GRAND THEFT HYPOCRISY
I remember the very first time I saw the game Grand Theft Auto. I was living in the dorm at Tyndale and a friend of mine had the PC version of it. I played it and the sequel. When Grand Theft Auto 3 came out not long after that, I bought a PS2 just for this game. GTA3 and GTA: Vice City were, by far, the best games on the market. GTA: San Andreas was, however, a step above, both in the ingenuity of the game and the raunchiness. I finally decided that this would be my last GTA game. I could not, as a Christian, play this game anymore, not to mention that I knew that if I ever had kids, I could never play it in front of them.
I was, however, surprised today when the rating was changed from M to AO. It effected me indirectly as I work in retail and we received urgent news from headquarters to pull the game. Despite the rumors, Target (the store I work for) did not voluntarily pull the game. The makers of the software asked each retailer to pull the game. Not only has the game been pulled, but it will no longer be made.
The hypocrisy of this really strikes me. The fine line between M and AO is indeed very fine. Check out his list of M and AO games I found online and you tell me if GTA crossed the line.
"The Guy Game," ($30, PC, PlayStation 2, Xbox). This quiz-show format game involves scantily clad female spring breakers on the beaches of South Padre Island, Texas. The goal involves testing your brain power against a series of half-nude female partygoers, who'll strip down and flash their breasts if you can successfully predict if they'll correctly answer questions. The game is rated "M" for crude humor, nudity, strong language, strong sexual content and alcohol.
"Playboy: The Mansion," ($40, PC, PS2 and Xbox). A computerized Hugh Hefner strolls around in his red smoking jacket, half-naked women latched to his arms. As Hef, your goal is to schmooze, party, flirt - and then some - as you become a national icon. The ESRB gave it an "M" for nudity, strong sexual content and use of alcohol.
"Postal 2," ($20, PC). This game from the creative minds at Running With Scissors aims for shock value but earned an "M" rating for blood and gore, intense violence, mature humor, sexual themes, strong language and use of drugs and alcohol. You control a disgruntled postal worker and lead him on unabashedly ultraviolent killing sprees involving hapless civilians in an Arizona town.
"Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored," ($30, Vivendi Universal Games). You are Larry Lovage, controlled in a quest to score with the ladies at a local community college. As charmingly innocent as it may sounds, this special cut of the game earned an "AO" rating for mature humor, nudity, strong language, strong sexual content and use of alcohol."
http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/feeds/ap/2005/07/21/ap2151733.html
Did GTASA really cross the line here? Or was it hypocrites like Senator Hillary Clinton who blew this out of proportion so she can snag some headlines for her 2008 presidential run?
This is indeed Grand Theft Hypocrisy.
Dave M.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Most of you know that on March 12, 2005, my wife and I were involved in a very serious car accident. According to witnesses, I entered an intersection and our Honda Civic was side-swiped by a Dodge Durango doing no less than 50 mph. You can view the results on my blog at:
http://davemcdowell.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_davemcdowell_archive.html
(After clicking, scroll down for the pictures.)
I suffered a fractured ankle and some minor injuries to my knee. My wife suffered some deep bruising. Believe it or not, both of us, even four months after the accident, are still sore. The morning after the accident, once the shock wore off, I began to feel a great amount of guilt. I was waking up at night dreaming about the accident. After trying to return to work a week later, I decided (or should I say my body decided) that I did indeed need more time off than I thought. The doctor ordered me out of work for what was to be a total of six weeks. When all you have is a walking cast on your right foot and you do not have a vehicle, you spend a lot of time alone and at home. The initial guilt wore off. It took some time, but I came to the conclusion that I could not have really controlled what happened. I do not remember why I entered the intersection; I simply remembered the moment of impact. But there were still some nagging questions for me. And many of them were very basic and important questions. The biggest question was, “What if?” If I had died that day on Telegraph Road, what would I have to show for it? I was ashamed to say that my life’s accomplishments had been very small. Most of the first few months of 2005 were spent complaining about my job, complaining about the circumstances of life, and complaining that I felt like I could do nothing about it. I was feeling like I had nothing under my control and the accident only reaffirmed that. I was not enjoying life. I would go to work, come home, sleep, and go to work.
What happened in the next few weeks was that God slowly showed me the importance of life. It is something that I have believed for some time, but now really feel like I possess. Life really is short. God did not give it to us to be wasted and he most certainly did not give it to us to walk around like a curmudgeon and complain all the time. Life is here to be enjoyed. God grants it to us and it is indeed precious.
As God began to open up my heart, I responded by simply letting go of some fear and anxiety and literally and figuratively stepping back up to the mic. Although I immensely enjoyed it, I had given up singing karaoke a few months back for many reasons. I loved to go out and sing and I was told that I am quite good. I guess at the time I believed that other things were more important, so when I quit karaoke, I quit going out, stayed home, and sulked on my couch fretting about how bad my life is. My wife and I were actually on our way to sing karaoke when the accident occurred. I had sunk so low that I ran back to the only thing that I knew that I could control…my voice. What I learned after the accident is that I am never in control. Control is an illusion. God is sovereign…all the time.
After God worked on me for awhile, the time came when I wanted to go out again; I wanted to sing again. I had worked all the mental stuff out in my head and it was time to unleash some pent up emotion. But this time, when I stood up in front of that mic, I knew whose my voice was and let it scream. “I feel angry, I feel helpless,” I sang. “Wanna change the world. I feel violent, I feel alone. Don’t try to change my mind.” All these were emotions that I felt before and after the accident. But I was also quick to sing the chorus: “One, oh one. The only Way is one.” The truth is that I am still a bit angry. I admit it. Things have happened recently and I resist the urge to shout at the sky. I still feel helpless, but in that good way where my trust lies with my Creator rather than myself. I will always want to change the world, but the violence is gone and I know I’m not alone.
So where does this leave me four months later? My love for music has grown and I’ve discovered and rediscovered my love for it. I’ve always been quite eclectic in my taste, but I find myself a sucker for blues guitar. I am singing karaoke as much as I can lately and enjoying it immensely. I actually had someone approach me for studio time last time I sang. It probably will not happen, but it did make me feel quite good. Instead of life looking like an endless parade of challenges, life now looks like an endless parade of possibilities. The taste of optimism is indeed sweet on my tongue.
I received an incredible letter today. It read, “We are pleased to inform you that your file is now complete and that you are officially admitted to Ashland Theological Seminary to pursue the Master of Divinity degree…You will encounter many opportunities and challenges in your studies here at Ashland. We trust that you will grow in many ways—academically, professionally, and spiritually.” I must confess that I did a little jump in the post office (despite my sore ankle) when I read the letter. God has indeed been so good. I can’t wait! In the next few months, Kandice and I will be moving to Ohio.
One of my favorite movies is Dead Poets Society. At the beginning of the meetings, a Henry David Thoreau poem was read which has always inspired me. He says, “I went into the woods because I wanted to live deliberately. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life...to put to rout all that was not life; and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” To look back at my life and think that it may have been for waste and that it had not been lived would indeed be a travesty. I am pressing on to greater things.
Living Deliberately For Him,
Dave McDowell
http://davemcdowell.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_davemcdowell_archive.html
(After clicking, scroll down for the pictures.)
I suffered a fractured ankle and some minor injuries to my knee. My wife suffered some deep bruising. Believe it or not, both of us, even four months after the accident, are still sore. The morning after the accident, once the shock wore off, I began to feel a great amount of guilt. I was waking up at night dreaming about the accident. After trying to return to work a week later, I decided (or should I say my body decided) that I did indeed need more time off than I thought. The doctor ordered me out of work for what was to be a total of six weeks. When all you have is a walking cast on your right foot and you do not have a vehicle, you spend a lot of time alone and at home. The initial guilt wore off. It took some time, but I came to the conclusion that I could not have really controlled what happened. I do not remember why I entered the intersection; I simply remembered the moment of impact. But there were still some nagging questions for me. And many of them were very basic and important questions. The biggest question was, “What if?” If I had died that day on Telegraph Road, what would I have to show for it? I was ashamed to say that my life’s accomplishments had been very small. Most of the first few months of 2005 were spent complaining about my job, complaining about the circumstances of life, and complaining that I felt like I could do nothing about it. I was feeling like I had nothing under my control and the accident only reaffirmed that. I was not enjoying life. I would go to work, come home, sleep, and go to work.
What happened in the next few weeks was that God slowly showed me the importance of life. It is something that I have believed for some time, but now really feel like I possess. Life really is short. God did not give it to us to be wasted and he most certainly did not give it to us to walk around like a curmudgeon and complain all the time. Life is here to be enjoyed. God grants it to us and it is indeed precious.
As God began to open up my heart, I responded by simply letting go of some fear and anxiety and literally and figuratively stepping back up to the mic. Although I immensely enjoyed it, I had given up singing karaoke a few months back for many reasons. I loved to go out and sing and I was told that I am quite good. I guess at the time I believed that other things were more important, so when I quit karaoke, I quit going out, stayed home, and sulked on my couch fretting about how bad my life is. My wife and I were actually on our way to sing karaoke when the accident occurred. I had sunk so low that I ran back to the only thing that I knew that I could control…my voice. What I learned after the accident is that I am never in control. Control is an illusion. God is sovereign…all the time.
After God worked on me for awhile, the time came when I wanted to go out again; I wanted to sing again. I had worked all the mental stuff out in my head and it was time to unleash some pent up emotion. But this time, when I stood up in front of that mic, I knew whose my voice was and let it scream. “I feel angry, I feel helpless,” I sang. “Wanna change the world. I feel violent, I feel alone. Don’t try to change my mind.” All these were emotions that I felt before and after the accident. But I was also quick to sing the chorus: “One, oh one. The only Way is one.” The truth is that I am still a bit angry. I admit it. Things have happened recently and I resist the urge to shout at the sky. I still feel helpless, but in that good way where my trust lies with my Creator rather than myself. I will always want to change the world, but the violence is gone and I know I’m not alone.
So where does this leave me four months later? My love for music has grown and I’ve discovered and rediscovered my love for it. I’ve always been quite eclectic in my taste, but I find myself a sucker for blues guitar. I am singing karaoke as much as I can lately and enjoying it immensely. I actually had someone approach me for studio time last time I sang. It probably will not happen, but it did make me feel quite good. Instead of life looking like an endless parade of challenges, life now looks like an endless parade of possibilities. The taste of optimism is indeed sweet on my tongue.
I received an incredible letter today. It read, “We are pleased to inform you that your file is now complete and that you are officially admitted to Ashland Theological Seminary to pursue the Master of Divinity degree…You will encounter many opportunities and challenges in your studies here at Ashland. We trust that you will grow in many ways—academically, professionally, and spiritually.” I must confess that I did a little jump in the post office (despite my sore ankle) when I read the letter. God has indeed been so good. I can’t wait! In the next few months, Kandice and I will be moving to Ohio.
One of my favorite movies is Dead Poets Society. At the beginning of the meetings, a Henry David Thoreau poem was read which has always inspired me. He says, “I went into the woods because I wanted to live deliberately. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life...to put to rout all that was not life; and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” To look back at my life and think that it may have been for waste and that it had not been lived would indeed be a travesty. I am pressing on to greater things.
Living Deliberately For Him,
Dave McDowell
Tyndale founder Kenneth Taylor dies; created The Living Bible
By staff reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEATON, ILL. — Kenneth Taylor, founder of Tyndale House Publishers, one of the nation’s largest Christian publishing companies, and creator of The Living Bible translation, died June 10 in his Wheaton home. He was 88.
A service was held June 15 at Edman Memorial Chapel on the campus of Wheaton College, where he earned his undergraduate degree.
Taylor was president of Tyndale House Publishers until 1984, when he turned over the reins to his son, Mark. He continued to serve as chairman of the board from 1984 until his death. Tyndale is one of the nation’s largest publishing companies, producing the best-selling “Left Behind” series. In addition to establishing the company, Taylor also wrote numerous children’s books.
His signature product was The Living Bible, a paraphrase of Scripture that was embraced by Billy Graham, and became the nation’s best-selling book for three years. More than 40 million copies have been sold worldwide with portions or entire Bibles available in more than 100 languages.
“Making Scripture accessible for all people was my father’s passion,” Mark Taylor said in a news release. “Many, many people have told him, ‘I became a Christian when I read The Living Bible,’ or ‘My first Bible was the green padded Living Bible.’ Even at 88 years old, his enthusiasm and fervor for his work never waned.”
Each year Tyndale’s 260 employees produce 250 new products. Its beginnings, however, were modest.
Determined to have his 10 children understand the Bible, Taylor created the paraphrased edition saying that the King James Version of the Bible—the most commonly used translation at the time—was too difficult for his young children to understand.
The project emerged when Taylor began rewording specific King James passages into simple, conversational language that children could comprehend. He finished his paraphrase of the New Testament epistles, which he called “Living Letters” in 1962, but no one was interested in publishing his work.
Taylor and his wife, Margaret, decided to self-publish 2,000 copies of “Living Letters.”
Taylor named his fledgling company Tyndale House Publishers after William Tyndale, the 16th century reformer who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. In its early days, Tyndale House was literally a kitchen-table operation. The older daughters typed Taylor’s manuscripts, Margaret typed invoices and mailing labels, and the younger children stuffed envelopes and packed books ordered by bookstores.
Graham sparks interest
As Taylor continued to paraphrase the rest of the Scriptures, orders for “Living Letters” trickled in. But when evangelist Billy Graham began to use Taylor’s work as a premium for his television broadcasts, demand for the books began in earnest.
In 1967, Tyndale published the Living New Testament, and in 1971 released the complete Living Bible. It became the best-selling book in the United States for the next three years, after which Publisher’s Weekly decided not to allow Bibles to compete with “regular books” for a spot on the best-seller list.
From the first published copy of The Living Bible, Taylor and his wife committed to deposit all profits from the Bible into a charitable trust, with all of its royalties donated to Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation, which continues to promote Taylor’s vision of making the Bible accessible and available to everyone, supports mission projects around the world.
Taylor was born on May 8, 1917, in Portland, Ore., to George and Charlotte Huff Taylor. Due in large part to his pastor father and godly mother, Taylor developed a solid faith in Christ and a deep respect for the Bible at a very young age. He graduated from Wheaton College in 1938, attended Dallas Theological Seminary for three years, and graduated from Northern Baptist Seminary in 1944.
Taylor, who spent 65 years in the publishing industry, began his career as editor of HIS magazine and later served as director of Moody Press in Chicago. He was the author of many children’s books, including “The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes” and “My First Bible in Pictures.”
In addition to his wife, Taylor is survived by 10 children, 28 grandchildren and 22 great-grandchildren.
By staff reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEATON, ILL. — Kenneth Taylor, founder of Tyndale House Publishers, one of the nation’s largest Christian publishing companies, and creator of The Living Bible translation, died June 10 in his Wheaton home. He was 88.
A service was held June 15 at Edman Memorial Chapel on the campus of Wheaton College, where he earned his undergraduate degree.
Taylor was president of Tyndale House Publishers until 1984, when he turned over the reins to his son, Mark. He continued to serve as chairman of the board from 1984 until his death. Tyndale is one of the nation’s largest publishing companies, producing the best-selling “Left Behind” series. In addition to establishing the company, Taylor also wrote numerous children’s books.
His signature product was The Living Bible, a paraphrase of Scripture that was embraced by Billy Graham, and became the nation’s best-selling book for three years. More than 40 million copies have been sold worldwide with portions or entire Bibles available in more than 100 languages.
“Making Scripture accessible for all people was my father’s passion,” Mark Taylor said in a news release. “Many, many people have told him, ‘I became a Christian when I read The Living Bible,’ or ‘My first Bible was the green padded Living Bible.’ Even at 88 years old, his enthusiasm and fervor for his work never waned.”
Each year Tyndale’s 260 employees produce 250 new products. Its beginnings, however, were modest.
Determined to have his 10 children understand the Bible, Taylor created the paraphrased edition saying that the King James Version of the Bible—the most commonly used translation at the time—was too difficult for his young children to understand.
The project emerged when Taylor began rewording specific King James passages into simple, conversational language that children could comprehend. He finished his paraphrase of the New Testament epistles, which he called “Living Letters” in 1962, but no one was interested in publishing his work.
Taylor and his wife, Margaret, decided to self-publish 2,000 copies of “Living Letters.”
Taylor named his fledgling company Tyndale House Publishers after William Tyndale, the 16th century reformer who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. In its early days, Tyndale House was literally a kitchen-table operation. The older daughters typed Taylor’s manuscripts, Margaret typed invoices and mailing labels, and the younger children stuffed envelopes and packed books ordered by bookstores.
Graham sparks interest
As Taylor continued to paraphrase the rest of the Scriptures, orders for “Living Letters” trickled in. But when evangelist Billy Graham began to use Taylor’s work as a premium for his television broadcasts, demand for the books began in earnest.
In 1967, Tyndale published the Living New Testament, and in 1971 released the complete Living Bible. It became the best-selling book in the United States for the next three years, after which Publisher’s Weekly decided not to allow Bibles to compete with “regular books” for a spot on the best-seller list.
From the first published copy of The Living Bible, Taylor and his wife committed to deposit all profits from the Bible into a charitable trust, with all of its royalties donated to Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation, which continues to promote Taylor’s vision of making the Bible accessible and available to everyone, supports mission projects around the world.
Taylor was born on May 8, 1917, in Portland, Ore., to George and Charlotte Huff Taylor. Due in large part to his pastor father and godly mother, Taylor developed a solid faith in Christ and a deep respect for the Bible at a very young age. He graduated from Wheaton College in 1938, attended Dallas Theological Seminary for three years, and graduated from Northern Baptist Seminary in 1944.
Taylor, who spent 65 years in the publishing industry, began his career as editor of HIS magazine and later served as director of Moody Press in Chicago. He was the author of many children’s books, including “The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes” and “My First Bible in Pictures.”
In addition to his wife, Taylor is survived by 10 children, 28 grandchildren and 22 great-grandchildren.
Tyndale founder Kenneth Taylor dies; created The Living Bible
By staff reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEATON, ILL. — Kenneth Taylor, founder of Tyndale House Publishers, one of the nation’s largest Christian publishing companies, and creator of The Living Bible translation, died June 10 in his Wheaton home. He was 88.
A service was held June 15 at Edman Memorial Chapel on the campus of Wheaton College, where he earned his undergraduate degree.
Taylor was president of Tyndale House Publishers until 1984, when he turned over the reins to his son, Mark. He continued to serve as chairman of the board from 1984 until his death. Tyndale is one of the nation’s largest publishing companies, producing the best-selling “Left Behind” series. In addition to establishing the company, Taylor also wrote numerous children’s books.
His signature product was The Living Bible, a paraphrase of Scripture that was embraced by Billy Graham, and became the nation’s best-selling book for three years. More than 40 million copies have been sold worldwide with portions or entire Bibles available in more than 100 languages.
“Making Scripture accessible for all people was my father’s passion,” Mark Taylor said in a news release. “Many, many people have told him, ‘I became a Christian when I read The Living Bible,’ or ‘My first Bible was the green padded Living Bible.’ Even at 88 years old, his enthusiasm and fervor for his work never waned.”
Each year Tyndale’s 260 employees produce 250 new products. Its beginnings, however, were modest.
Determined to have his 10 children understand the Bible, Taylor created the paraphrased edition saying that the King James Version of the Bible—the most commonly used translation at the time—was too difficult for his young children to understand.
The project emerged when Taylor began rewording specific King James passages into simple, conversational language that children could comprehend. He finished his paraphrase of the New Testament epistles, which he called “Living Letters” in 1962, but no one was interested in publishing his work.
Taylor and his wife, Margaret, decided to self-publish 2,000 copies of “Living Letters.”
Taylor named his fledgling company Tyndale House Publishers after William Tyndale, the 16th century reformer who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. In its early days, Tyndale House was literally a kitchen-table operation. The older daughters typed Taylor’s manuscripts, Margaret typed invoices and mailing labels, and the younger children stuffed envelopes and packed books ordered by bookstores.
Graham sparks interest
As Taylor continued to paraphrase the rest of the Scriptures, orders for “Living Letters” trickled in. But when evangelist Billy Graham began to use Taylor’s work as a premium for his television broadcasts, demand for the books began in earnest.
In 1967, Tyndale published the Living New Testament, and in 1971 released the complete Living Bible. It became the best-selling book in the United States for the next three years, after which Publisher’s Weekly decided not to allow Bibles to compete with “regular books” for a spot on the best-seller list.
From the first published copy of The Living Bible, Taylor and his wife committed to deposit all profits from the Bible into a charitable trust, with all of its royalties donated to Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation, which continues to promote Taylor’s vision of making the Bible accessible and available to everyone, supports mission projects around the world.
Taylor was born on May 8, 1917, in Portland, Ore., to George and Charlotte Huff Taylor. Due in large part to his pastor father and godly mother, Taylor developed a solid faith in Christ and a deep respect for the Bible at a very young age. He graduated from Wheaton College in 1938, attended Dallas Theological Seminary for three years, and graduated from Northern Baptist Seminary in 1944.
Taylor, who spent 65 years in the publishing industry, began his career as editor of HIS magazine and later served as director of Moody Press in Chicago. He was the author of many children’s books, including “The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes” and “My First Bible in Pictures.”
In addition to his wife, Taylor is survived by 10 children, 28 grandchildren and 22 great-grandchildren.
By staff reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEATON, ILL. — Kenneth Taylor, founder of Tyndale House Publishers, one of the nation’s largest Christian publishing companies, and creator of The Living Bible translation, died June 10 in his Wheaton home. He was 88.
A service was held June 15 at Edman Memorial Chapel on the campus of Wheaton College, where he earned his undergraduate degree.
Taylor was president of Tyndale House Publishers until 1984, when he turned over the reins to his son, Mark. He continued to serve as chairman of the board from 1984 until his death. Tyndale is one of the nation’s largest publishing companies, producing the best-selling “Left Behind” series. In addition to establishing the company, Taylor also wrote numerous children’s books.
His signature product was The Living Bible, a paraphrase of Scripture that was embraced by Billy Graham, and became the nation’s best-selling book for three years. More than 40 million copies have been sold worldwide with portions or entire Bibles available in more than 100 languages.
“Making Scripture accessible for all people was my father’s passion,” Mark Taylor said in a news release. “Many, many people have told him, ‘I became a Christian when I read The Living Bible,’ or ‘My first Bible was the green padded Living Bible.’ Even at 88 years old, his enthusiasm and fervor for his work never waned.”
Each year Tyndale’s 260 employees produce 250 new products. Its beginnings, however, were modest.
Determined to have his 10 children understand the Bible, Taylor created the paraphrased edition saying that the King James Version of the Bible—the most commonly used translation at the time—was too difficult for his young children to understand.
The project emerged when Taylor began rewording specific King James passages into simple, conversational language that children could comprehend. He finished his paraphrase of the New Testament epistles, which he called “Living Letters” in 1962, but no one was interested in publishing his work.
Taylor and his wife, Margaret, decided to self-publish 2,000 copies of “Living Letters.”
Taylor named his fledgling company Tyndale House Publishers after William Tyndale, the 16th century reformer who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. In its early days, Tyndale House was literally a kitchen-table operation. The older daughters typed Taylor’s manuscripts, Margaret typed invoices and mailing labels, and the younger children stuffed envelopes and packed books ordered by bookstores.
Graham sparks interest
As Taylor continued to paraphrase the rest of the Scriptures, orders for “Living Letters” trickled in. But when evangelist Billy Graham began to use Taylor’s work as a premium for his television broadcasts, demand for the books began in earnest.
In 1967, Tyndale published the Living New Testament, and in 1971 released the complete Living Bible. It became the best-selling book in the United States for the next three years, after which Publisher’s Weekly decided not to allow Bibles to compete with “regular books” for a spot on the best-seller list.
From the first published copy of The Living Bible, Taylor and his wife committed to deposit all profits from the Bible into a charitable trust, with all of its royalties donated to Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation, which continues to promote Taylor’s vision of making the Bible accessible and available to everyone, supports mission projects around the world.
Taylor was born on May 8, 1917, in Portland, Ore., to George and Charlotte Huff Taylor. Due in large part to his pastor father and godly mother, Taylor developed a solid faith in Christ and a deep respect for the Bible at a very young age. He graduated from Wheaton College in 1938, attended Dallas Theological Seminary for three years, and graduated from Northern Baptist Seminary in 1944.
Taylor, who spent 65 years in the publishing industry, began his career as editor of HIS magazine and later served as director of Moody Press in Chicago. He was the author of many children’s books, including “The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes” and “My First Bible in Pictures.”
In addition to his wife, Taylor is survived by 10 children, 28 grandchildren and 22 great-grandchildren.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Jesus at G8
Christian advocacy for Africa gains notice at top meetings.
by Tony Carnes in Edinburgh, Scotland | posted 07/06/2005 09:30 a.m.
Slogans, celebrities, politicians, and Christian activists are grabbing headlines globally this week in anticipation of the international Group of 8 meetings in Scotland.
The potent mix includes the heads of eight leading industrialized nations along with Live 8's Bob Geldof, U2's Bono, Jars of Clay, Kanye West, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and evangelical churchgoers.
Normally, the G8 summit elicits about as much evangelical interest as moss growing on trees. But this year evangelicals are joining the ranks of activists at the annual gathering, held this year in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Their shared goal is to change government policies that will save lives in Africa. A broad coalition of religious and political leaders has endorsed:
Doubling financial aid sent to the world's poorest countries.
Debt cancellation for the poorest nations.
Reform of trade laws so poor nations are not shut out of global markets.
Activists hope all these steps will result in new growth in African economies and that in turn will translate into fewer deaths from malaria, HIV/AIDS, and starvation.
ONE, the campaign "to make poverty history," has become the focal point of advocacy for the G8 meetings and includes leading evangelical groups, such as World Vision, Bread for the World, and World Concern.
ONE campaign leader Geldof helped organize the July 2 mega-rock concert series Live 8 to raise public awareness and sway the leaders of the G8 countries to make these policy reforms. Geldof in 1985 organized the historic Live Aid concert that raised funds to fight famine in Africa.
Geldof told CT that Africa's poverty and misery is "the great moral sorrow of our time." Many G8 leaders favor debt cancellation and significant increases in aid, but fewer leaders support reform of trade laws because it may result in job losses within their own nations.
In planning for the concerts this past weekend, Geldof realized something that many of his secular European colleagues fail to recognize: The solutions to Africa's needs will only come about if evangelicals are brought into the fray.
"In the U.S. evangelicals are a huge force for change," he told CT. He said in Africa the roles of evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and Muslims have become the fundamental facts of life. "People fail to understand how important a role religion takes in Africa."
Geldof's partner in the Live 8 concerts is mega-rock star Bono, U2's charismatic leader who has acknowledged Christian beliefs. Bono has worked through his organization DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) to partner with Christian relief and development groups.
In Philadelphia, the Live 8 concert featured evangelical Christian artists like Jars of Clay—fresh from an appearance with evangelist Billy Graham in New York City, along with headliners Kanye West and Destiny's Child.
The Bono Effect
Shayne Moore, a member of the Wheaton Bible Church in Wheaton, Illinois, says she has come to Edinburgh because her heart was broken by Bono's descriptions of African suffering. (For example, every day, 6,300 Africans die of AIDS, more than 1,200 of them children.)
"Bono came to Wheaton College in December 2002," Moore said. "By the time I left the concert, I had changed."
At Wheaton, Bono issued his challenge, "If the church doesn't respond, who will?"
The change inside of Moore was a deep transformation. She moved from being the classic suburban mom who happily shops for family bargains at Target into a person with global concern. She now considers herself a faith-oriented activist and has come to Edinburgh with other evangelicals linked with the ONE Campaign. They will be networking, organizing, and strategizing how to change government policy and push for local church involvement.
Like many of the evangelicals here in Edinburgh, Moore came with a new compassion for Africans. She and her husband even helped sponsor an entire Zambian village through World Vision. Moore looks at her own children when she see pictures of African kids dying of malaria and AIDS. "I don't have to go miles to get clean water for my kids."
Bono, Geldof, and others working to end poverty in Africa have tapped into the vein of evangelical compassion, typically channeled through local churches and charities, but now also directed into reform of government policies on trade and aid.
For Moore, it is a long way from the foreign missions appeals at Wheaton Bible Church, which she joined in 2004.
G8 meetings in Scotland run July 6-8. Live 8 leaders are saying, "The whole world is watching." Moore and other evangelicals in Edinburgh hope the whole church is paying close attention too.
Tony Carnes is a senior writer for Christianity Today.
Christian advocacy for Africa gains notice at top meetings.
by Tony Carnes in Edinburgh, Scotland | posted 07/06/2005 09:30 a.m.
Slogans, celebrities, politicians, and Christian activists are grabbing headlines globally this week in anticipation of the international Group of 8 meetings in Scotland.
The potent mix includes the heads of eight leading industrialized nations along with Live 8's Bob Geldof, U2's Bono, Jars of Clay, Kanye West, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and evangelical churchgoers.
Normally, the G8 summit elicits about as much evangelical interest as moss growing on trees. But this year evangelicals are joining the ranks of activists at the annual gathering, held this year in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Their shared goal is to change government policies that will save lives in Africa. A broad coalition of religious and political leaders has endorsed:
Doubling financial aid sent to the world's poorest countries.
Debt cancellation for the poorest nations.
Reform of trade laws so poor nations are not shut out of global markets.
Activists hope all these steps will result in new growth in African economies and that in turn will translate into fewer deaths from malaria, HIV/AIDS, and starvation.
ONE, the campaign "to make poverty history," has become the focal point of advocacy for the G8 meetings and includes leading evangelical groups, such as World Vision, Bread for the World, and World Concern.
ONE campaign leader Geldof helped organize the July 2 mega-rock concert series Live 8 to raise public awareness and sway the leaders of the G8 countries to make these policy reforms. Geldof in 1985 organized the historic Live Aid concert that raised funds to fight famine in Africa.
Geldof told CT that Africa's poverty and misery is "the great moral sorrow of our time." Many G8 leaders favor debt cancellation and significant increases in aid, but fewer leaders support reform of trade laws because it may result in job losses within their own nations.
In planning for the concerts this past weekend, Geldof realized something that many of his secular European colleagues fail to recognize: The solutions to Africa's needs will only come about if evangelicals are brought into the fray.
"In the U.S. evangelicals are a huge force for change," he told CT. He said in Africa the roles of evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and Muslims have become the fundamental facts of life. "People fail to understand how important a role religion takes in Africa."
Geldof's partner in the Live 8 concerts is mega-rock star Bono, U2's charismatic leader who has acknowledged Christian beliefs. Bono has worked through his organization DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) to partner with Christian relief and development groups.
In Philadelphia, the Live 8 concert featured evangelical Christian artists like Jars of Clay—fresh from an appearance with evangelist Billy Graham in New York City, along with headliners Kanye West and Destiny's Child.
The Bono Effect
Shayne Moore, a member of the Wheaton Bible Church in Wheaton, Illinois, says she has come to Edinburgh because her heart was broken by Bono's descriptions of African suffering. (For example, every day, 6,300 Africans die of AIDS, more than 1,200 of them children.)
"Bono came to Wheaton College in December 2002," Moore said. "By the time I left the concert, I had changed."
At Wheaton, Bono issued his challenge, "If the church doesn't respond, who will?"
The change inside of Moore was a deep transformation. She moved from being the classic suburban mom who happily shops for family bargains at Target into a person with global concern. She now considers herself a faith-oriented activist and has come to Edinburgh with other evangelicals linked with the ONE Campaign. They will be networking, organizing, and strategizing how to change government policy and push for local church involvement.
Like many of the evangelicals here in Edinburgh, Moore came with a new compassion for Africans. She and her husband even helped sponsor an entire Zambian village through World Vision. Moore looks at her own children when she see pictures of African kids dying of malaria and AIDS. "I don't have to go miles to get clean water for my kids."
Bono, Geldof, and others working to end poverty in Africa have tapped into the vein of evangelical compassion, typically channeled through local churches and charities, but now also directed into reform of government policies on trade and aid.
For Moore, it is a long way from the foreign missions appeals at Wheaton Bible Church, which she joined in 2004.
G8 meetings in Scotland run July 6-8. Live 8 leaders are saying, "The whole world is watching." Moore and other evangelicals in Edinburgh hope the whole church is paying close attention too.
Tony Carnes is a senior writer for Christianity Today.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
To Judge, or Not to Judge
Christ commanded us not to judge others, but aren't there times when common sense or prudence requires it? Asked by Stephen Hunt, St. Paul, Minnesota
Answered by Roger E. Olson | posted 06/29/2005 09:00 a.m.
Even people who know very little about the Bible are usually familiar with Jesus' saying "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1, KJV). This command is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount; it is Jesus' most popular saying because our culture values tolerance so highly.
But it is usually ripped out of context and misinterpreted.
Matthew 7:1-5 includes Jesus' warning about trying to take a speck out of a neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own eye. In verse five, Jesus makes clear the audience he is addressing: "You hypocrite!" When Jesus says "Do not judge," he is warning people against heaping criticism and condemnation on others without being willing to examine one's own behavior. Clearly the context is one in which some religious leaders were harshly condemning other people while attempting to justify their own sinfulness.
Furthermore, many people are unaware of balancing texts about judging in the rest of the New Testament. These include Jesus' command "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24, NRSV), and Paul's rhetorical question "Is it not those who are inside [the church] that you are to judge?" (1 Cor. 5:12). Clearly not all judging is forbidden. If that were the case, the church could have no boundaries; the body of Christ would not be a body but a gaseous vapor!
Paul urged the Corinthian church to exclude the man who was living with his father's wife; he ordered them not to associate with people who claim to be Christians but live blatantly sinful lives without repentance (1 Cor. 5). Did Paul simply forget Jesus' command not to judge? Was he unaware of it? That's doubtful. Rather, we should suppose that Jesus meant only to condemn hypocritical judging. When the church must discipline a member, it should always do so in full recognition of everyone's lack of perfection and need of the Savior.
Some churches and Christian organizations avoid church discipline because it is a form of judging, and judging is wrongly equated with intolerance. Judging is then (ironically) judged incompatible with the spirit of Jesus' teaching. Church discipline is surely the more biblical approach, even as it is fraught with danger.
The New Testament condemns every spirit that says Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh (1 John 4). Today the problem is more likely to arise around denials of Christ's deity. And yet Christ's deity is a nonnegotiable of Christian faith that is crucial to the gospel. Christians should not tolerate denials of such central truths within the church, and must discipline with love those who knowingly reject the truth of the Incarnation.
Similarly, the New Testament condemns immorality, including homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27). Churches that condone such behavior among believers are abdicating their responsibility to shepherd God's flock.
Church discipline inexorably involves making judgments and even judging people's behaviors, but it can be done in a nonjudgmental and humble manner. One church I know stripped a man of membership, without shaming or humiliating him, because he refused to cease an adulterous relationship or repent of it. He was encouraged to continue attending worship services, and his involvement in the church eventually contributed to his repentance and restoration to full fellowship. The church acknowledged that everyone sins, but recognized the importance of a repentant spirit. Without such humble discipline, there is no real discipleship.
Finally, even though the context of Matthew 7 may not require it, one is justified in thinking that Jesus does not want us to take God's place in determining individual persons' ultimate spiritual fate. This would be another example of inappropriate judging. Which specific individuals of our acquaintance will end up in heaven and which will end up in hell is not for us to determine. That judgment belongs to God alone.
But who should be a member of a church, and how members should behave as such, must sometimes be decided by the church, based on beliefs and behaviors.
Roger E. Olson is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, and author of The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology.
Christ commanded us not to judge others, but aren't there times when common sense or prudence requires it? Asked by Stephen Hunt, St. Paul, Minnesota
Answered by Roger E. Olson | posted 06/29/2005 09:00 a.m.
Even people who know very little about the Bible are usually familiar with Jesus' saying "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1, KJV). This command is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount; it is Jesus' most popular saying because our culture values tolerance so highly.
But it is usually ripped out of context and misinterpreted.
Matthew 7:1-5 includes Jesus' warning about trying to take a speck out of a neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own eye. In verse five, Jesus makes clear the audience he is addressing: "You hypocrite!" When Jesus says "Do not judge," he is warning people against heaping criticism and condemnation on others without being willing to examine one's own behavior. Clearly the context is one in which some religious leaders were harshly condemning other people while attempting to justify their own sinfulness.
Furthermore, many people are unaware of balancing texts about judging in the rest of the New Testament. These include Jesus' command "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24, NRSV), and Paul's rhetorical question "Is it not those who are inside [the church] that you are to judge?" (1 Cor. 5:12). Clearly not all judging is forbidden. If that were the case, the church could have no boundaries; the body of Christ would not be a body but a gaseous vapor!
Paul urged the Corinthian church to exclude the man who was living with his father's wife; he ordered them not to associate with people who claim to be Christians but live blatantly sinful lives without repentance (1 Cor. 5). Did Paul simply forget Jesus' command not to judge? Was he unaware of it? That's doubtful. Rather, we should suppose that Jesus meant only to condemn hypocritical judging. When the church must discipline a member, it should always do so in full recognition of everyone's lack of perfection and need of the Savior.
Some churches and Christian organizations avoid church discipline because it is a form of judging, and judging is wrongly equated with intolerance. Judging is then (ironically) judged incompatible with the spirit of Jesus' teaching. Church discipline is surely the more biblical approach, even as it is fraught with danger.
The New Testament condemns every spirit that says Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh (1 John 4). Today the problem is more likely to arise around denials of Christ's deity. And yet Christ's deity is a nonnegotiable of Christian faith that is crucial to the gospel. Christians should not tolerate denials of such central truths within the church, and must discipline with love those who knowingly reject the truth of the Incarnation.
Similarly, the New Testament condemns immorality, including homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27). Churches that condone such behavior among believers are abdicating their responsibility to shepherd God's flock.
Church discipline inexorably involves making judgments and even judging people's behaviors, but it can be done in a nonjudgmental and humble manner. One church I know stripped a man of membership, without shaming or humiliating him, because he refused to cease an adulterous relationship or repent of it. He was encouraged to continue attending worship services, and his involvement in the church eventually contributed to his repentance and restoration to full fellowship. The church acknowledged that everyone sins, but recognized the importance of a repentant spirit. Without such humble discipline, there is no real discipleship.
Finally, even though the context of Matthew 7 may not require it, one is justified in thinking that Jesus does not want us to take God's place in determining individual persons' ultimate spiritual fate. This would be another example of inappropriate judging. Which specific individuals of our acquaintance will end up in heaven and which will end up in hell is not for us to determine. That judgment belongs to God alone.
But who should be a member of a church, and how members should behave as such, must sometimes be decided by the church, based on beliefs and behaviors.
Roger E. Olson is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University, and author of The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
A post from a friend of mine:
Dear Sisters and Brothers,You might find the following article of interest. It's found in _BusinessWeek_ and is entitled "Earthly Empires, How Evangelical Churches AreBorrowing from the Business Playbook."<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934001_mz001.htm>Last week I ate lunch with a man who used to work for Mr. Osteen's father,and I told him about the interview that I had seen young Joel give on CNN afew weeks ago, on June 7, 2005, on "Paula Zahn Now."Judy Woodruff: "But critics say it's all just cotton candy Christianity:tasty, but little substance. There's no fire and brimstone at Lakewood, notalk of sinners or Satan, no talk of politics, abortion, gay marriage."Joel Osteen: "I don't know if I want to go there, you know. I mean, Ijust -- you know, I'm for the -- I don't even know where to go. I haven'treally addressed it much."<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/07/pzn.01.html>I won't quote what the man said to me, but he confirmed that Joel Osteenskirts issues that will make people feel bad about themselves.With the opening of his new church at Houston's old Compaq Center, Mr.Osteen is in the news a lot lately. On June 20, 2005, he was on "Larry KingLive."Larry King, CNN Host: 'Tonight, Joel Osteen, evangelism's hottest risingstar, pastor for the biggest congregation in the United States. He literallyfilled the shoes of his late father who founded the church, and wait untilyou hear what he had to overcome to do it. Pastor Joel Osteen is here forthe hour. We'll take your calls. It's next on LARRY KING LIVE.'Joel Osteen is the author of the number one "New York Times" best-seller,"Your Best Life Now." There you see its cover. "Seven Steps to Living atYour Full Potential." There is now a compendium been published called "YourBest Life Now Journal," a guide to reaching that full potential. Joel Osteenis pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. His father before him. Hehas been called the smiling preacher. We met.'. . .King: "How many people come to your church?"Osteen: "We have about 30,000 each weekend.". . .King: "Is it hard to lead a Christian life?"Osteen: "I don't think it's that hard. To me it's fun. We have joy andhappiness. Our family -- I don't feel like that at all. I'm not trying tofollow a set of rules and stuff. I'm just living my life."King: "But you have rules, don't you?"Osteen: "We do have rules. But the main rule to me is to honor God with yourlife. To life a life of integrity. Not be selfish. You know, help others.But that's really the essence of the Christian faith."King: "That we live in deeds?"Osteen: "I don't know. What do you mean by that?"King: "Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. Youeither believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are,you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in yourlife, you ain't."Osteen: "Yeah, I don't know. There's probably a balance between. I believeyou have to know Christ. But I think that if you know Christ, if you're abeliever in God, you're going to have some good works. I think it's acop-out to say I'm a Christian but I don't ever do anything ..."King: "What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?"Osteen: "You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't goto heaven. I don't know ..."King: "If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren'tthey?"Osteen: "Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here'swhat the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe.But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot oftime in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But Iknow they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don'tknow. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have arelationship with Jesus."<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/lkl.01.html>Last night I kept thinking about how much "fun" the Christian life is as mywife and I visited an eighteen year old woman who used to attend our church.She's facing ten years in prison for a series of arrests over the past sixmonths, all drug related. She was dressed in an orange jumpsuit, and shecried a lot. At one point I left my wife in the interview room with her andwalked over to the sergeant at the desk to ask if I could leave my Biblewith the young woman. He was watching the television monitor and grippinghis Taser, waiting to see if the shouting match between some females downthe hall called for more back-up.After we left our parish jail, we drove over to one of our hospitals to praywith one of our members who had chunks of his large intestine removedbecause of cancer. We are waiting for the test results today to see if thecancer has spread to his lymph nodes. We got home a little after 8:00.What a "fun" evening!Now, don't get me wrong. We know the joy of the Lord -- it is our strength(Nehemiah 8:10.) -- but we also what it is to weep. (Romans 12:15.) Since Ipastor a medium sized church, my wife and I personally know the people whoattend, some quite well. And that means that we do a lot of weeping. As myfavorite atheist wrote: "To know people well is to know their tragedy: itis usually the central thing about which their lives are built." [BertrandRussell, _The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell_ (New York: Routledge,2000), p. 194.]Pro Rege,Bob"Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only? Not that I amacceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because onlythe satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousnessbefore God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other waythan by faith only." (The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 23, # 61.)Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.Grace Presbyterian Church4900 Jackson StreetAlexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi80 Hickory Hill DriveBoyce, Louisiana 71409-8784318.445.7271 church318.443.1034 fax318.793.5354 homebob@rbvincent.comhttp://www.rbvincent.comhttp://www.grace-presbyterian.orghttp://www.gcsla.org
Dear Sisters and Brothers,You might find the following article of interest. It's found in _BusinessWeek_ and is entitled "Earthly Empires, How Evangelical Churches AreBorrowing from the Business Playbook."<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934001_mz001.htm>Last week I ate lunch with a man who used to work for Mr. Osteen's father,and I told him about the interview that I had seen young Joel give on CNN afew weeks ago, on June 7, 2005, on "Paula Zahn Now."Judy Woodruff: "But critics say it's all just cotton candy Christianity:tasty, but little substance. There's no fire and brimstone at Lakewood, notalk of sinners or Satan, no talk of politics, abortion, gay marriage."Joel Osteen: "I don't know if I want to go there, you know. I mean, Ijust -- you know, I'm for the -- I don't even know where to go. I haven'treally addressed it much."<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/07/pzn.01.html>I won't quote what the man said to me, but he confirmed that Joel Osteenskirts issues that will make people feel bad about themselves.With the opening of his new church at Houston's old Compaq Center, Mr.Osteen is in the news a lot lately. On June 20, 2005, he was on "Larry KingLive."Larry King, CNN Host: 'Tonight, Joel Osteen, evangelism's hottest risingstar, pastor for the biggest congregation in the United States. He literallyfilled the shoes of his late father who founded the church, and wait untilyou hear what he had to overcome to do it. Pastor Joel Osteen is here forthe hour. We'll take your calls. It's next on LARRY KING LIVE.'Joel Osteen is the author of the number one "New York Times" best-seller,"Your Best Life Now." There you see its cover. "Seven Steps to Living atYour Full Potential." There is now a compendium been published called "YourBest Life Now Journal," a guide to reaching that full potential. Joel Osteenis pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. His father before him. Hehas been called the smiling preacher. We met.'. . .King: "How many people come to your church?"Osteen: "We have about 30,000 each weekend.". . .King: "Is it hard to lead a Christian life?"Osteen: "I don't think it's that hard. To me it's fun. We have joy andhappiness. Our family -- I don't feel like that at all. I'm not trying tofollow a set of rules and stuff. I'm just living my life."King: "But you have rules, don't you?"Osteen: "We do have rules. But the main rule to me is to honor God with yourlife. To life a life of integrity. Not be selfish. You know, help others.But that's really the essence of the Christian faith."King: "That we live in deeds?"Osteen: "I don't know. What do you mean by that?"King: "Because we've had ministers on who said, your record don't count. Youeither believe in Christ or you don't. If you believe in Christ, you are,you are going to heaven. And if you don't no matter what you've done in yourlife, you ain't."Osteen: "Yeah, I don't know. There's probably a balance between. I believeyou have to know Christ. But I think that if you know Christ, if you're abeliever in God, you're going to have some good works. I think it's acop-out to say I'm a Christian but I don't ever do anything ..."King: "What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?"Osteen: "You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't goto heaven. I don't know ..."King: "If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren'tthey?"Osteen: "Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here'swhat the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe.But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot oftime in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But Iknow they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don'tknow. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have arelationship with Jesus."<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/lkl.01.html>Last night I kept thinking about how much "fun" the Christian life is as mywife and I visited an eighteen year old woman who used to attend our church.She's facing ten years in prison for a series of arrests over the past sixmonths, all drug related. She was dressed in an orange jumpsuit, and shecried a lot. At one point I left my wife in the interview room with her andwalked over to the sergeant at the desk to ask if I could leave my Biblewith the young woman. He was watching the television monitor and grippinghis Taser, waiting to see if the shouting match between some females downthe hall called for more back-up.After we left our parish jail, we drove over to one of our hospitals to praywith one of our members who had chunks of his large intestine removedbecause of cancer. We are waiting for the test results today to see if thecancer has spread to his lymph nodes. We got home a little after 8:00.What a "fun" evening!Now, don't get me wrong. We know the joy of the Lord -- it is our strength(Nehemiah 8:10.) -- but we also what it is to weep. (Romans 12:15.) Since Ipastor a medium sized church, my wife and I personally know the people whoattend, some quite well. And that means that we do a lot of weeping. As myfavorite atheist wrote: "To know people well is to know their tragedy: itis usually the central thing about which their lives are built." [BertrandRussell, _The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell_ (New York: Routledge,2000), p. 194.]Pro Rege,Bob"Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only? Not that I amacceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because onlythe satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousnessbefore God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other waythan by faith only." (The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 23, # 61.)Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.Grace Presbyterian Church4900 Jackson StreetAlexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509Tutissimum Refugium Sanguinis Christi80 Hickory Hill DriveBoyce, Louisiana 71409-8784318.445.7271 church318.443.1034 fax318.793.5354 homebob@rbvincent.comhttp://www.rbvincent.comhttp://www.grace-presbyterian.orghttp://www.gcsla.org
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
A response to "Yes To Yoga"
Take a Pass on Yoga
How can I support a practice that is targeting the young and the weak?
by Holly Vicente Robaina posted 06/07/2005 09:00 a.m.
This is a response to Agnieszka Tennant's "Yes to Yoga," which recently appeared on Christianity Today's website. Agnieszka wrote her article in response to my piece, "The Truth About Yoga," which appeared in Today's Christian Woman's March/April 2005 issue.
While I recognize Agnieszka's right to practice yoga, I've got to take a pass—and I feel compelled to encourage other Christians to pass on yoga, too.
I was deeply involved in the New Age before I became a Christian. Trances, channeling spirits, and past-life regression were normal practices for me back then. So was yoga.
Like Laurette Willis, whose story is featured in "The Truth About Yoga," I was raised in a Christian home. I accepted Jesus as a child, was baptized, attended a Christian school, and participated in Bible quizzing. When I headed off to college, I thought my faith was rock solid.
A Ouija board game in college started my journey into the New Age. It seemed so innocent at the time—a plastic pointer on top of a piece of cardboard printed with the alphabet. It seemed like Monopoly or Scrabble. Though I'd been warned about Ouija boards by church youth leaders, this didn't look like anything that could hurt me.
It took many years and many prayers for me to let go of my New Age practices and to be healed from the pain they caused me. Until last fall, when I met Laurette Willis, I'd never met another Christian who'd come out of the New Age. (To be fair, I've kept pretty quiet about my experience.) Laurette told me she hadn't met any before, either. (And she's been extremely vocal about her experience.)
Both Laurette and I have met quite a few New Agers who'd grown up in Christian households, attended church, or even been professing believers.
Just before I wrote "The Truth About Yoga," I was looking for a stretching routine that would offer an alternative to yoga. I'd practiced yoga for years and loved the feel of stretching and relaxing from a day's stresses. But after I became a Christian, I sensed something spiritual about yoga that made me uneasy. (I later discovered yoga's Hindu origins and understood why I'd felt uneasy—New Age beliefs and practices are largely derived from Hinduism.)
So when I heard about a new exercise program dubbed "Christian yoga," I thought I'd found my alternative. And I figured TCW readers would love to learn about it, too.
I interviewed two Christian yoga instructors along with Laurette and had contacted others when I began putting the story together. As I was working on it, I felt troubled by some of the statements made by Christian yoga instructors and characteristics of their programs. At first, I ignored it, thinking I was hypersensitive and being too nitpicky because of my own New Age past. I became deeply concerned again when I discovered one of my interviewees—a Christian yoga instructor who'd been featured prominently in articles by several Christian publications—had links to a New Age website on her Christian yoga site. I prayed about it, began deeply researching more than a dozen Christian yoga programs, and prayed some more. Finally, I contacted Today's Christian Woman editor Jane Johnson Struck. We agreed it was best to stick to a profile on Laurette Willis.
Laurette never contacted me about her PraiseMoves program, nor did she send promotional material to TCW. I didn't even know she was working on a book for Harvest House. I found her website through a search engine, and it was my decision (with support from the TCW editors) to focus on her story.
The big differenceI've found that yoga practitioners—both Christians and those who are not believers—are extremely defensive of yoga. I can understand why. Stretching feels fabulous, and there's a dearth of stretching programs out there. That was yet another reason it seemed helpful to highlight PraiseMoves, a stretching program created by a Christian, for Christians.
Agnieszka seems to believe PraiseMoves is yoga with Christian terminology thrown in. I'd correct that statement and say Laurette's program is a Christian stretching program that seeks to reflect the physical benefits of yoga while replacing Hindu spiritualism with Christian worship.
Is there really a difference? I've practiced yoga with many different instructors (who all said they taught purely "physical exercise" without any yogic spiritualism), and I've done the PraiseMoves program myself. So I'd offer a resounding "Yes, there's a big difference," along with an illustration.
I have a Buddhist friend who practices ancestor worship—she goes to a temple, lights a stick of incense, and leaves food for her deceased relatives. There are Christians who light candles in remembrance of deceased relatives, or set a place at their holiday table for someone who has passed. The actions are similar, but the intent and settings are different. The Christians aren't worshiping their deceased relatives (intent), or performing a symbolic gesture inside a Buddhist temple or in a uniquely Buddhist way (setting).
I believe Agnieszka's personal intent in practicing yoga is good and pure. She loves Jesus, sees yoga as exercise, and likely would never be seduced into the deeper spiritualism that is inherent in all yoga. But yoga has a history, a "setting" of postures and language that pays homage to Hindu deities. While American instructors may water down that language, I think it's safe to say most are still using it. The word namaste is still used in many yoga classes, including Agnieszka's, and it's a term Hindus use when paying respect to their deities. Even when used between friends, the term still really means, "I bow to the god within you." (Agnieszka offers a different translation in her article. While the word gets translated differently depending on the source, I believe my translation, which comes from a number of Hindu websites, is closer to its true intent. It is a Sanskrit/Hindu word, and Hindus believe all living things are part of god, i.e. we are all gods. Some explain this belief as "monotheistic polytheism.") And most instructors—including, it seems, Agnieszka's—use traditional Sanskrit terms that have been translated into English, such as downward facing dog, corpse pose, and sun salutation. The last one, by the way, directly pays homage to the Hindu sun god—it isn't called a "salute to the sun" for nothin'.
Minority reportEven if a Christian can get past the Hindu origins of yoga, what about those who are instructing the class? What's their intent? On the Internet, you'll find a jillion yoga instructors who offer definitions similar to this one found on yogabasics.com: "Yoga is … aimed at integrating mind, body and spirit, and achieving a state of enlightenment or oneness with the universe. What is normally thought of as 'yoga' in the West is really Hatha Yoga, one of the many paths of yoga. These different paths of yoga are simply different approaches and techniques that all lead to the same goal of unification and enlightenment." The definition was written by the website's founder, who has instructed yoga for 16 years.
As for American-style yoga being just exercise, the site goes on to say: "More than just stretching, asanas [yoga postures] open the energy channels, chakras and psychic centers of the body. Asanas purify and strengthen the body and control and focus the mind."
These are not fringe views shared only by hardcore Hindu yogis. Rather, Agnieszka's view—that the Hindu spiritualism within American yoga has largely been extracted, making it purely exercise—seems to be in the minority. Kaiser Permanente, a major healthcare provider, says this about yoga on its website: "Yoga has been practiced for thousands of years in India and is based on the idea that the mind and body are one. It is thought that yoga improves health by improving how you see the world, which calms the spirit and decreases stress." Kaiser offers low-cost yoga classes to members, and regularly advertises this in its member newsletter.
Yoga is everywhere. Classes are taught in churches and nursing homes, through city recreation programs, and at elementary schools—both private and public. Meanwhile, numerous studies show prayer and faith have a healing effect, and that religion is good for your overall health. But you probably won't see your local city hall renting a room for prayer meetings at the senior center any time soon.
Perhaps it has become so common that it's now easy to overlook yoga's origins—and its inherent Hindu spirituality—even when the Hindu and yoga communities are loudly proclaiming, "Yes, all of yoga is Hinduism. Everyone should be aware of this fact" (from an e-mail written to Laurette Willis by a staff member of the Classical Yoga Hindu Academy in New Jersey).
Agnieszka references 1 Corinthians 8 in her article to illustrate how yoga might not cause a strong Christian to stumble. But she doesn't mention the last part of the passage, where Paul goes on to say:
"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ" (verses 9-12).
And I'll admit it—I loved yoga. Perhaps I'm even a strong enough Christian now to begin a yoga class again. But my decision to say no to yoga isn't just about me. Children are being exposed to yoga's spiritualism at school and in after-school programs. (I remember being taken through a guided meditation as a teen at a youth recreation program, though I had no idea what it was at the time.) And I've read many stories about doctors who encourage the elderly, depressed patients, the mentally ill, and terminal patients to practice yoga for its mental and spiritual benefits—as if there is no better comfort available in the world than yoga.
So even if I'm strong enough, how can I support a practice that seems to be targeting the young and the weak? I take 1 Corinthians 8:13 most seriously: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."
For me, giving up yoga is even easier than it would be to give up meat because there are alternatives. (There aren't many alternatives to a good steak!) I can still stretch. I can meditate on Scripture. I can slow down, take deep breaths, relax, and thank God for the many gifts he's given me. And I can pray that more Christians like Laurette Willis will be moved to develop alternatives to yoga.
Lastly, I'd like to address the idea that some evangelicals are engaging in fear-mongering about yoga. It's easy to become afraid of things we don't understand, especially practices that use a different language and come from a different culture. But fear also can be a God-given response that keeps us out of danger. As someone who was deeply involved in New Age and metaphysical practices, I can tell you from experience: There is a spiritual realm in this world. There are spiritual battles being fought. And there are frightening things from which we need to run—even if, like that Ouija board, they look benign on the surface.
Take a Pass on Yoga
How can I support a practice that is targeting the young and the weak?
by Holly Vicente Robaina posted 06/07/2005 09:00 a.m.
This is a response to Agnieszka Tennant's "Yes to Yoga," which recently appeared on Christianity Today's website. Agnieszka wrote her article in response to my piece, "The Truth About Yoga," which appeared in Today's Christian Woman's March/April 2005 issue.
While I recognize Agnieszka's right to practice yoga, I've got to take a pass—and I feel compelled to encourage other Christians to pass on yoga, too.
I was deeply involved in the New Age before I became a Christian. Trances, channeling spirits, and past-life regression were normal practices for me back then. So was yoga.
Like Laurette Willis, whose story is featured in "The Truth About Yoga," I was raised in a Christian home. I accepted Jesus as a child, was baptized, attended a Christian school, and participated in Bible quizzing. When I headed off to college, I thought my faith was rock solid.
A Ouija board game in college started my journey into the New Age. It seemed so innocent at the time—a plastic pointer on top of a piece of cardboard printed with the alphabet. It seemed like Monopoly or Scrabble. Though I'd been warned about Ouija boards by church youth leaders, this didn't look like anything that could hurt me.
It took many years and many prayers for me to let go of my New Age practices and to be healed from the pain they caused me. Until last fall, when I met Laurette Willis, I'd never met another Christian who'd come out of the New Age. (To be fair, I've kept pretty quiet about my experience.) Laurette told me she hadn't met any before, either. (And she's been extremely vocal about her experience.)
Both Laurette and I have met quite a few New Agers who'd grown up in Christian households, attended church, or even been professing believers.
Just before I wrote "The Truth About Yoga," I was looking for a stretching routine that would offer an alternative to yoga. I'd practiced yoga for years and loved the feel of stretching and relaxing from a day's stresses. But after I became a Christian, I sensed something spiritual about yoga that made me uneasy. (I later discovered yoga's Hindu origins and understood why I'd felt uneasy—New Age beliefs and practices are largely derived from Hinduism.)
So when I heard about a new exercise program dubbed "Christian yoga," I thought I'd found my alternative. And I figured TCW readers would love to learn about it, too.
I interviewed two Christian yoga instructors along with Laurette and had contacted others when I began putting the story together. As I was working on it, I felt troubled by some of the statements made by Christian yoga instructors and characteristics of their programs. At first, I ignored it, thinking I was hypersensitive and being too nitpicky because of my own New Age past. I became deeply concerned again when I discovered one of my interviewees—a Christian yoga instructor who'd been featured prominently in articles by several Christian publications—had links to a New Age website on her Christian yoga site. I prayed about it, began deeply researching more than a dozen Christian yoga programs, and prayed some more. Finally, I contacted Today's Christian Woman editor Jane Johnson Struck. We agreed it was best to stick to a profile on Laurette Willis.
Laurette never contacted me about her PraiseMoves program, nor did she send promotional material to TCW. I didn't even know she was working on a book for Harvest House. I found her website through a search engine, and it was my decision (with support from the TCW editors) to focus on her story.
The big differenceI've found that yoga practitioners—both Christians and those who are not believers—are extremely defensive of yoga. I can understand why. Stretching feels fabulous, and there's a dearth of stretching programs out there. That was yet another reason it seemed helpful to highlight PraiseMoves, a stretching program created by a Christian, for Christians.
Agnieszka seems to believe PraiseMoves is yoga with Christian terminology thrown in. I'd correct that statement and say Laurette's program is a Christian stretching program that seeks to reflect the physical benefits of yoga while replacing Hindu spiritualism with Christian worship.
Is there really a difference? I've practiced yoga with many different instructors (who all said they taught purely "physical exercise" without any yogic spiritualism), and I've done the PraiseMoves program myself. So I'd offer a resounding "Yes, there's a big difference," along with an illustration.
I have a Buddhist friend who practices ancestor worship—she goes to a temple, lights a stick of incense, and leaves food for her deceased relatives. There are Christians who light candles in remembrance of deceased relatives, or set a place at their holiday table for someone who has passed. The actions are similar, but the intent and settings are different. The Christians aren't worshiping their deceased relatives (intent), or performing a symbolic gesture inside a Buddhist temple or in a uniquely Buddhist way (setting).
I believe Agnieszka's personal intent in practicing yoga is good and pure. She loves Jesus, sees yoga as exercise, and likely would never be seduced into the deeper spiritualism that is inherent in all yoga. But yoga has a history, a "setting" of postures and language that pays homage to Hindu deities. While American instructors may water down that language, I think it's safe to say most are still using it. The word namaste is still used in many yoga classes, including Agnieszka's, and it's a term Hindus use when paying respect to their deities. Even when used between friends, the term still really means, "I bow to the god within you." (Agnieszka offers a different translation in her article. While the word gets translated differently depending on the source, I believe my translation, which comes from a number of Hindu websites, is closer to its true intent. It is a Sanskrit/Hindu word, and Hindus believe all living things are part of god, i.e. we are all gods. Some explain this belief as "monotheistic polytheism.") And most instructors—including, it seems, Agnieszka's—use traditional Sanskrit terms that have been translated into English, such as downward facing dog, corpse pose, and sun salutation. The last one, by the way, directly pays homage to the Hindu sun god—it isn't called a "salute to the sun" for nothin'.
Minority reportEven if a Christian can get past the Hindu origins of yoga, what about those who are instructing the class? What's their intent? On the Internet, you'll find a jillion yoga instructors who offer definitions similar to this one found on yogabasics.com: "Yoga is … aimed at integrating mind, body and spirit, and achieving a state of enlightenment or oneness with the universe. What is normally thought of as 'yoga' in the West is really Hatha Yoga, one of the many paths of yoga. These different paths of yoga are simply different approaches and techniques that all lead to the same goal of unification and enlightenment." The definition was written by the website's founder, who has instructed yoga for 16 years.
As for American-style yoga being just exercise, the site goes on to say: "More than just stretching, asanas [yoga postures] open the energy channels, chakras and psychic centers of the body. Asanas purify and strengthen the body and control and focus the mind."
These are not fringe views shared only by hardcore Hindu yogis. Rather, Agnieszka's view—that the Hindu spiritualism within American yoga has largely been extracted, making it purely exercise—seems to be in the minority. Kaiser Permanente, a major healthcare provider, says this about yoga on its website: "Yoga has been practiced for thousands of years in India and is based on the idea that the mind and body are one. It is thought that yoga improves health by improving how you see the world, which calms the spirit and decreases stress." Kaiser offers low-cost yoga classes to members, and regularly advertises this in its member newsletter.
Yoga is everywhere. Classes are taught in churches and nursing homes, through city recreation programs, and at elementary schools—both private and public. Meanwhile, numerous studies show prayer and faith have a healing effect, and that religion is good for your overall health. But you probably won't see your local city hall renting a room for prayer meetings at the senior center any time soon.
Perhaps it has become so common that it's now easy to overlook yoga's origins—and its inherent Hindu spirituality—even when the Hindu and yoga communities are loudly proclaiming, "Yes, all of yoga is Hinduism. Everyone should be aware of this fact" (from an e-mail written to Laurette Willis by a staff member of the Classical Yoga Hindu Academy in New Jersey).
Agnieszka references 1 Corinthians 8 in her article to illustrate how yoga might not cause a strong Christian to stumble. But she doesn't mention the last part of the passage, where Paul goes on to say:
"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ" (verses 9-12).
And I'll admit it—I loved yoga. Perhaps I'm even a strong enough Christian now to begin a yoga class again. But my decision to say no to yoga isn't just about me. Children are being exposed to yoga's spiritualism at school and in after-school programs. (I remember being taken through a guided meditation as a teen at a youth recreation program, though I had no idea what it was at the time.) And I've read many stories about doctors who encourage the elderly, depressed patients, the mentally ill, and terminal patients to practice yoga for its mental and spiritual benefits—as if there is no better comfort available in the world than yoga.
So even if I'm strong enough, how can I support a practice that seems to be targeting the young and the weak? I take 1 Corinthians 8:13 most seriously: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."
For me, giving up yoga is even easier than it would be to give up meat because there are alternatives. (There aren't many alternatives to a good steak!) I can still stretch. I can meditate on Scripture. I can slow down, take deep breaths, relax, and thank God for the many gifts he's given me. And I can pray that more Christians like Laurette Willis will be moved to develop alternatives to yoga.
Lastly, I'd like to address the idea that some evangelicals are engaging in fear-mongering about yoga. It's easy to become afraid of things we don't understand, especially practices that use a different language and come from a different culture. But fear also can be a God-given response that keeps us out of danger. As someone who was deeply involved in New Age and metaphysical practices, I can tell you from experience: There is a spiritual realm in this world. There are spiritual battles being fought. And there are frightening things from which we need to run—even if, like that Ouija board, they look benign on the surface.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Bush Visit to Calvin College Exposes Divisions
Commencement address invigorates debates about the Reformed relationship to American politics and evangelicalism.
by Collin Hansen posted 05/20/2005 09:30 a.m.
Professor David Hoekema couldn't believe his ears when news spread in April that President George W. Bush would deliver the commencement address at Calvin College. He's thankful for the national attention focused on the 4,300-student Christian liberal-arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. But that doesn't mean he's happy with the visit.
"While the media have sometimes portrayed evangelicalism as unanimous in support of a particular political agenda, that's not the case [at Calvin]," said Hoekema, a professor of philosophy. "With the Iraq war in particular, the [Bush] administration really didn't even try to make the case based on traditional criteria of justified warfare. The longstanding commitment of the Reformed tradition has been that war is to be used as a last resort when some very steep moral hurdles have been cleared."
Hoekema and about 100 other Calvin professors plan to publicize their protest of Bush administration policies with a letter to The Grand Rapids Press on the date of his visit, Saturday, May 21. Roughly one-third of the college's full-time faculty endorsed the letter. In addition to the Iraq war, the signatories fault Bush for burdening the poor, fostering intolerance, and harming creation. Another protest letter, signed by more than 800 students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the school, ran in Friday's Press. That note calls on Bush to "repudiate the false claims of supporters who say that those who oppose your policies are the enemies of religion." Many letter signers plan to wear "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat" pins during the commencement ceremony.
The political leanings of Calvin's faculty trend much closer to America as a whole than most of academia does. In a 2001 student-commissioned survey of Calvin faculty, 24 percent described themselves as politically liberal, while 28 percent said they were conservative, and another 48 percent identified as political moderates or none of the above. In straw polls during the 2004 election, more than two-thirds of Calvin students supported President Bush.
According to Calvin provost Joel Carpenter, White House political adviser Karl Rove approached former Calvin physics professor U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., with the idea of Bush giving the commencement address. Bush is only expected to give one other commencement address: to the Naval Academy on May 27. And despite his 2004 election strategy to maximize Christian conservative support, the President seldom visits such conspicuous Christian venues.
Though Calvin rarely draws commencement speakers from outside the close-knit college community—past addresses have been given by faculty, pastors, and parents—Carpenter said the opportunity for national exposure was tough to pass up.
"We know there are risks, too," Carpenter said. "When the White House comes calling, you're thrust into the national public eye. But we thought, What kind of a witness would it be to our students to say, 'No thanks. We can't handle your being here.'"
Carpenter said the earliest concern about Bush's visit regarded disrupting the religious and communal nature of Calvin's commencement. But he said the White House has allayed such concerns by asking detailed questions about the college and seeking input for the speech. "Our format this year will be just the same as last year," Carpenter explained. "It will be a religious service, and the White House has been very respectful of the character of the event."
Bush's visit has added new fuel to the already raging debates at Calvin over the relationship of Reformed Christianity to contemporary American politics and even evangelicalism. Carpenter said the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin's denomination, has remained loyal to the politics of Abraham Kuyper, who served as Dutch prime minister from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper created the first Christian Democratic party, which shares much in common with Roman Catholic political teaching in its commitment to peacemaking and alleviating poverty.
Calvin College remains devoted to doctrinal orthodoxy, and most faculty oppose abortion and gay marriage. But significant historical and theological factors at Calvin cut against the grain of popular evangelicalism. In particular, the high-church tradition of the Christian Reformed Church looks skeptically on revivalism and independent congregationalism. "This community, in regard to evangelicals," Carpenter said, "has always been 'Yes, but … '"
At this point, no one can be certain what long-term impact Bush's visit will have on Calvin. Much will depend on what the President chooses to say. To be sure, the debates will continue.
"The first three or four weeks [after announcing Bush's visit], alumni with more liberal political views vowed to never give another dollar or encourage their children to come [to Calvin]," Carpenter said. "Now that some of our faculty have been voicing dissent with Bush's views, alumni with more conservative political views are vowing the same thing. I tell you, it feels like a crossfire. I think it goes to show, sadly, how deeply divided our country is on matters of religion and politics."
Commencement address invigorates debates about the Reformed relationship to American politics and evangelicalism.
by Collin Hansen posted 05/20/2005 09:30 a.m.
Professor David Hoekema couldn't believe his ears when news spread in April that President George W. Bush would deliver the commencement address at Calvin College. He's thankful for the national attention focused on the 4,300-student Christian liberal-arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. But that doesn't mean he's happy with the visit.
"While the media have sometimes portrayed evangelicalism as unanimous in support of a particular political agenda, that's not the case [at Calvin]," said Hoekema, a professor of philosophy. "With the Iraq war in particular, the [Bush] administration really didn't even try to make the case based on traditional criteria of justified warfare. The longstanding commitment of the Reformed tradition has been that war is to be used as a last resort when some very steep moral hurdles have been cleared."
Hoekema and about 100 other Calvin professors plan to publicize their protest of Bush administration policies with a letter to The Grand Rapids Press on the date of his visit, Saturday, May 21. Roughly one-third of the college's full-time faculty endorsed the letter. In addition to the Iraq war, the signatories fault Bush for burdening the poor, fostering intolerance, and harming creation. Another protest letter, signed by more than 800 students, alumni, faculty, and friends of the school, ran in Friday's Press. That note calls on Bush to "repudiate the false claims of supporters who say that those who oppose your policies are the enemies of religion." Many letter signers plan to wear "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat" pins during the commencement ceremony.
The political leanings of Calvin's faculty trend much closer to America as a whole than most of academia does. In a 2001 student-commissioned survey of Calvin faculty, 24 percent described themselves as politically liberal, while 28 percent said they were conservative, and another 48 percent identified as political moderates or none of the above. In straw polls during the 2004 election, more than two-thirds of Calvin students supported President Bush.
According to Calvin provost Joel Carpenter, White House political adviser Karl Rove approached former Calvin physics professor U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., with the idea of Bush giving the commencement address. Bush is only expected to give one other commencement address: to the Naval Academy on May 27. And despite his 2004 election strategy to maximize Christian conservative support, the President seldom visits such conspicuous Christian venues.
Though Calvin rarely draws commencement speakers from outside the close-knit college community—past addresses have been given by faculty, pastors, and parents—Carpenter said the opportunity for national exposure was tough to pass up.
"We know there are risks, too," Carpenter said. "When the White House comes calling, you're thrust into the national public eye. But we thought, What kind of a witness would it be to our students to say, 'No thanks. We can't handle your being here.'"
Carpenter said the earliest concern about Bush's visit regarded disrupting the religious and communal nature of Calvin's commencement. But he said the White House has allayed such concerns by asking detailed questions about the college and seeking input for the speech. "Our format this year will be just the same as last year," Carpenter explained. "It will be a religious service, and the White House has been very respectful of the character of the event."
Bush's visit has added new fuel to the already raging debates at Calvin over the relationship of Reformed Christianity to contemporary American politics and even evangelicalism. Carpenter said the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin's denomination, has remained loyal to the politics of Abraham Kuyper, who served as Dutch prime minister from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper created the first Christian Democratic party, which shares much in common with Roman Catholic political teaching in its commitment to peacemaking and alleviating poverty.
Calvin College remains devoted to doctrinal orthodoxy, and most faculty oppose abortion and gay marriage. But significant historical and theological factors at Calvin cut against the grain of popular evangelicalism. In particular, the high-church tradition of the Christian Reformed Church looks skeptically on revivalism and independent congregationalism. "This community, in regard to evangelicals," Carpenter said, "has always been 'Yes, but … '"
At this point, no one can be certain what long-term impact Bush's visit will have on Calvin. Much will depend on what the President chooses to say. To be sure, the debates will continue.
"The first three or four weeks [after announcing Bush's visit], alumni with more liberal political views vowed to never give another dollar or encourage their children to come [to Calvin]," Carpenter said. "Now that some of our faculty have been voicing dissent with Bush's views, alumni with more conservative political views are vowing the same thing. I tell you, it feels like a crossfire. I think it goes to show, sadly, how deeply divided our country is on matters of religion and politics."
Here's an interesting take on Yoga from an evangelical:
Yes to Yoga
Can a Christian breathe air that has been offered to idols?
by Agnieszka Tennant posted 05/19/2005 09:30 a.m.
In-out-in-out-in-out.
In-out.
In. Out.
Inhale.
Exhale.
Inn … Outt …
Innn …
It's 7:45 p.m. on a weekday and for the first time today, I consciously slow down my breathing. I send the air deep down into my belly, letting it rise and fall like a wave. Inn … Outt …
Along with a group of 30 people in a darkened exercise studio at a Lifetime Fitness gym near Chicago, I use the unhurried cadences of the air filling and leaving my lungs to lull my muscles and joints into daring postures. My body becomes a mountain. An eagle. A warrior. A pigeon. A downward dog. A cobra. Finally—my favorite pose that comes at the end of each workout—a corpse, during which I lay down and relax every muscle.
Oh, and I'm an evangelical—mostly, a proud one. Proud of Christ, of Mary Magdalene, of G.K. Chesterton, of the way the Bible cuts through all cultures and all times and all hearts, and of smart evangelicals like historian Mark Noll at Wheaton College who have pried open the collective evangelical mind.
Sometimes though, I admit, I'm a tad embarrassed to be a member of the diverse evangelical family. Like yesterday, when I heard on NPR that the National Association of Evangelicals had led a charge at the Supreme Court opposing out-of-state wine shipments. May the finest wine maker have mercy on us!
Also yesterday, shame rushed through my face as I read on The Huffington Post, the hot, new, militantly liberal website, a reference to an article on yoga published by Christianity Today's sister publication Today's Christian Woman. In it, Max Blumenthal rightly pokes fun at the admiring article's main voice, which belongs to Laurette Willis, who believes yoga is pretty much of the devil. "Yoga's breathing techniques (pranayama) may seem stress-relieving, yet they can be an open door to psychic influences," Willis says.
Willis, who used to be a yoga instructor, believes that the practice opened her mind to New Age spirituality and led to her depression and alcoholism. After she was born again, she's remade herself into a PraiseMoves instructor (and skilled marketer). She wouldn't say this, but let's face it: she's still a yoga instructor—thus acknowledging yoga's healthful benefits—but now offers biblical explanations and biblical-sounding names for the poses.
Now, Willis and other Christians may have good reasons to feel uneasy about yoga. With her background in New Age, which was clearly an oppressive force in her life, I could be weary of what yoga reminds me of, too.
But it bothers me that people like Willis demonize a healthful exercise regimen, and engage in fear mongering (or is it fear marketing?) among evangelicals. The stereotype of evangelicals they reinforce I'd rather live without. We can leave the spreading of wrong-headed stereotypes about evangelicals to the more experienced bashers—some columnists at The New York Times, for example.
To dispel the stereotype at hand, let me witness that yoga has never had any negative influence on me, and it doesn't trigger any harmful religious impulses. Just the opposite is true. The three hours a week I spend doing yoga not only make me more flexible, tone my muscles, and relax me. They also draw me closer to Christ. They are my bodily-kinetic prayer.
Need I say that it was Alpha and Omega who first thought of and then created the common graces of oxygen, stretching, flexibility, breathing, and soothing music?
My natural response to any deep-breathing exercises is an emotionally felt love of God. Soon after I take off my socks and do a couple of poses, spontaneous prayers soar to Christ. Give me five minutes of yoga, and my mind immediately goes to the metaphor of God's spirit being as omnipresent and as necessary as the air.
In the same way that measured breathing is essential to yoga, the Spirit—which in both biblical Greek and Hebrew also means breath—is indispensable to my soul. Breathe in. Breathe out. Holy Spirit in. Anything that's not from God out. Come Holy Spirit. Renew my mind. In. Out. Thank. You. As I twist my body into places it hadn't been before, I can't help but pray this. Why fix what ain't broke?
Now, my enthusiasm for yoga doesn't mean I'm in denial about its Hindu roots. The magazine Hinduism Today editorialized that "the knowing separation of hatha yoga from Hinduism is deceptive." I know that hard-core yogis believe that yoga is more than exercise or a relaxation technique. To them, it's a religious ritual.
But the Hindu gods don't make it onto my mat. Yoga purists don't lead classes at mainstream American gyms. Could it be that some of them learned yoga from the purists? Yes. But no one's making me repeat any mantras. The closest any of my gym's several yoga teachers get to religious utterances is by bowing and saying "Namaste" at the end each class, which can be translated as "The soul in me honors the soul in you" or "The image of God in me honors the image of God in you." I like it! It just reminds me that, as C. S. Lewis put it, there are no mere mortals.
But let's suppose an improbable scenario: that one of these religious yoga proselytizers sneaked into my gym with the intent of spreading Hinduism. Say she'd put on a beautiful, rhythmic melody with an Oriental boy choir chanting words of worship that address an idol. Could she seduce my soul, over time, away from Christ?
I don't think so. I don't, for one, because worship is a conscious act of the mind. If it's busy overflowing with gratitude to Christ for the way he made my body, I simply don't have the mental space to give up to an idol. Second, can a non-existent idol snatch me away from Father God who has adopted me as his child? No chance.
In other words, yoga is like the meat that had been offered to idols. Can I put it on my sandwich? That, more or less, was the question on the minds of some of Christians in Corinth. "We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one," Paul wrote to them. "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth … yet for us there is but one God." Food "does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do," he said.
But some people, he acknowledged, are "so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled." Willis, by her own admission, falls in this category when it comes to yoga.
As for me, put that meat on my sandwich! Yummy! Thank you, Jesus!
Christ in.
Stress out.
Holy Spirit in.
Fear out.
God the Father in.
Carbon dioxide out.
Yes to Yoga
Can a Christian breathe air that has been offered to idols?
by Agnieszka Tennant posted 05/19/2005 09:30 a.m.
In-out-in-out-in-out.
In-out.
In. Out.
Inhale.
Exhale.
Inn … Outt …
Innn …
It's 7:45 p.m. on a weekday and for the first time today, I consciously slow down my breathing. I send the air deep down into my belly, letting it rise and fall like a wave. Inn … Outt …
Along with a group of 30 people in a darkened exercise studio at a Lifetime Fitness gym near Chicago, I use the unhurried cadences of the air filling and leaving my lungs to lull my muscles and joints into daring postures. My body becomes a mountain. An eagle. A warrior. A pigeon. A downward dog. A cobra. Finally—my favorite pose that comes at the end of each workout—a corpse, during which I lay down and relax every muscle.
Oh, and I'm an evangelical—mostly, a proud one. Proud of Christ, of Mary Magdalene, of G.K. Chesterton, of the way the Bible cuts through all cultures and all times and all hearts, and of smart evangelicals like historian Mark Noll at Wheaton College who have pried open the collective evangelical mind.
Sometimes though, I admit, I'm a tad embarrassed to be a member of the diverse evangelical family. Like yesterday, when I heard on NPR that the National Association of Evangelicals had led a charge at the Supreme Court opposing out-of-state wine shipments. May the finest wine maker have mercy on us!
Also yesterday, shame rushed through my face as I read on The Huffington Post, the hot, new, militantly liberal website, a reference to an article on yoga published by Christianity Today's sister publication Today's Christian Woman. In it, Max Blumenthal rightly pokes fun at the admiring article's main voice, which belongs to Laurette Willis, who believes yoga is pretty much of the devil. "Yoga's breathing techniques (pranayama) may seem stress-relieving, yet they can be an open door to psychic influences," Willis says.
Willis, who used to be a yoga instructor, believes that the practice opened her mind to New Age spirituality and led to her depression and alcoholism. After she was born again, she's remade herself into a PraiseMoves instructor (and skilled marketer). She wouldn't say this, but let's face it: she's still a yoga instructor—thus acknowledging yoga's healthful benefits—but now offers biblical explanations and biblical-sounding names for the poses.
Now, Willis and other Christians may have good reasons to feel uneasy about yoga. With her background in New Age, which was clearly an oppressive force in her life, I could be weary of what yoga reminds me of, too.
But it bothers me that people like Willis demonize a healthful exercise regimen, and engage in fear mongering (or is it fear marketing?) among evangelicals. The stereotype of evangelicals they reinforce I'd rather live without. We can leave the spreading of wrong-headed stereotypes about evangelicals to the more experienced bashers—some columnists at The New York Times, for example.
To dispel the stereotype at hand, let me witness that yoga has never had any negative influence on me, and it doesn't trigger any harmful religious impulses. Just the opposite is true. The three hours a week I spend doing yoga not only make me more flexible, tone my muscles, and relax me. They also draw me closer to Christ. They are my bodily-kinetic prayer.
Need I say that it was Alpha and Omega who first thought of and then created the common graces of oxygen, stretching, flexibility, breathing, and soothing music?
My natural response to any deep-breathing exercises is an emotionally felt love of God. Soon after I take off my socks and do a couple of poses, spontaneous prayers soar to Christ. Give me five minutes of yoga, and my mind immediately goes to the metaphor of God's spirit being as omnipresent and as necessary as the air.
In the same way that measured breathing is essential to yoga, the Spirit—which in both biblical Greek and Hebrew also means breath—is indispensable to my soul. Breathe in. Breathe out. Holy Spirit in. Anything that's not from God out. Come Holy Spirit. Renew my mind. In. Out. Thank. You. As I twist my body into places it hadn't been before, I can't help but pray this. Why fix what ain't broke?
Now, my enthusiasm for yoga doesn't mean I'm in denial about its Hindu roots. The magazine Hinduism Today editorialized that "the knowing separation of hatha yoga from Hinduism is deceptive." I know that hard-core yogis believe that yoga is more than exercise or a relaxation technique. To them, it's a religious ritual.
But the Hindu gods don't make it onto my mat. Yoga purists don't lead classes at mainstream American gyms. Could it be that some of them learned yoga from the purists? Yes. But no one's making me repeat any mantras. The closest any of my gym's several yoga teachers get to religious utterances is by bowing and saying "Namaste" at the end each class, which can be translated as "The soul in me honors the soul in you" or "The image of God in me honors the image of God in you." I like it! It just reminds me that, as C. S. Lewis put it, there are no mere mortals.
But let's suppose an improbable scenario: that one of these religious yoga proselytizers sneaked into my gym with the intent of spreading Hinduism. Say she'd put on a beautiful, rhythmic melody with an Oriental boy choir chanting words of worship that address an idol. Could she seduce my soul, over time, away from Christ?
I don't think so. I don't, for one, because worship is a conscious act of the mind. If it's busy overflowing with gratitude to Christ for the way he made my body, I simply don't have the mental space to give up to an idol. Second, can a non-existent idol snatch me away from Father God who has adopted me as his child? No chance.
In other words, yoga is like the meat that had been offered to idols. Can I put it on my sandwich? That, more or less, was the question on the minds of some of Christians in Corinth. "We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one," Paul wrote to them. "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth … yet for us there is but one God." Food "does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do," he said.
But some people, he acknowledged, are "so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled." Willis, by her own admission, falls in this category when it comes to yoga.
As for me, put that meat on my sandwich! Yummy! Thank you, Jesus!
Christ in.
Stress out.
Holy Spirit in.
Fear out.
God the Father in.
Carbon dioxide out.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
