Category Archives: Christianity

LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES BOTH AVOID THEE!

Leave a reply

In my fairly diverse reading, it is striking how few times I will see any mention of some of the earliest witnesses of the Christian faith.   I am speaking of the early Church fathers who wrote right after the time of the apostles.  And this common neglect is found among both so-called liberals (or progressives) and so-called conservatives.

Why the neglect?

I am not entirely sure, but Lesslie Newbigin’s terrific book, Proper Confidence, may provide a clue.  Newbigin believed both liberals and conservatives derived their understanding of reason from the Enlightenment.  Liberals, according to Newbigin, tend to believe the Christian faith can never be proven by reason, while conservatives tend to believe the Christian faith can be proven mainly by reason.  Both have forgotten what the Scriptures say about the nature of faith.  

Many conservatives need to be reminded that we now see in a “mirror dimly,” while many liberals need to appreciate we can still have confidence that the resurrected body of Jesus is a well-founded hope.  In The Reason for God,  Tim Keller (perhaps somewhat ironic because of the title), does a fine job reminding us that we all utilize faith along with our reason(s).  

The Church fathers can help us with these matters.  They understood that our understanding now is partial, but they were still confident it was true.

If you want to learn more, I recommend reading a primary source and a secondary one. The Apostolic Fathers (the edition by Michael Holmes is the latest, but the edition by J.B. Lightfoot is less expensive) has wonderful selections to read.  Reading the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall is my recommended book for getting your bearings on this historical period.

So how about it liberals and conservatives?  Stop avoiding the Church fathers and pay them a visit!

 

CHRISTIAN VERSUS CLASSICAL COMEDY

Leave a reply
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST ENCOURAGING AND INSIGHTFUL THINGS I’VE READ IN A LONG, LONG TIME:
W. H. Auden once commented that a Christian society could produce comedy of “much greater breadth and depth” than could a classical society. Its comedy was greater in breadth because classical comedy is based on a division of mankind into two classes, those who have arete [heroic virtue] and those who do not, and only the second class, the fools, shameless rascals, slaves, are fit subjects for comedy. But Christian comedy is based upon the belief that all men are sinners; no one, therefore, whatever his rank or talents, can claim immunity from the comic exposure and, indeed, the more virtuous, in the Greek sense, a man is, the more he realizes that he deserves to be exposed.
The Christian society’s comedy was greater in depth because, while classical comedy believes that rascals should get the drubbing they deserve, Christian comedy believes that we are forbidden to judge others and that it is our duty to forgive each other. In classical comedy the characters are exposed and punished: when the curtain falls, the audience is laughing and those on stage are in tears. In Christian comedy the characters are exposed and forgiven: when the curtain falls, the audience and the characters are laughing together.

A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER…

Leave a reply

From Al Mohler’s address at Brigham Young: “More recently, Taylor has written the greatest work yet completed on the secular reality of our times. In A Secular Age, he describes three successive sets of intellectual conditions. In the first, associated with the Premodern Age of antiquity and the medieval synthesis, it wasimpossible not to believe. There was simply no intellectual alternative to theism in the West. There was no alternative set of explanations for the world and its operations, or for moral order. All that changed with the arrival of modernity. In the Modern Age it became possible not to believe. A secular alternative to Christian theism emerged as a real choice. As a matter of fact, choice now ruled the intellectual field. As Peter Berger famously observed decades ago, this is the “heretical imperative,” the imperative to choose. The third set of intellectual conditions is identified with late modernity and our own intellectual epoch. For most people living in the context of self-conscious late modernity, it is now impossible to believe.”

The rest is here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/10/21/a-clear-and-present-danger-religious-liberty-marriage-and-the-family-in-the-late-modern-age-an-address-at-brigham-young-university/

HT: Denny Burk

FOUR OPTIONS…OR ARE THERE MORE?

Leave a reply

I was talking with a friend recently on the subject of disappointment with God.  What do you do when your experience makes it clear that your view of God can’t be correct.   It got me thinking about the options people take.  And there seems to be four of them:

Keep dutifully doing the right things when inside you are seething with anger.

Go insane, and yes, I mean literally.  I do know a few who chose this tragic option when God did not act the way(s) they expected.

Chuck the Christian faith.  It seems the best option for the person who wants to stop the charade when they no longer trust God.

And fourth…

Slowly, painfully, but redemptively realize one’s view of God was wrong.  Get to know the true God better and find that He is still trustworthy even amidst all the struggles, pain, and unanswered questions.  

I’m afraid we have too many choosing one of the first three options because option four is simply too messy for our sanitized vision of sanctification.

REMEMBER THE BABY! PART 1

Leave a reply

File:Baby vs. Bathwater Annotated.JPG

Many twenty and thirty something Christians voice valid concerns over mistakes my generation of believers made.  For the record, I am fifty-five.

My generation screwed up in a number of ways.  For example, confusing the gospel with certain political commitments brought much confusion. 

Getting in bed with the Moral Majority and the “Christian” Coalition were disasters.  I put Christian in scare quotes because I was told by one of their officials that you did not have to be a Christian to belong as long as you held to its political platform!  Among other things, this led to gross inconsistencies where the Christian Coalition would invite Newt Gingrich to speak at its conferences even though his religious beliefs at the time (it may have changed) was a hodgepodge ranging from New Age stuff to retrieving his childhood background of being a Baptist.  Devoted followers of Jesus from backgrounds which have serious reservations over America’s eagerness to use military might did not get invited to speak.  Since there was a desire to maintain favor with the Republican party, the Christian Coalition did not want to jeopardize that by inviting a Jesus follower to speak who has serious objections with the Just War tradition.

As is so often the case, it is easy to overreact to a mistake by making other mistakes.  In other words, it is easy to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  And that is just what I see too many twenty and thirty something Christians doing. More on that in upcoming posts…

 

 

SLIPPERY SLOPE?

1 Reply

After watching the two minute video below, I posted this quick note:

Why did he leave out bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia? Inerrancy is not a slippery slope, but this sure seems like one.

As one who had a friend who died of AIDS, sees myself as no less fallen than gay people, I nevertheless still think it is a sin.  The church has not ministered well to gay people which is a serious problem, but the course correction is not to condone the sin.

HT: Denny Burk

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION: EVANGELICALISM IS NOT SEAMLESS WITH THE BIBLE

3 Replies

For those of us who have a more “conservative” position of the Bible, there is a rather common delusion we can fall prey to, namely that we believe our interpretation of the Bible is always the correct one.  We may not even be aware that we are interpreting the Bible.  After all, we take the Bible as God’s Word, and gladly do what it says.  At the very least, our approach is far superior to the liberals who see all kinds of human elements and mistakes in the Bible.

I actually came up with some alliteration to convey a common dynamic I’ve seen in conservative or “Bible-centered” environments.  What I have seen is how easy it is for us conservatives to make a personal preference a priority which then slowly becomes a biblical precept.

For example, take a Christian school which has a preference for a certain type of uniform dress.  It is easy for that preference to slowly move to a priority which slowly becomes an issue of whether one is willing to commit to the commandments of Scripture.  Granted, there are passages of Scripture which speak of things like modest dress, but it is still a preference (not biblical precept!) to have all the boys in khaki pants and blue blazers.