albertmohler.com_ .
Friday, April 01, 2005
A post from a friend of mine:Dear Sisters and Brothers,
I think that the Terri Schiavo case is complex because it pits competing
values against each other. On the one hand, the case seems relatively
simple, especially as it was presented by the mainstream press.
1. The first area of conflict has to do with whom basic decision-making
rests. With an underlying jurisprudence rooted in Scripture, and thousands
of years of legal tradition, the courts ruled that Terri's husband was her
primary care-giver, and the one in charge of these decisions.
2. In the American system, as it was understood prior to the U. S.
Constitution becoming somewhat self-contradictory and being interpreted
"dynamically" rather than "statically," these matters should rest with the
state courts and not involve the Federal judiciary.
3. We are increasingly able to sustain human existence through "heroic
measures" such as respirators. Do any of us want to be kept alive
indefinitely with negligible brain activity and no realistic hope of
recovery?
Yet none of those three issues is so black and white in the Schiavo case.
The trouble is that one has to dig beyond the daily newspaper or network
news to discover the other side of the coin.
1. Michael Schiavo, in effect, divorced Terri when he married another woman
by common law and is now raising two children with her. This is the heart
of the matter, and had it been legally settled, it would have prevented the
entire agonizing drama. Once it was legally established that Mr. Schiavo
had abandoned his wife for another woman, he should have been removed as her
primary legal custodian and that role should have reverted to Terri's
parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
2. It appears to me that Judge Greer made up his mind early on in this case
and then chose to ignore a lot of evidence thereafter that should have
caused him to reconsider his decision. Our legal system provides for
judicial review all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and we
are a nation under a written constitution, one interpreted by the judiciary.
However, once that document has been separated from its historical moorings,
this can lead to a judicial tyranny where one branch of our government not
only overrules the other two, but actually begins to function as a de facto
legislature.
What is the remedy for this? I don't know because I interpret Romans 13
very strictly and would never resort to violence, much less, take up arms
against the government. But there are lots of other people who don't take
the Bible into serious consideration, and they don't have a problem using
violence to right a wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the now,
self-excommunicated Baptist, George Greer, doesn't eventually meet a
twenty-first century John Brown like Paul Hill. That will be a sad day for
the Pro Life Movement. But were I a betting man, I wouldn't bet on poor
Judge Greer living a long, peaceful life, unless he moves out of the United
States. In the long run, I bet he'd rather be fed through a feeding tube
than to have to be accompanied by body-guards for the rest of his life.
3. Terri Schiavo was being fed through a feeding tube; that is a far cry
from a respirator. Back in 1974, I stood beside a member of my
congregation, watching his wife die after the doctors' disconnected the
devices that forced oxygenated blood to course through her veins. She died
within ten minutes of being disconnected. When the doctors proposed this
action, I had some reservations but supported my congregant's decision,
nevertheless. Looking back, I have no doubt that he made the right
decision. When my wife's mother came down with Alzheimer's disease back in
the early nineties, I watched its slow but steady progress as it stole her
mind and then her body. Alzheimer's is not a happy journey to the Celestial
City.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much
by her husband, then by my wife. We moved her to Central Louisiana about
fourteen months before she died because my father-in-law simply could no
longer tend to her by himself. For many months, he would alternate his time
staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then
on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the
hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and
dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death
around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed.
She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms.
We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The
nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her
care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day
the gangrenous, golf-ball-sized piece of necrotic tissue simply fell off; to
our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
In keeping with her living will, we did not allow "heroic measures," but we
always made sure that she had food and water. It would have been barbaric
to have denied her this comfort. For the last months of her life, she was
regularly given a morphine based drug for pain. I have no difficulty with a
physician administering pain-numbing drugs, even if they shorten somebody's
life. (Proverbs 31:6, 7: "Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his
poverty, and remember his misery no more.") But it is murder to administer
those same drugs beyond the smallest level that it takes to numb the pain
for the direct purpose of ending a human life.
Terri Schiavo's situation is all very, very sad, but it is a situation that
takes place many times a day throughout America. It's simply that in most
cases, people's relatives haven't come to hate each other so viscerally and
to express that hatred so spitefully. Nor do we have the two extreme wings
in the culture war lined up outside, each playing to the media.
Would I want to live by means of a respirator? Not unless it was a
temporary measure performed with a view to my recovery.
Would I want to live with a feeding tube? That is much more complex. I
would want food and water -- that's for sure -- but if I couldn't receive
them other than by a feeding tube, I'm not sure. That depends on other
circumstances. I wouldn't want them if I had been in a coma for a long time
and had no reasonable hope of recovery.
Who should make that decision?
I don't fully trust the medical industry -- it used to be a profession, and
there are still a good number of physicians who are professionals -- but
because of funding issues involving insurance companies and civil
authorities, I don't trust this industry the way many people still do. Do
you expect all these bureaucrats to act completely ethically, detached from
financial considerations, whether or not they wear the initials, M.D., after
their names?
I trust my government even less. As Christians, we should pray for the
civil authorities over us; we should respect their offices and obey their
commands that do not force us to sin. But we should never view government
as our friend, much less trust it, even though it functions under God's
sovereign purpose.
I trust my wife, and beyond her, I trust my children and my family called
Grace Presbyterian Church. I trust that they would do for me what I would
do for them.
If my wife were in a long-term coma, with no realistic prognosis for
recovery, I would order the doctors to disconnect her respirator. But I
would do my best to see that she was comfortable and as free from pain as
possible. I would make sure that she had food and water, even if it
required constant attention and a lot of personal effort to give her these
vital things. But if she couldn't receive nourishment without a feeding
tube, and if she was completely unable to let her will be known, and if
there were no realistic hope that her situation would ever improve, I would
order her feeding tube removed. It's what I would want done to me.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have
a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for
that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life." (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:4.)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
I think that the Terri Schiavo case is complex because it pits competing
values against each other. On the one hand, the case seems relatively
simple, especially as it was presented by the mainstream press.
1. The first area of conflict has to do with whom basic decision-making
rests. With an underlying jurisprudence rooted in Scripture, and thousands
of years of legal tradition, the courts ruled that Terri's husband was her
primary care-giver, and the one in charge of these decisions.
2. In the American system, as it was understood prior to the U. S.
Constitution becoming somewhat self-contradictory and being interpreted
"dynamically" rather than "statically," these matters should rest with the
state courts and not involve the Federal judiciary.
3. We are increasingly able to sustain human existence through "heroic
measures" such as respirators. Do any of us want to be kept alive
indefinitely with negligible brain activity and no realistic hope of
recovery?
Yet none of those three issues is so black and white in the Schiavo case.
The trouble is that one has to dig beyond the daily newspaper or network
news to discover the other side of the coin.
1. Michael Schiavo, in effect, divorced Terri when he married another woman
by common law and is now raising two children with her. This is the heart
of the matter, and had it been legally settled, it would have prevented the
entire agonizing drama. Once it was legally established that Mr. Schiavo
had abandoned his wife for another woman, he should have been removed as her
primary legal custodian and that role should have reverted to Terri's
parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
2. It appears to me that Judge Greer made up his mind early on in this case
and then chose to ignore a lot of evidence thereafter that should have
caused him to reconsider his decision. Our legal system provides for
judicial review all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and we
are a nation under a written constitution, one interpreted by the judiciary.
However, once that document has been separated from its historical moorings,
this can lead to a judicial tyranny where one branch of our government not
only overrules the other two, but actually begins to function as a de facto
legislature.
What is the remedy for this? I don't know because I interpret Romans 13
very strictly and would never resort to violence, much less, take up arms
against the government. But there are lots of other people who don't take
the Bible into serious consideration, and they don't have a problem using
violence to right a wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the now,
self-excommunicated Baptist, George Greer, doesn't eventually meet a
twenty-first century John Brown like Paul Hill. That will be a sad day for
the Pro Life Movement. But were I a betting man, I wouldn't bet on poor
Judge Greer living a long, peaceful life, unless he moves out of the United
States. In the long run, I bet he'd rather be fed through a feeding tube
than to have to be accompanied by body-guards for the rest of his life.
3. Terri Schiavo was being fed through a feeding tube; that is a far cry
from a respirator. Back in 1974, I stood beside a member of my
congregation, watching his wife die after the doctors' disconnected the
devices that forced oxygenated blood to course through her veins. She died
within ten minutes of being disconnected. When the doctors proposed this
action, I had some reservations but supported my congregant's decision,
nevertheless. Looking back, I have no doubt that he made the right
decision. When my wife's mother came down with Alzheimer's disease back in
the early nineties, I watched its slow but steady progress as it stole her
mind and then her body. Alzheimer's is not a happy journey to the Celestial
City.
My mother-in-law's disease was managed by her family -- first, pretty much
by her husband, then by my wife. We moved her to Central Louisiana about
fourteen months before she died because my father-in-law simply could no
longer tend to her by himself. For many months, he would alternate his time
staying with us and traveling back to Florida to tend to things there. Then
on January 16, 2001, Mrs. Price was discharged from her last stay in the
hospital, and after one night in one of those Gulags for the elderly and
dying, she once again moved into our home. From that day until her death
around eight in the morning on May 9, 2001, she never got out of the bed.
She couldn't even turn herself or roll over; she could only wave her arms.
We watched as she developed gangrene on the heel of her right foot. The
nurses who came every other day debated with the doctor who oversaw her
care; it was decided not to amputate, and the dark spot grew. Then one day
the gangrenous, golf-ball-sized piece of necrotic tissue simply fell off; to
our amazement, she lived on a couple of more months.
In keeping with her living will, we did not allow "heroic measures," but we
always made sure that she had food and water. It would have been barbaric
to have denied her this comfort. For the last months of her life, she was
regularly given a morphine based drug for pain. I have no difficulty with a
physician administering pain-numbing drugs, even if they shorten somebody's
life. (Proverbs 31:6, 7: "Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his
poverty, and remember his misery no more.") But it is murder to administer
those same drugs beyond the smallest level that it takes to numb the pain
for the direct purpose of ending a human life.
Terri Schiavo's situation is all very, very sad, but it is a situation that
takes place many times a day throughout America. It's simply that in most
cases, people's relatives haven't come to hate each other so viscerally and
to express that hatred so spitefully. Nor do we have the two extreme wings
in the culture war lined up outside, each playing to the media.
Would I want to live by means of a respirator? Not unless it was a
temporary measure performed with a view to my recovery.
Would I want to live with a feeding tube? That is much more complex. I
would want food and water -- that's for sure -- but if I couldn't receive
them other than by a feeding tube, I'm not sure. That depends on other
circumstances. I wouldn't want them if I had been in a coma for a long time
and had no reasonable hope of recovery.
Who should make that decision?
I don't fully trust the medical industry -- it used to be a profession, and
there are still a good number of physicians who are professionals -- but
because of funding issues involving insurance companies and civil
authorities, I don't trust this industry the way many people still do. Do
you expect all these bureaucrats to act completely ethically, detached from
financial considerations, whether or not they wear the initials, M.D., after
their names?
I trust my government even less. As Christians, we should pray for the
civil authorities over us; we should respect their offices and obey their
commands that do not force us to sin. But we should never view government
as our friend, much less trust it, even though it functions under God's
sovereign purpose.
I trust my wife, and beyond her, I trust my children and my family called
Grace Presbyterian Church. I trust that they would do for me what I would
do for them.
If my wife were in a long-term coma, with no realistic prognosis for
recovery, I would order the doctors to disconnect her respirator. But I
would do my best to see that she was comfortable and as free from pain as
possible. I would make sure that she had food and water, even if it
required constant attention and a lot of personal effort to give her these
vital things. But if she couldn't receive nourishment without a feeding
tube, and if she was completely unable to let her will be known, and if
there were no realistic hope that her situation would ever improve, I would
order her feeding tube removed. It's what I would want done to me.
Cordially in Christ,
Bob
"Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have
a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house
which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for
that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be
swallowed up of life." (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:4.)
Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.
Grace Presbyterian Church
4900 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509
Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi
80 Hickory Hill Drive
Boyce, Louisiana 71409-8784
318.445.7271 church
318.443.1034 fax
318.793.5354 home
bob@rbvincent.com
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
I’m not sure if I mentioned this or not, but I am flat on my
back now after the accident. I tried to work this past Friday, but the
effort was so uncomfortable and made me so tired that I was not able to
return. I am going to receive disability pay one way or the other depending
on the prognosis I receive tomorrow when I finally get in to see an
orthopedic doctor at the University of Michigan Hospital. Anyway, I’ve been
trying to catch up on my movie watching. I watched Anchorman (I do not
recommend it), The Alamo (Fantastic! Rent this one!) and finally, Luther.
Luther, to be blunt, was just awesome. It was inspiring and I
found myself cheering him on many times. It was an incredible character
study of how conflicted Luther was. His intention was never to leave the
Catholic church, but found himself extremely at odds with the church after
it refused to make any changes. Despite his many flaws, Luther had a
fervent commitment to Christ and, at least as his character was revealed in
the movie, was a bit naïve when it came to church politics. His commitment
to Scripture was awe-inspiring. Honestly, there were so many memorable
scenes in the movie that I cannot even begin to tell you how much I enjoyed
it. I’m now waiting for the movie about Calvin. :-)
If you guys wouldn’t mind, please continue to keep us in your
prayers. The insurance company money for the car was far less than we
expected (Minus the deductible and payoff, it was only $632) and although I
am grateful to get anything, I’m only receiving 60% pay for disability.
Most likely, we will have to use the insurance money for bills.
Also, and maybe Gary can shed some light on this, I’ve been
having strange dreams. The day after the accident, I was waking up
remembering more of the accident. Most of the dreams I cannot remember, but
last night I dreamed that I was kidnapped and beat up by two large men who
took me to a house with two other men. The funny part is (and you guys will
find this funny although at the time in the dream it was quite scary), one
of the men that I was taken to was William Shatner. The other was the short
K&B Construction guy from the TV show Home Improvement. Anyway, I was quite
lucky that my wife accidentally woke me up when she got up for work and the
dream ended just after the men released me.
Anyway, if I do not get a chance to tell you, I hope everyone
has a very blessed Easter Sunday!
Thanks everyone,
Dave M.
P.S. If anybody ever wants to chat, I’m online almost all day now…the laptop
is sitting on the coffee table beside the couch that is my new home and is
always on. Just email me.
back now after the accident. I tried to work this past Friday, but the
effort was so uncomfortable and made me so tired that I was not able to
return. I am going to receive disability pay one way or the other depending
on the prognosis I receive tomorrow when I finally get in to see an
orthopedic doctor at the University of Michigan Hospital. Anyway, I’ve been
trying to catch up on my movie watching. I watched Anchorman (I do not
recommend it), The Alamo (Fantastic! Rent this one!) and finally, Luther.
Luther, to be blunt, was just awesome. It was inspiring and I
found myself cheering him on many times. It was an incredible character
study of how conflicted Luther was. His intention was never to leave the
Catholic church, but found himself extremely at odds with the church after
it refused to make any changes. Despite his many flaws, Luther had a
fervent commitment to Christ and, at least as his character was revealed in
the movie, was a bit naïve when it came to church politics. His commitment
to Scripture was awe-inspiring. Honestly, there were so many memorable
scenes in the movie that I cannot even begin to tell you how much I enjoyed
it. I’m now waiting for the movie about Calvin. :-)
If you guys wouldn’t mind, please continue to keep us in your
prayers. The insurance company money for the car was far less than we
expected (Minus the deductible and payoff, it was only $632) and although I
am grateful to get anything, I’m only receiving 60% pay for disability.
Most likely, we will have to use the insurance money for bills.
Also, and maybe Gary can shed some light on this, I’ve been
having strange dreams. The day after the accident, I was waking up
remembering more of the accident. Most of the dreams I cannot remember, but
last night I dreamed that I was kidnapped and beat up by two large men who
took me to a house with two other men. The funny part is (and you guys will
find this funny although at the time in the dream it was quite scary), one
of the men that I was taken to was William Shatner. The other was the short
K&B Construction guy from the TV show Home Improvement. Anyway, I was quite
lucky that my wife accidentally woke me up when she got up for work and the
dream ended just after the men released me.
Anyway, if I do not get a chance to tell you, I hope everyone
has a very blessed Easter Sunday!
Thanks everyone,
Dave M.
P.S. If anybody ever wants to chat, I’m online almost all day now…the laptop
is sitting on the coffee table beside the couch that is my new home and is
always on. Just email me.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
A week ago, I was waking up in great pain and still very confused. This morning, as I write this, my wife and I are preparing to go to church. To say that we are blessed is such an understatement. People that saw the car were not asking, “Is everyone ok?” They were asking “Who died?”
I have been dealing with a great deal of guilt. I have prayed, but all of my prayers have been those “theologically correct” prayers that although are heart-felt, are often only being done out of obedience, rather than desire. This morning, I woke up with a song on my heart. When I was little, my parents bought me a B.J. Thomas gospel album. My parents were pretty big southern gospel fans so I grew up on some of the “standards.” One of those was “His Eye Is On The Sparrow.” The lyrics are:
Why should I feel discouraged, why should the shadows come,
Why should my heart be lonely, and long for heaven and home,
When Jesus is my portion? My constant friend is He:
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me.
"Let not your heart be troubled," His tender word I hear,
And resting on His goodness, I lose my doubts and fears;
Though by the path He leadeth, but one step I may see;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me.
Whenever I am tempted, whenever clouds arise,
When songs give place to sighing, when hope within me dies,
I draw the closer to Him, from care He sets me free;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me
I’ve spent my time now looking up and asking why. Not “Why did this happen?” but “Why, God, did you put our family through this? What are you trying to show us? What are you trying to teach us?” I’m not sure if I have all those answers yet, but one of those is to slow down and maintain faith. Thank you to everyone for your words of encouragement.
I have been dealing with a great deal of guilt. I have prayed, but all of my prayers have been those “theologically correct” prayers that although are heart-felt, are often only being done out of obedience, rather than desire. This morning, I woke up with a song on my heart. When I was little, my parents bought me a B.J. Thomas gospel album. My parents were pretty big southern gospel fans so I grew up on some of the “standards.” One of those was “His Eye Is On The Sparrow.” The lyrics are:
Why should I feel discouraged, why should the shadows come,
Why should my heart be lonely, and long for heaven and home,
When Jesus is my portion? My constant friend is He:
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me.
"Let not your heart be troubled," His tender word I hear,
And resting on His goodness, I lose my doubts and fears;
Though by the path He leadeth, but one step I may see;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me.
Whenever I am tempted, whenever clouds arise,
When songs give place to sighing, when hope within me dies,
I draw the closer to Him, from care He sets me free;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.
I sing because I'm happy,I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,And I know He watches me
I’ve spent my time now looking up and asking why. Not “Why did this happen?” but “Why, God, did you put our family through this? What are you trying to show us? What are you trying to teach us?” I’m not sure if I have all those answers yet, but one of those is to slow down and maintain faith. Thank you to everyone for your words of encouragement.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Whoops! Let's try this again, It has indeed been a tough week. I saw this meditation this morning ironically written by a great theologian who died just this Saturday, the day that Kandice and I were in the accident. Here it is:
Our Last and Only Hope
A lesson in trust from a grounded crow.
By Stanley J. Grenz | posted 02/12/2004
"Everything is possible for him who believes." Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief." Mark 9:20-24
Trust me! I can help you." The minute I spoke the words, I realized how utterly useless voicing them was, indeed how ridiculous my entire demeanor must be. There I was, crouching with hand extended, slowing walking forward, talking to a crow. And I didn't even like crows.
It was promising to be another crisp fall day in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. The sun was peering over the partly cloudy horizon as I took my daily morning walk. I was deep in thought, sorting through—well, to be honest, I was fretting about—the many details our pending move to Texas had imposed on the largely stress-free existence that I had grown accustomed to. As I rounded the corner and headed down the lane that runs along the Little League baseball field, my ruminations were interrupted by the obnoxious cawing of two crows. I quickly noticed the source of their consternation. In the grassy meadow, a third crow was jumping and flapping about, vainly attempting to fly. Somehow the scavenger had gotten his left wing stuck in the handle of a pink plastic bag. The poor bird had no chance whatsoever of getting airborne.
I gave the crow a wide berth and went on my way. His fellow crows would have to remedy his plight. And if they were unsuccessful? Well, one less crow in the world would not be a great loss, especially given the havoc these mean creatures can inflict on other birds.
I was only a few paces down the lane when the full importance of the crow's plight registered in my mind: Unless I do something, this hapless bird is going to die. I turned in my tracks. At first I remained a good distance away from the crow. Crows are capable of launching a dive-bomber attack so threatening that it elicits terror in the heart of anyone who evokes their ire. Despite what I surmised could be warlike chirping of the two potential assailants above, I decided to see if I could get near enough to the grounded bird to remedy his plight.
The imprisoned crow initially responded with a flutter-filled hop away from me. But soon he seemed to realize that he did not have the wherewithal to evade me, and he signaled his capitulation by collapsing in the grass, gazing at me. It was then that I spoke: "Trust me! I can help you." A fruitless, dumb gesture, I immediately thought. But how else could I assure the crow not only that I intended him no harm but also that I was his only hope for survival?
I would like to believe that the creature somehow understood my words. In any case, he didn't move a muscle—indeed, he appeared uncharacteristically calm as I advanced slowly but steadily in his direction. The crow seemed to have decided to entrust his life to my hands, for good or for ill. (Equally miraculous, from my vantage point, the two feathered dive-bombers kept their distance in the tree above.) Stealthily I moved in, until I was so close that I could have actually touched the small body that lay motionless in the grass in front of me. I repeated softly, "Trust me! I can help you." Then I reached out with both hands, carefully tore the plastic and pulled away the pink prison that had held the crow captive.
Mission completed, I resumed my walk. I became engrossed once again in my interior world, filled with the concerns about our pending move—selling a house, dealing with the immigration process, hoping that a position would open up for my wife. Again my thoughts were interrupted by a short series of caws coming from three crows flying overhead. As the birds expressed what seemed to be their gratitude, the words I had voiced just a few moments earlier reverberated in my mind: "Trust me! I can help you." But this time, they were not spoken by me, but to me.
I continued my morning walk, musing about how often our loving heavenly Father speaks to us in the midst of difficulties, and about the response—faith—that his words are designed to engender in us. And I was quick to draw the obvious lesson: Just as the hapless creature needed to admit the hopelessness of his plight, cease struggling, and trust me unconditionally to receive my assistance, so also we must entrust ourselves to God.
As important as this connection is, it was not God's message for me that crisp fall day. My musings took me to a deeper question: Why did the bird exercise faith? Only then did I glimpse what stands at the heart of the great mystery of trust: The crow had realized in his own way what we are called to realize. We only become willing to risk all and take the bold step of genuine faith—of entrusting ourselves to God fully, completely, unreservedly, for good or for ill—when we see in this particular situation that God is our last and only hope.
Stanley J. Grenz is the Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology at Carey Theological College, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Our Last and Only Hope
A lesson in trust from a grounded crow.
By Stanley J. Grenz | posted 02/12/2004
"Everything is possible for him who believes." Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief." Mark 9:20-24
Trust me! I can help you." The minute I spoke the words, I realized how utterly useless voicing them was, indeed how ridiculous my entire demeanor must be. There I was, crouching with hand extended, slowing walking forward, talking to a crow. And I didn't even like crows.
It was promising to be another crisp fall day in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. The sun was peering over the partly cloudy horizon as I took my daily morning walk. I was deep in thought, sorting through—well, to be honest, I was fretting about—the many details our pending move to Texas had imposed on the largely stress-free existence that I had grown accustomed to. As I rounded the corner and headed down the lane that runs along the Little League baseball field, my ruminations were interrupted by the obnoxious cawing of two crows. I quickly noticed the source of their consternation. In the grassy meadow, a third crow was jumping and flapping about, vainly attempting to fly. Somehow the scavenger had gotten his left wing stuck in the handle of a pink plastic bag. The poor bird had no chance whatsoever of getting airborne.
I gave the crow a wide berth and went on my way. His fellow crows would have to remedy his plight. And if they were unsuccessful? Well, one less crow in the world would not be a great loss, especially given the havoc these mean creatures can inflict on other birds.
I was only a few paces down the lane when the full importance of the crow's plight registered in my mind: Unless I do something, this hapless bird is going to die. I turned in my tracks. At first I remained a good distance away from the crow. Crows are capable of launching a dive-bomber attack so threatening that it elicits terror in the heart of anyone who evokes their ire. Despite what I surmised could be warlike chirping of the two potential assailants above, I decided to see if I could get near enough to the grounded bird to remedy his plight.
The imprisoned crow initially responded with a flutter-filled hop away from me. But soon he seemed to realize that he did not have the wherewithal to evade me, and he signaled his capitulation by collapsing in the grass, gazing at me. It was then that I spoke: "Trust me! I can help you." A fruitless, dumb gesture, I immediately thought. But how else could I assure the crow not only that I intended him no harm but also that I was his only hope for survival?
I would like to believe that the creature somehow understood my words. In any case, he didn't move a muscle—indeed, he appeared uncharacteristically calm as I advanced slowly but steadily in his direction. The crow seemed to have decided to entrust his life to my hands, for good or for ill. (Equally miraculous, from my vantage point, the two feathered dive-bombers kept their distance in the tree above.) Stealthily I moved in, until I was so close that I could have actually touched the small body that lay motionless in the grass in front of me. I repeated softly, "Trust me! I can help you." Then I reached out with both hands, carefully tore the plastic and pulled away the pink prison that had held the crow captive.
Mission completed, I resumed my walk. I became engrossed once again in my interior world, filled with the concerns about our pending move—selling a house, dealing with the immigration process, hoping that a position would open up for my wife. Again my thoughts were interrupted by a short series of caws coming from three crows flying overhead. As the birds expressed what seemed to be their gratitude, the words I had voiced just a few moments earlier reverberated in my mind: "Trust me! I can help you." But this time, they were not spoken by me, but to me.
I continued my morning walk, musing about how often our loving heavenly Father speaks to us in the midst of difficulties, and about the response—faith—that his words are designed to engender in us. And I was quick to draw the obvious lesson: Just as the hapless creature needed to admit the hopelessness of his plight, cease struggling, and trust me unconditionally to receive my assistance, so also we must entrust ourselves to God.
As important as this connection is, it was not God's message for me that crisp fall day. My musings took me to a deeper question: Why did the bird exercise faith? Only then did I glimpse what stands at the heart of the great mystery of trust: The crow had realized in his own way what we are called to realize. We only become willing to risk all and take the bold step of genuine faith—of entrusting ourselves to God fully, completely, unreservedly, for good or for ill—when we see in this particular situation that God is our last and only hope.
Stanley J. Grenz is the Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology at Carey Theological College, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Remembering Stan Grenz
The theologian died Saturday at 55.
posted 03/14/2005 10:45 a.m.
On Saturday, March 12, Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz passed away after suffering a brain hemorrhage at the untimely age of 55.
Dr. Grenz was a prolific writer, having authored or co-authored 25 books. He taught at a variety of institutions including Regent College, Baylor University, and Carey Theological College. Grenz was a leading expert on the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, but he was also a favorite theologian of the emerging church network. A brief biographical sketch can be found on his personal website
Stan Grenz served as a consulting editor for Christianity Today, and in 2004 CT published this meditation about learning to trust God in the midst of our anxieties. We urge you to read it today in his memory.
Stanley J. Grenz was born in Alpena, Michigan, on January 7, 1950, the youngest of three children of the Rev. and Mrs. Richard A. Grenz. Stan is a graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder (Bachelor of Arts with distinction, 1973), Denver Seminary (M.Div. with honors, 1976), and the University of Munich, Germany (D.Theol. magna cum laude, 1978), where he wrote a dissertation entitled “Isaac Backus--Puritan and Baptist” under the supervision of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Stan’s academic excellence as a student was applauded through membership in Phi Beta Kappa (University of Colorado) and by being the recipient of the Robert G. Kay Scholastic Award (Denver Seminary). During his professional career, he has been the recipient of a Fulbright Grant for sabbatical study in Munich, Germany (1987-1988) as well as a Theological Research Fellowship awarded by the Association of Theological Schools (1993), and he was named a fellow with the Henry Luce III Fellowship in Theology program (1999-2000). Stan has also been included in two editions of Who's Who in Religion, as well as in the 2002 edition of Who's Who in U.S. Writers, Editors and Poets.
On June 13, 1976, Stan was ordained into the gospel ministry. He has worked within the local church context as youth director and assistant pastor (Northwest Baptist Church, Denver, CO, 1971-1976), pastor (Rowandale Baptist Church, Winnipeg, MB 1979-1981), and interim pastor on several occasions. In addition he has preached and lectured in numerous churches, colleges, universities and seminaries in North America, Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia.
To date, Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, the latest of which is Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). He has served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to over two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print over a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. These have appeared in journals ranging from Christianity Today and the Christian Century to Christian Scholars Review, Theology Today and the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Several of these essays and books have won writing awards in the USA and Canada.
Stan has served as president of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (1989-90) and as a member of the national board of the American Academy of Religion (1989-90), the South Dakota Committee on the Humanities (1986-90), the editorial board of Perspectives in Religious Studies (1985-88), the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (1983-88), the steering committee of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion (1988-1995; co-chair, 1990-1994), the Ethics Commission of the Baptist World Alliance (1986-2000), the Social Action Commission of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (1994-1996), and the steering committee of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association (1996-2000). Currently, he participates in both the Doctrine Commission and the Theological Education Committee of the Baptist World Alliance, is a consulting editor of Christianity Today, and sits on the advisory boards of several publishing companies and Christian organizations.
For twelve years (1990-2002), Stan held the position of Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver BC. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003 to resume his duties as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA. Prior to his initial move to Vancouver, he was Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at the North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls SD (1981-1990). While in the pastorate (1979-1981), he taught courses both at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL.
Edna Grenz is Minister of Worship at First Baptist Church, Vancouver, where Stan has sung in the choir and played guitar and trumpet in the worship team. Stan and Edna are the parents of two married children, Joel and Corina (Kuban), and one grandchild, Anika Grace Kuban, all of whom reside in the Vancouver area.
The theologian died Saturday at 55.
posted 03/14/2005 10:45 a.m.
On Saturday, March 12, Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz passed away after suffering a brain hemorrhage at the untimely age of 55.
Dr. Grenz was a prolific writer, having authored or co-authored 25 books. He taught at a variety of institutions including Regent College, Baylor University, and Carey Theological College. Grenz was a leading expert on the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, but he was also a favorite theologian of the emerging church network. A brief biographical sketch can be found on his personal website
Stan Grenz served as a consulting editor for Christianity Today, and in 2004 CT published this meditation
Stanley J. Grenz was born in Alpena, Michigan, on January 7, 1950, the youngest of three children of the Rev. and Mrs. Richard A. Grenz. Stan is a graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder (Bachelor of Arts with distinction, 1973), Denver Seminary (M.Div. with honors, 1976), and the University of Munich, Germany (D.Theol. magna cum laude, 1978), where he wrote a dissertation entitled “Isaac Backus--Puritan and Baptist” under the supervision of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Stan’s academic excellence as a student was applauded through membership in Phi Beta Kappa (University of Colorado) and by being the recipient of the Robert G. Kay Scholastic Award (Denver Seminary). During his professional career, he has been the recipient of a Fulbright Grant for sabbatical study in Munich, Germany (1987-1988) as well as a Theological Research Fellowship awarded by the Association of Theological Schools (1993), and he was named a fellow with the Henry Luce III Fellowship in Theology program (1999-2000). Stan has also been included in two editions of Who's Who in Religion, as well as in the 2002 edition of Who's Who in U.S. Writers, Editors and Poets.
On June 13, 1976, Stan was ordained into the gospel ministry. He has worked within the local church context as youth director and assistant pastor (Northwest Baptist Church, Denver, CO, 1971-1976), pastor (Rowandale Baptist Church, Winnipeg, MB 1979-1981), and interim pastor on several occasions. In addition he has preached and lectured in numerous churches, colleges, universities and seminaries in North America, Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia.
To date, Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, the latest of which is Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). He has served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to over two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print over a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. These have appeared in journals ranging from Christianity Today and the Christian Century to Christian Scholars Review, Theology Today and the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Several of these essays and books have won writing awards in the USA and Canada.
Stan has served as president of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (1989-90) and as a member of the national board of the American Academy of Religion (1989-90), the South Dakota Committee on the Humanities (1986-90), the editorial board of Perspectives in Religious Studies (1985-88), the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (1983-88), the steering committee of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion (1988-1995; co-chair, 1990-1994), the Ethics Commission of the Baptist World Alliance (1986-2000), the Social Action Commission of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (1994-1996), and the steering committee of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association (1996-2000). Currently, he participates in both the Doctrine Commission and the Theological Education Committee of the Baptist World Alliance, is a consulting editor of Christianity Today, and sits on the advisory boards of several publishing companies and Christian organizations.
For twelve years (1990-2002), Stan held the position of Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver BC. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003 to resume his duties as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA. Prior to his initial move to Vancouver, he was Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at the North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls SD (1981-1990). While in the pastorate (1979-1981), he taught courses both at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL.
Edna Grenz is Minister of Worship at First Baptist Church, Vancouver, where Stan has sung in the choir and played guitar and trumpet in the worship team. Stan and Edna are the parents of two married children, Joel and Corina (Kuban), and one grandchild, Anika Grace Kuban, all of whom reside in the Vancouver area.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Monday, March 07, 2005
Roy Moore: 'We Have No Morality Without an Acknowledgment of God'
As the Supreme Court decides how to rule after hearing arguments over the Ten Commandments, the former chief justice of Alabama's highest court says removing government religious monuments are like getting a ticket for driving 50 mph in a 55 zone.
posted 03/07/2005 09:30 a.m.
After being removed from his post as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove a six-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments, Roy Moore has taken his fight across the country. He says not only are monuments of the Ten Commandments constitutional, but some acknowledgment of God is necessary for the survival of the constitution. CT online assistant editor Rob Moll spoke with Moore the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments over two Ten Commandment cases, in Texas and Kentucky.
You had representatives attending the oral arguments on Wednesday. Do you have any initial thoughts about the case?
Both of the defendants in these cases, defending the Ten Commandments, are doing so with secular humanism, with our own history, arguing that the Ten Commandments are not relevant today. It's in a museum setting. It's the smallest of the monuments. They make every effort to distance themselves from God, and that is the danger that people do not realize. I hope people will wake up to this.
What we've got to watch here is not what they do, but what they say. If they leave the Ten Commandments or if they take the Ten Commandments and they base their ruling on secular humanism, that is a devastating precedent. It's basically saying you can do something as long as you don't profess it, as long as you don't believe it. That is the danger.
The Court refused my case because we said the monument acknowledges the sovereign God, which is permissible under the First Amendment. They then take these two cases that are argued on the basis of a denial of God's sovereignty, that it's a matter of history. The people that are arguing that position think they're doing right, but I would submit to you that it's a very wrong thing to do because you're bowing down to government.
That is the argument in other cases, that as long as the Ten Commandments or "under God" doesn't mean anything religious, then it's permissible.
One of the most offensive arguments that I've found was in one of the briefs said that any reasonable observer would recognize that this monument is in the town where Madalyn Murray O'Hair lived. During all that controversy, it was a hotbed of litigation, and it was never contested. That argument says that because the prime atheist in our country didn't protest, it should be okay. And that's terrible.
Because so many Christians make historical arguments for the Ten Commandments or other monuments, it may seem strange to hear you say that the government must acknowledge God. What is the legal basis for your argument?
It's the very purpose of the First Amendment. It's what we have the First Amendment for. That is still the right we have, to acknowledge God. It protected us from federal government interference. And that's exactly what's happening. The federal courts are saying we cannot acknowledge God. But they have no jurisdiction. It's the fundamental organic law of our country. God. God's law was the basis which entitles us to have a Constitution and a country.
The court is not even interpreting the First Amendment properly, despite the fact that they have no jurisdiction. When they do have jurisdiction they rule by their feelings, not by law. To properly interpret a law you have to interpret the words in the statute or constitutional amendment. That is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," being the first part of the First Amendment. The courts are not even trying to do that. They're ignoring the words of the statute and ruling by their own feelings and predilections with meaningless tests that have no relationship to law—the coercion test, the endorsement test, and the historical analysis test.
To make that clear, I use an example. Say you were stopped for speeding and given a ticket and go to court in a municipality, and the judge said, "I'm going to have to put you in jail for six months and fine you $5,000." You say, "Why?" "You were speeding." You say, "Judge, I was going 50 miles per hour, the speed limit was 55."
He would stop you and say, "Wait a minute, we can't address the definition of speeding or what speeding is. From the reasonable observer standing on the corner, they said you were going faster than the other cars. It would be endorsing speeding if we allowed this to occur."
You would say, "Judge, I was going 50 and the speed limit is 55."
He says, "No we can't define the speed limit. And furthermore you coerced other drivers to pull over because they weren't going as fast as you."
You say, "That's not speeding. We've got to look at what the speed limit was."
Finally, if he said, "Well because you were going 50 and we've historically allowed people to go 50, we're going to overlook it."
We'll that's allowing you to do something you have every right to do. The speed limit was 55; you were going 50.
So you see what they're doing is ruling by paths that have no relationship when they don't define the words. That's the clearest example I can use to tell you what's happening with the Supreme Court. If you read their opinions, they sound so eloquent, so lofty, but they're meaningless. They're not related to law. The word religion was defined by the United States Supreme Court and by others as the duties which we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it, i.e. it recognized God and it recognized higher laws.
The Supreme Court doesn't want to recognize the definition. So as they did in my case in Alabama, they ignore it and say it's impossible to define. Their basic mistake is to assume that government gives you freedom of conscience, when our Supreme Court in 1931 recognized that freedom came from obedience to the will of God. They just lost those concepts.
As you said, those arguing to keep the Ten Commandments are not arguing that government should acknowledge God. You are the only one making that claim. What chance is there that the Supreme Court would recognize that right?
All I can say is it's our responsibility to offer the truth. It's plain, simple fact that the law is the law. It hasn't changed. The acknowledgement of God is basic to our society, to our law, and to our morality. Christianity is in a prime position to wake them up. I can't do it alone, and Christians need to be awakened to what's going on in our country. If we continue to let this happen, what will happen is a complete departure from our constitutional form of government. The basis of our morality is being destroyed. We have no morality without an acknowledgment of God.
Would you prefer the Supreme Court reject the Ten Commandments rather than allow them for only historical reasons?
I think the First Amendment of the United States Constitution doesn't prohibit displays acknowledging God, any acknowledgment of God, whether by state or federal official. My preference would be the United States Supreme Court dismiss the case and say they don't have jurisdiction. The First Amendment tells us to keep out of it. But if you ask how they could rule, I'd say, if they're going to leave the Commandments, they better recognize that nothing prohibits such conduct. But they don't have jurisdiction to rule.
As the Supreme Court decides how to rule after hearing arguments over the Ten Commandments, the former chief justice of Alabama's highest court says removing government religious monuments are like getting a ticket for driving 50 mph in a 55 zone.
posted 03/07/2005 09:30 a.m.
After being removed from his post as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove a six-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments, Roy Moore has taken his fight across the country. He says not only are monuments of the Ten Commandments constitutional, but some acknowledgment of God is necessary for the survival of the constitution. CT online assistant editor Rob Moll spoke with Moore the day after the Supreme Court heard arguments over two Ten Commandment cases, in Texas and Kentucky.
You had representatives attending the oral arguments on Wednesday. Do you have any initial thoughts about the case?
Both of the defendants in these cases, defending the Ten Commandments, are doing so with secular humanism, with our own history, arguing that the Ten Commandments are not relevant today. It's in a museum setting. It's the smallest of the monuments. They make every effort to distance themselves from God, and that is the danger that people do not realize. I hope people will wake up to this.
What we've got to watch here is not what they do, but what they say. If they leave the Ten Commandments or if they take the Ten Commandments and they base their ruling on secular humanism, that is a devastating precedent. It's basically saying you can do something as long as you don't profess it, as long as you don't believe it. That is the danger.
The Court refused my case because we said the monument acknowledges the sovereign God, which is permissible under the First Amendment. They then take these two cases that are argued on the basis of a denial of God's sovereignty, that it's a matter of history. The people that are arguing that position think they're doing right, but I would submit to you that it's a very wrong thing to do because you're bowing down to government.
That is the argument in other cases, that as long as the Ten Commandments or "under God" doesn't mean anything religious, then it's permissible.
One of the most offensive arguments that I've found was in one of the briefs said that any reasonable observer would recognize that this monument is in the town where Madalyn Murray O'Hair lived. During all that controversy, it was a hotbed of litigation, and it was never contested. That argument says that because the prime atheist in our country didn't protest, it should be okay. And that's terrible.
Because so many Christians make historical arguments for the Ten Commandments or other monuments, it may seem strange to hear you say that the government must acknowledge God. What is the legal basis for your argument?
It's the very purpose of the First Amendment. It's what we have the First Amendment for. That is still the right we have, to acknowledge God. It protected us from federal government interference. And that's exactly what's happening. The federal courts are saying we cannot acknowledge God. But they have no jurisdiction. It's the fundamental organic law of our country. God. God's law was the basis which entitles us to have a Constitution and a country.
The court is not even interpreting the First Amendment properly, despite the fact that they have no jurisdiction. When they do have jurisdiction they rule by their feelings, not by law. To properly interpret a law you have to interpret the words in the statute or constitutional amendment. That is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," being the first part of the First Amendment. The courts are not even trying to do that. They're ignoring the words of the statute and ruling by their own feelings and predilections with meaningless tests that have no relationship to law—the coercion test, the endorsement test, and the historical analysis test.
To make that clear, I use an example. Say you were stopped for speeding and given a ticket and go to court in a municipality, and the judge said, "I'm going to have to put you in jail for six months and fine you $5,000." You say, "Why?" "You were speeding." You say, "Judge, I was going 50 miles per hour, the speed limit was 55."
He would stop you and say, "Wait a minute, we can't address the definition of speeding or what speeding is. From the reasonable observer standing on the corner, they said you were going faster than the other cars. It would be endorsing speeding if we allowed this to occur."
You would say, "Judge, I was going 50 and the speed limit is 55."
He says, "No we can't define the speed limit. And furthermore you coerced other drivers to pull over because they weren't going as fast as you."
You say, "That's not speeding. We've got to look at what the speed limit was."
Finally, if he said, "Well because you were going 50 and we've historically allowed people to go 50, we're going to overlook it."
We'll that's allowing you to do something you have every right to do. The speed limit was 55; you were going 50.
So you see what they're doing is ruling by paths that have no relationship when they don't define the words. That's the clearest example I can use to tell you what's happening with the Supreme Court. If you read their opinions, they sound so eloquent, so lofty, but they're meaningless. They're not related to law. The word religion was defined by the United States Supreme Court and by others as the duties which we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it, i.e. it recognized God and it recognized higher laws.
The Supreme Court doesn't want to recognize the definition. So as they did in my case in Alabama, they ignore it and say it's impossible to define. Their basic mistake is to assume that government gives you freedom of conscience, when our Supreme Court in 1931 recognized that freedom came from obedience to the will of God. They just lost those concepts.
As you said, those arguing to keep the Ten Commandments are not arguing that government should acknowledge God. You are the only one making that claim. What chance is there that the Supreme Court would recognize that right?
All I can say is it's our responsibility to offer the truth. It's plain, simple fact that the law is the law. It hasn't changed. The acknowledgement of God is basic to our society, to our law, and to our morality. Christianity is in a prime position to wake them up. I can't do it alone, and Christians need to be awakened to what's going on in our country. If we continue to let this happen, what will happen is a complete departure from our constitutional form of government. The basis of our morality is being destroyed. We have no morality without an acknowledgment of God.
Would you prefer the Supreme Court reject the Ten Commandments rather than allow them for only historical reasons?
I think the First Amendment of the United States Constitution doesn't prohibit displays acknowledging God, any acknowledgment of God, whether by state or federal official. My preference would be the United States Supreme Court dismiss the case and say they don't have jurisdiction. The First Amendment tells us to keep out of it. But if you ask how they could rule, I'd say, if they're going to leave the Commandments, they better recognize that nothing prohibits such conduct. But they don't have jurisdiction to rule.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
When Gratitude Gets Complicated
Thoughts on Saying Thank You at Bethlehem and Desiring God
March 2, 2005 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
When you are in a position of receiving great blessing from many people, expressing gratitude can get complicated. This is our position both at Bethlehem and at Desiring God.
These ministries are sustained by the grace of God through the gifts of people. At Bethlehem this is entirely the case: we depend on God to cause his people to give $6,000,000 this year. We have no other source of income. At Desiring God, we are a not-for-profit ministry that does sell things and use the income to sustain the ministry. But our low prices, and our “whatever you can afford” policy, and our making web, audio, and radio available without cost, means that we depend on God to cause people to give hundreds of thousands of dollars without which the ministry could not do what it does.
God is merciful to do this. He keeps his promises: “My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). Thousands of people give to support Bethlehem and Desiring God. Those of us who lead are deeply thankful. We believe it is fitting to say so. The heart that does not feel thankful and does not feel like saying thank you is hardened by pride. The humble heart is amazed at God’s grace and people’s generosity. The humble heart loves to say thank you.
So we who lead are in a position of loving to say thank you to thousands of people. The situation at Bethlehem and Desiring God are significantly different in this regard. At Bethlehem we are a covenant community and becoming a member of this church involves making a covenant to give. “We engage to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.” Therefore we do not ask for money from anyone outside, but only appeal to the members to support the work of Bethlehem.
Not only that, the leaders of the church do not know how much any member gives. One person, Paul Johnson, the financial secretary, knows that. If a member does not give, Paul should share that with the elders and it would move the elders, in love and patience, to ask why. But the elders do not know what people give. Therefore our expressions of gratitude are broad and general rather than personal and specific. We say repeatedly from the pulpit and other ways, Thank you, Thank you, to God and to our people. I say it again here: Thank you for cheerfully yielding to God’s leading in sustaining this ministry.
At Desiring God things are different. This ministry is not a church and has no covenant membership to support the work. It is governed by a board that is appointed by and accountable to the elders of Bethlehem. So it is under the authority of the church. But it has a measure of ministry independence that sets it apart from the way the church itself functions. Therefore Desiring God depends on gifts from people all over the world.
We do not ask for money on the radio. The reason for this is that we do not view the radio audience as a community of Christian supporters (though some of it is). We view it as the world in general. Our bent therefore is to give not get—to offer not ask. The radio is emphatically not a fund raising device. It is a means of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. Once we have a personal contact from someone, and there is some evidence of interest and common cause, we feel free to ask them privately (usually by mail) for their help.
Then comes the unique challenge of how to thank them. We can say thank you on the radio, and we do in careful terms. But that is delicate because oh, how easy it is to slide into using words of thanks as a subtle way of asking for money. But thousands of our donors at Desiring God do not hear the radio program. If we are going to thank them, we must do so through the mail.
Here is where it gets more complicated. Should we send the same thank you letter to the person who gives $5 as the person who gives $5,000? That is, should larger donors get special attention? Should they get, perhaps, a note from Jon Bloom the Executive Director? A note from me? A phone call?
Here is where we presently stand. When Jesus saw the rich putting money in the temple box and then saw a poor widow put in her two coins, he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them” (Luke 21:3). Does that mean that the $5 gift from the poor person should get greater attention from us than the $5,000 gift from the wealthy person, because the sacrifice was greater? Yes, if we know that is the case. But we are not Jesus. We do not know the circumstances of our givers, except in unusual cases.
There are three crucial factors that would create more thanks and more attention if we knew them: 1) the level of sacrifice that a gift represents; 2) the measure of good will in the heart; 3) the degree of trust that a person has in the ministry. None of these can be measured by the amount of the gift. A very large gift may not represent as much sacrifice, good will, or trust as a small gift. We simply cannot know the hearts of our donors.
Does this mean that there should be no special response to very large gifts? There is one factor that we can measure that differentiates a small from a large gift: the ministry expansion potential made possible by the gift. To put it more simply, larger gifts enable us to do more things. This is true no matter what the heart condition of the donor is. We believe that humble leaders should feel a special overflow of joyful gratitude in response to these larger ministry possibilities. And we believe that this special overflow should be expressed in special ways. It would seem strange to us if our hearts leaped up to God because we could now preach the gospel on five new radio stations, but we did not speak a special word to the donor who made it possible with a $50,000 gift.
Please pray for us. You can see the challenges to be biblical and humble and grateful. God sees the sacrifices behind the $5 gifts. Pray that our letters of thanks for them be full of heartfelt love and gratitude. And pray that we never, never schmooze with the rich.
In need of your prayers,
Pastor John
Thoughts on Saying Thank You at Bethlehem and Desiring God
March 2, 2005 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link
When you are in a position of receiving great blessing from many people, expressing gratitude can get complicated. This is our position both at Bethlehem and at Desiring God.
These ministries are sustained by the grace of God through the gifts of people. At Bethlehem this is entirely the case: we depend on God to cause his people to give $6,000,000 this year. We have no other source of income. At Desiring God, we are a not-for-profit ministry that does sell things and use the income to sustain the ministry. But our low prices, and our “whatever you can afford” policy, and our making web, audio, and radio available without cost, means that we depend on God to cause people to give hundreds of thousands of dollars without which the ministry could not do what it does.
God is merciful to do this. He keeps his promises: “My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). Thousands of people give to support Bethlehem and Desiring God. Those of us who lead are deeply thankful. We believe it is fitting to say so. The heart that does not feel thankful and does not feel like saying thank you is hardened by pride. The humble heart is amazed at God’s grace and people’s generosity. The humble heart loves to say thank you.
So we who lead are in a position of loving to say thank you to thousands of people. The situation at Bethlehem and Desiring God are significantly different in this regard. At Bethlehem we are a covenant community and becoming a member of this church involves making a covenant to give. “We engage to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.” Therefore we do not ask for money from anyone outside, but only appeal to the members to support the work of Bethlehem.
Not only that, the leaders of the church do not know how much any member gives. One person, Paul Johnson, the financial secretary, knows that. If a member does not give, Paul should share that with the elders and it would move the elders, in love and patience, to ask why. But the elders do not know what people give. Therefore our expressions of gratitude are broad and general rather than personal and specific. We say repeatedly from the pulpit and other ways, Thank you, Thank you, to God and to our people. I say it again here: Thank you for cheerfully yielding to God’s leading in sustaining this ministry.
At Desiring God things are different. This ministry is not a church and has no covenant membership to support the work. It is governed by a board that is appointed by and accountable to the elders of Bethlehem. So it is under the authority of the church. But it has a measure of ministry independence that sets it apart from the way the church itself functions. Therefore Desiring God depends on gifts from people all over the world.
We do not ask for money on the radio. The reason for this is that we do not view the radio audience as a community of Christian supporters (though some of it is). We view it as the world in general. Our bent therefore is to give not get—to offer not ask. The radio is emphatically not a fund raising device. It is a means of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. Once we have a personal contact from someone, and there is some evidence of interest and common cause, we feel free to ask them privately (usually by mail) for their help.
Then comes the unique challenge of how to thank them. We can say thank you on the radio, and we do in careful terms. But that is delicate because oh, how easy it is to slide into using words of thanks as a subtle way of asking for money. But thousands of our donors at Desiring God do not hear the radio program. If we are going to thank them, we must do so through the mail.
Here is where it gets more complicated. Should we send the same thank you letter to the person who gives $5 as the person who gives $5,000? That is, should larger donors get special attention? Should they get, perhaps, a note from Jon Bloom the Executive Director? A note from me? A phone call?
Here is where we presently stand. When Jesus saw the rich putting money in the temple box and then saw a poor widow put in her two coins, he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them” (Luke 21:3). Does that mean that the $5 gift from the poor person should get greater attention from us than the $5,000 gift from the wealthy person, because the sacrifice was greater? Yes, if we know that is the case. But we are not Jesus. We do not know the circumstances of our givers, except in unusual cases.
There are three crucial factors that would create more thanks and more attention if we knew them: 1) the level of sacrifice that a gift represents; 2) the measure of good will in the heart; 3) the degree of trust that a person has in the ministry. None of these can be measured by the amount of the gift. A very large gift may not represent as much sacrifice, good will, or trust as a small gift. We simply cannot know the hearts of our donors.
Does this mean that there should be no special response to very large gifts? There is one factor that we can measure that differentiates a small from a large gift: the ministry expansion potential made possible by the gift. To put it more simply, larger gifts enable us to do more things. This is true no matter what the heart condition of the donor is. We believe that humble leaders should feel a special overflow of joyful gratitude in response to these larger ministry possibilities. And we believe that this special overflow should be expressed in special ways. It would seem strange to us if our hearts leaped up to God because we could now preach the gospel on five new radio stations, but we did not speak a special word to the donor who made it possible with a $50,000 gift.
Please pray for us. You can see the challenges to be biblical and humble and grateful. God sees the sacrifices behind the $5 gifts. Pray that our letters of thanks for them be full of heartfelt love and gratitude. And pray that we never, never schmooze with the rich.
In need of your prayers,
Pastor John
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Global Suspense
The trick of faith is to believe in advance what will only make sense in reverse.
by Philip Yancey | posted 03/01/2005 09:30 a.m.
Going through a stack of old Time magazines recently, I was astonished at how different the world looks now compared to 30 years ago. Back then Time was running cover stories on "The Coming Ice Age"; now we hear about global warming and devastating tsunamis. World maps showed a large red stain of communism spreading across Indochina and Africa. Economists predicted the end of American dominance and a new global parity among the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and Europe. Of all continents, Africa offered the brightest prospects for growth.
A more recent magazine, from August 2001, reported breathlessly on the latest developments in the mysterious disappearance of a House intern and her affair with a California congressman. I searched in vain for the words al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Somehow, it seems in retrospect, prognosticators missed all the defining political events in my lifetime, including the war on terrorism and the end of the cold war. As I went through the stack of magazines, I tried to remember how it felt at the time, when I truly feared the prospect of nuclear war, when Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, and Lebanon was the most dangerous place in the Middle East.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman once explained that in writing history she tried to avoid "flash-forwards." When a historian writes about the Civil War, for example, he or she should resist the temptation to include "Of course we all know who won" asides. From the early months of the war right through until Gettysburg, it looked as if the South might prevail. Tuchman tried to avoid flashing forward to a later, all-seeing point of view; she sought instead to recreate history for the reader, conveying a sense that "you are there."
Right now, regarding issues like the war in Iraq, the ascendancy of China, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, we truly are "there," unable to predict how history will turn out. Thirty years from now some researcher may pore over a stack of contemporary Time magazines with similar bemusement.
As I reflected on our poor record at predicting the future, it struck me that the Bible often centers on the act of waiting. Abraham waiting for just one child. The Israelites waiting four centuries for deliverance, and Moses waiting four decades for the call to lead them, then four more decades for a Promised Land he would not attain. David waiting in caves for his promised coronation. Prophets waiting for the fulfillment of their own strange predictions. Mary and Joseph, Anna, Simeon, Elizabeth, and Zechariah waiting like most Jews for a Messiah. The disciples waiting impatiently for Jesus to act like the power-Messiah they longed for. (Even cousin John flagged: "Are you the one, or must we wait for another?")
Still we wait. The nuclear threat from the U.S.S.R. has faded, along with the U.S.S.R. itself, but now we worry about "dirty bomb" attacks from terrorists. We no longer fear glaciers, except as they melt. A massive earthquake in the Indian Ocean proved a lot more damaging to Southeast Asia than did the SARS virus. How will all these crises turn out? Still trapped in the "now," we simply do not know.
Jesus' final words at the end of Revelation are "I am coming soon," followed by an urgent, echoing prayer, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." That prayer remains unanswered in an era of history perilously suspended between his first appearance, as a baby in a manger, and his second, as the one with blazing eyes described in one of Revelation's many flash-forwards.
In the last days, said Peter, some will scoff at the prospects: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." Peter himself believed that "the end of all things is near." After two millennia of waiting, scoffers rule the day.
In a German prison camp in World War II, unbeknownst to the guards, the Americans built a makeshift radio. One day news came that the German high command had surrendered, ending the war—a fact that, because of a communications breakdown, the German guards did not yet know. As word spread, a loud celebration broke out.
For three days, the prisoners were hardly recognizable. They sang, waved at guards, laughed at the German shepherd dogs, and shared jokes over meals. On the fourth day, they awoke to find that all the Germans had fled, leaving the gates unlocked. The time of waiting had come to an end.
And here is the question I ask myself: As we Christians face contemporary crises, why do we respond with such fear and anxiety? Why don't we, like the Allied prisoners, act on the Good News we say we believe? What is faith, after all, but believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse?
The trick of faith is to believe in advance what will only make sense in reverse.
by Philip Yancey | posted 03/01/2005 09:30 a.m.
Going through a stack of old Time magazines recently, I was astonished at how different the world looks now compared to 30 years ago. Back then Time was running cover stories on "The Coming Ice Age"; now we hear about global warming and devastating tsunamis. World maps showed a large red stain of communism spreading across Indochina and Africa. Economists predicted the end of American dominance and a new global parity among the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and Europe. Of all continents, Africa offered the brightest prospects for growth.
A more recent magazine, from August 2001, reported breathlessly on the latest developments in the mysterious disappearance of a House intern and her affair with a California congressman. I searched in vain for the words al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Somehow, it seems in retrospect, prognosticators missed all the defining political events in my lifetime, including the war on terrorism and the end of the cold war. As I went through the stack of magazines, I tried to remember how it felt at the time, when I truly feared the prospect of nuclear war, when Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, and Lebanon was the most dangerous place in the Middle East.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman once explained that in writing history she tried to avoid "flash-forwards." When a historian writes about the Civil War, for example, he or she should resist the temptation to include "Of course we all know who won" asides. From the early months of the war right through until Gettysburg, it looked as if the South might prevail. Tuchman tried to avoid flashing forward to a later, all-seeing point of view; she sought instead to recreate history for the reader, conveying a sense that "you are there."
Right now, regarding issues like the war in Iraq, the ascendancy of China, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, we truly are "there," unable to predict how history will turn out. Thirty years from now some researcher may pore over a stack of contemporary Time magazines with similar bemusement.
As I reflected on our poor record at predicting the future, it struck me that the Bible often centers on the act of waiting. Abraham waiting for just one child. The Israelites waiting four centuries for deliverance, and Moses waiting four decades for the call to lead them, then four more decades for a Promised Land he would not attain. David waiting in caves for his promised coronation. Prophets waiting for the fulfillment of their own strange predictions. Mary and Joseph, Anna, Simeon, Elizabeth, and Zechariah waiting like most Jews for a Messiah. The disciples waiting impatiently for Jesus to act like the power-Messiah they longed for. (Even cousin John flagged: "Are you the one, or must we wait for another?")
Still we wait. The nuclear threat from the U.S.S.R. has faded, along with the U.S.S.R. itself, but now we worry about "dirty bomb" attacks from terrorists. We no longer fear glaciers, except as they melt. A massive earthquake in the Indian Ocean proved a lot more damaging to Southeast Asia than did the SARS virus. How will all these crises turn out? Still trapped in the "now," we simply do not know.
Jesus' final words at the end of Revelation are "I am coming soon," followed by an urgent, echoing prayer, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." That prayer remains unanswered in an era of history perilously suspended between his first appearance, as a baby in a manger, and his second, as the one with blazing eyes described in one of Revelation's many flash-forwards.
In the last days, said Peter, some will scoff at the prospects: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." Peter himself believed that "the end of all things is near." After two millennia of waiting, scoffers rule the day.
In a German prison camp in World War II, unbeknownst to the guards, the Americans built a makeshift radio. One day news came that the German high command had surrendered, ending the war—a fact that, because of a communications breakdown, the German guards did not yet know. As word spread, a loud celebration broke out.
For three days, the prisoners were hardly recognizable. They sang, waved at guards, laughed at the German shepherd dogs, and shared jokes over meals. On the fourth day, they awoke to find that all the Germans had fled, leaving the gates unlocked. The time of waiting had come to an end.
And here is the question I ask myself: As we Christians face contemporary crises, why do we respond with such fear and anxiety? Why don't we, like the Allied prisoners, act on the Good News we say we believe? What is faith, after all, but believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
