Prelude to a Larger Post: Newman on Faith, Reason, and the Supplanting of Objectivity

The following is from the fourth section of the second discourse in The Idea of a University (for clarity's sake, I have broken the section into paragraphs and added emphasis where necessary):

     The religious world, as it is [now beginning to be] styled, holds, generally speaking, that Religion consists, not in knowledge, but in feeling or sentiment. The old Catholic notion, which still lingers in the Established Church, was that Faith was an intellectual act, its object truth, and its result knowledge. Thus if you look into the Anglican Prayer Book, you will find definite credenda as well as definite agenda; but in proportion as the Lutheran leaven spread, it became fashionable to say that Faith was, not an acceptance of revealed doctrine, not an act of the intellect, but a feeling, an emotion, an affection, an appetency; and, as this view of Faith obtained, so was the connection of Faith with Truth and Knowledge more and more either forgotten or denied. At length the identity of this (so called) spirituality of heart and the virtue of Faith was acknowledged on all hands. Some men indeed disapproved the pietism in question, others admired it; but whether they admired or disapproved, both...found themselves in agreement on the main point, viz., in considering that this really was in substance Religion, and nothing else; that Religion was based, not on argument, but on taste and sentiment, that nothing was objective, everything subjective, in doctrine.

     I say, even those who saw through the affectation in which the religious school of which I am speaking clad itself, still came to think that Religion, as such, consisted in something short of intellectual exercises, viz., in affections, in the imagination, in inward persuasions and consolations, in pleasurable sensations, sudden changes, and sublime fancies. They learned to believe and to take for granted that Religion was nothing beyond a supply of the wants of human nature, not an external fact and a work of God. There was, it appeared, a demand for Religion, and therefore there was a supply; human nature could not do without Religion. [...] Thus Religion was useful, venerable, beautiful, the sanction of order, the stay of government, the curb of self-will and self-indulgence, which the laws cannot reach; but, after all, on what was it based? Why, that was a question delicate to ask, and imprudent to answer; but, if the truth must be spoken, however, reluctantly, the long and the short of the matter was this, that Religion was based on custom, on prejudice, on law, on education, on habit, on loyalty, on feudalism, on enlightened experience, on many, many things, but not at all on reason; reason was neither its warrant, nor its instrument, and science had little connection with it as with the fashions of the season, or the state of the weather.

     In this second discourse of The Idea of a University, John Henry Newman argued for the presence of Theology to be taught in the universities, his final reason being that Theology is the "queen of the sciences" because it gives us knowledge about God, who is the source of all things, including reason and the laws of the universe (Discourse III, Sections 8-9). In this fourth section, he outlines what he sees as a heavy trend in the culture regarding religion (esp. the Christian religion) and consequently Theology, viz., all religious/spiritual matters are subjective and emotional in essence rather than objective and rational. Such a dichotomy should sound familiar: the whole of Modern Christendom (esp. the Emergent Church) is infected with this fashionable religious sentiment, i.e., spirituality is a result of our own subjective experiences rather than an objective truth (like God's revelations, both general and special).

     I quote Newton as yet another setup for my own thoughts on Christianity's answer to the post-modern objection, i.e., there cannot be an absolute truth because all we can know are our own subjective experiences, and they are too varied and complicated to be summed up under an essential quality. In other words, there is only emotional subjectivity and no rational objectivity; there is only the infinite ocean with no stars in the sky (except of our own making). I hope to answer this objection with what I see as the truly Christian answer, i.e., the ocean is infinite, but so are the stars in the sky.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2009

Prelude to a Larger Post: Oswald Chambers on the Whole and the Particulars

From the December 9th entry of Still Higher for His Highest:

If you take all the manifestations of God given in the Old Testament you find them a mass of contradiction--now God is pictured as a Man, now as a Woman, now as a lonely Hero, now as a suffering Servant--and until we come to the New Testament these conflicting characteristics but add confusion to our conception of God. But immediately we see Jesus Christ, we find all the apparent contradictions blended in one unique Personality.

Oswald is here hinting on a point that I hope to expand on in the very near future. One of the objections that our post-modern world has against absolute truth is that if there really was an essential, absolute reality to things, then things would be simpler. As it is, the presence of complications and complexities negate the possibility of any such essential, absolute reality. The particulars are too vast for any whole to encompass them (I dealt with a similar issue last year).

The big mistake that Christianity (esp. Emergent Christianity) has done in response to this claim is to agree with it and then try to maintain (re: redefine) the Christian Faith in the midst of it. I'm telling you right now, it cannot be done: essential, absolute realities are absolutely essential for Christianity to be Christianity. Take those away, and Christianity goes away as well. What is left in such a situation is slightly moral, incredibly trendy, and boasting a "Christian" veneer. It is not, however, the Christian Faith whereby men can be saved.

What Oswald points out (and what I plan to greatly expand on later) is the groundwork for a truly Christian response to the post-modern objection. That response is this assertion: Complexity and "apparent contradictions" amongst the particulars do not necessarily negate the presence of an essential and absolute whole. This is because the whole is great enough to encompass all the myriad of particulars into itself. The error that modern/post-modern types make is assuming that the essential, absolute realities or qualities are necessarily simple. I believe the proper Christian response is to assert that they are not simple; rather, they are infinite. The essential whole is just as vast (if not more so) than the various particulars.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2009

A Pertinent Question

There is a story in the Gospels (I forget which) where Jesus heals a man that has been lingering next to a pool of water for some thirty years. The water was supposedly disturbed every once and a while when an angel came and touched it, and the first person to bath themselves in the water after it was disturbed would be healed of their ailments. The man in question was a paralytic, however, and had no one to take him to the pool. So he sat unmoved for around thirty years.

When Jesus found him, his first question He asked him was, "What do you want?" I believe it was John Eldridge who pointed out that this is an astounding question. It seemed that Jesus' first step in healing the man was to get him to reestablish what his desire was, his goal, his end game, for sitting near the pool. It is not unreasonable to assume that, after having sat still without success for around thirty years, that he had eventually forgotten what was the point of it all.

I believe that Jesus' question to the paralytic is highly pertinent to our current culture and society that has been terribly paralyzed by the grip of post-modernism. We would do well to ask people, both liberal and conservative, atheistic and spiritual, secular and religious, what it is exactly that they want. When faced with the tumultuous lot of faddist and trivial institutions, ideologies, parties, minority groups, voting blocks, revolutions, moralities, and philosophies that our current culture and society parades around like next year's fashion, perhaps the best question that we can put forth is, "What's the point?"

I recently read an article in the August edition of Chronicles, a monthly mag that I don't always agree with but I still heartily recommend, and found its author (Thomas Flemming, the mag's editor) implicitly agreeing with Chesterton's What's Wrong With the World, where Mr. Chesterton states in the first chapter that what is wrong is that "nobody knows what is right," i.e., no one has an ideal, an end game, a goal, a purpose that their energies are aiming for. As Mr. Flemming stresses, we would do well to ask "what's the good of" all the scared cows and beloved dogmas of the current trend-setters and socio-political philosophers.

Of course, if this question is posed, people on every side of multiple different fences will fire back with culturally approved buzz words like "growth" or "prosperity" or "equality" or "liberty" or "freedom" or whatnot. These words, however, do not solve the problem; they only push it further and reveal a peculiar ignorance (and subsequent arrogance) of our time, viz., that the things that those words signify are goods in and of themselves. Thus, if we ask someone, "What's the good of growth, etc?" they will probably have no answer, other than that those things are good, which they are not.

That last statement may seem odd (maybe even blasphemous), but it should be an obvious truth. Those things are not goods unto themselves; they are goods only in regards to their ability to secure another good. In other words, they are means, not ends. "Prosperity" and "liberty" are meant to achieve something other than themselves. What exactly is the identity of that "other" thing is up for debate; the point here is that no one even debates it precisely because they view the means as ends and thus can see nothing beyond them. The result is that we have a slew of methods, but no ideal to apply them to; we have more than enough tools, but nothing to build.

Growth, prosperity, etc. must have an ideal that sets their energy and movements within a proper context. Left to themselves, they hopelessly degrade into all manner of evils that have and will continue to plague mankind from one end of history to another. So "growth," left to itself, becomes greed. "Prosperity" becomes decadence and apathy. "Equality" becomes conformity and tyranny. "Liberty" becomes licence. "Freedom" becomes anarchy. Set outside of a clear-cut goal and guidelines, these things run wild, and cause massive damage after creating pleasure for a season.

The next time the gurus of the modern/post-modern dark ages, both inside and outside the Church, come to us whispering sweet nothings, it would be wise of us to check our itching ears at the door and instead ask them what exactly is going on? What's the point? What's the good of it? What's your goal, your aim, your ideal? "What do you want?" said Christ. We would do well to ask the same question. Even if the ideas presented to us (after much tiresome digging) are not at all what we would call ideal, at least then we have something with which to wrestle with and talk about. Until then, this society will continue to go nowhere at all as it has no ideal or goal, only pleasant feelings in the pit of their stomachs over wonderful soundbites and bumper-sticker slogans.

-Jon Vowell

A Nugget (food for thought)

Related to this post.

Rabid post-modern emergent Christianity and rabid militant atheism have this in common: both are prideful rebellion against God. The former's pride exalts man's experiential subjectivity above God, while the latter's exalts man's fallen and limited intellect. The former interprets God through their individualistic experiences, while the latter interprets through strictly naturalistic scientism. Neither one allows God to interpret Himself by His own revelations (viz., the Bible). Thus, they exalt themselves into God's position, which is the very essence of pride itself.

-Jon Vowell

Make Ye the Way Straight for the Next Christian Fad

Oh, beautiful, beautiful satire. I love it!

The Return of a Pet Peeve

Early on in this blog's life, a reoccuring theme of mine was the devestating effects that removing the doctrine of Sin have on the gospel. Past examples of my concerns can be found here and here.
One of my fellow bloggers reignited my interest in the subject (if only for a moment) by posting this excellent article on his blog. I recommend reading his entry entitled "Smart Baptist" (which contains a link to the article).
In times like these (when the gospel is turned into a cloak for political or consumerism agendas), I like to read more G.K. Chesterton (a Catholic) and Oswald Chambers (a Protestant) because both of these men firmly point to the fundamental reality of Sin and the fundamental reality of Redemption (and to the fact that without a proper view of the fundamental reality of Sin, there is no proper view of the fundamental reality of Redemption).

Frustrations

Departing from my usual course of action, I will deal with this atheist article quickly (because it deserves nothing more) and then vent my frustrations (if you, dear reader, care to hear them). The article's basic claim is that God is more evil than all atheistic/secular governments/institutions combined because he continually slaughters biological life (nay, all of creation) with horrible diseases. How could a "loving" God do such a thing! Answer: He didn't, and He doesn't. To demonstrate this, I will answer each the question's that the article asked:

1. "When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created?" Viruses, germs, bacteria, and parasites are all (except for viruses) living organisms, and are a part of the material world. Thus, God created them (which answers the second question that the article asked). Notice, however, that the key word in that question is "harmful." By themselves, viruses, germs, bacteria, and parasites are either harmless or even helpful (like the bacteria that help digestion or that eat away dead skin cells). What makes these things "harmful" is when they become carriers, and therefore transmitters, of disease. Therefore, we must distinguish between two things in regards to our answer to this question: God created the biological life and material components, but He did not create disease. Disease (along with other things) is a result of the Fall: "For the wages of Sin is death." (Romans 6:23) Disease, suffering, death, corruption, and evil are all aberrations of the created order. God did not put them their; they came because of man's choice.
2. "Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create?" See answer 1.
3. "If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?" (sigh) First of all, neither the Fall nor its effects were "intended," as though God wanted them to happen. Second of all, the creation was not "harmful" when it was "created." It was good when it was created (read Genesis 1--"and God saw that it was good"). I will not state anything further, because I have already dealt with this nonsense here and here, and I refuse to repeat myself.
4. "If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites?" A "Christian" doctor told you what? It has been (since Christianity's inception) a part of orthodox belief that the whole of creation was affected by the Fall, not just man. Either the doctor was misunderstood (which happens), or he was smoking something serious.

My frustrations are not with these questions in regards to my faith; after all, I did answer them. My frustrations are two: (1) with such questions per se, and subsequently (2) with the state of Christianity in the realm of fundamentals and orthodoxy. I have spoken of these frustrations here before, but I wish to say just a little more.
When I was young (or younger) I typically stayed away from anything that was antagonistic to my faith, and that was a good thing; you should not engage things until you are equipped to handle them (never engage a tank with a fork). However, other then not being ready to engage such antagonism, all forms of doubt and skepticism (whether it was atheistic, agnostic, or devil's advocate) had a numinous horror to it, like it was something monumental and grand, a challenge and obstacle that all must face but many have failed at beating. There is a terror in the thought that there are real and stated doubts about what you think is obvious.
Needless to say, when I got educated (both intellectually and spiritually), I felt that it was time to see what's out there in the world of doubt. After all, if you are not capable of dealing with the "tough" issues laid before you by skeptics, what kind of faith do you have? So I read atheistic articles and blog postings, and even read Bertrand Russell's now (in)famous essay. Every time I read (and still read) something like that, the resulting effect inside me is always the same: sheer, utter disappointment.
When I write about atheistic anything, I want to do it while being amiable and polite (while still being forceful and blunt). After all, I'm not here to merely win an argument, but lead people to the truth; and by that, lead them to the Gospel. Apologetics and evangelism go hand-in-hand. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel great frustration whelm up within me as I stumble over one idiocy to the next. Every argument I have run into, every supposedly great and crushing argument, has always been the same thing: a ridiculous montage of slip-shod thinking, faulty logic, contradictions, straw-man arguments, emotional rants, misunderstandings and misinterpretations and misquotings of Scripture and/or doctrine, arrogance, and personal vendettas. Perhaps this is all my fault; perhaps I set my expectations to high; but, darn it, I was expecting more than what I've gotten (and still get) so far.
This frustration, however, leads to my second and real frustration. Ignorance is only a crime for those who should know better. Atheist do not know any better; Christians do. The fact that atheists can have such idiotic, crazy, confused, and messed up ideas about what Christian's believe says more about us than it does about them. If people reject what we present, then they are at fault; if they are confused about what we present, however, then we are at fault. Dorothy Sayers still said it best: "Let the dogma of the church be dragged out from under the dreadful accumulation of slipshod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it [by Christians], and set [upon] an open stage to startle the world into some sort of vigorous reaction.” Shame on us, for not keeping the burning truth bright and clear before the world; shame on us all. Until we change our thinking about what it means for a Christian to engage culture, about what it means to develop a Christian intellect, we will have to live with the mess we have made.

P.S. For Chesterton on the importance of the fundamentals, read this from his book Heretics.

A Lengthy Comment to Master Jenkins on Preacher-Boy Syndrome

In regards to bad preaching:

Most preachers today (young and old) suffer from what I call "Preacher-boy Syndrome." You probably know what I mean: You have a friend you've known for years. His a cool guy. He loves life, loves hanging with friends, loves the Lord, and has a humor and vigor that lighten the room.
Then he gets called to be a preacher. He goes to Bible College for a year and comes back. What happens? Now he is all...strange. You feel a certain distance that wasn't there before; you could be looking him in the eye and he'd still seem oceans away. He seems almost brainwashed. Some would say "sanctified," "holy," "excited about God," and other such foolish misdirections. All you know is that anyone with two good eyes and plain common sense could see that there is something not right about him at all. He seems stressed, always pressured. He's always trying to smile a smile that seems plastered on. He's always spitting out "Amen!" and "Praise God!" to everything you say to him (even when what you said does not even merit such a response). You find him asking you weird questions in public, like "You think I should witness to those people over there?" Beforehand, he had never asked you that; he just did it. In short, you feel this terrible atmosphere of anxiety wrapped around some sort of artificial covering that was once your friend. You feel as though he's jumping through hoops with a gun put to his head, as though he's putting on a show to save his life. Sometime, many times, pastors never recover from this.
What happened to your friend is "Preacher-boy Syndrome," which is the Black Death of Bible Colleges these days. Aspiring young preachers, all bright faced and eager, get told (with different words than the ones I'm about to use) that a "preacher" is not who they are, not who God wants to be through them, but is a part that they perform. In order to perform it right, they must say the right things, do the right things, dress the right way, ask the right questions, hang with the right people, etc. In short, preaching, shepherding, stop being who they are (who God is through them) and start being some thing that they are to produce. In other words, it is no longer real; it is contrived. The problem you sense when your friend comes home from Bible College is that he feels utterly, abysmally, undeniably fake. Everything, from his dress to his sermons to his conversations to even his wife, all of it feels contrived, concocted, there because that's what's supposed to be there.
Preach the grandeur of God? Engage the depths of theology? Intellectually challenge your congregation? Spiritually prick their hearts with mighty missiles of God's truth? Good heavens, man! I'm still trying to organize all the charities and events and meetings and fund raisers and parties and choir outings and cantatas and three-point sermons! I'm too busy doing what I'm supposed to do! Doing what I have to do if I'm to be seen as a pastor! How can I be a pastor if I'm not doing all these things! Saying all these things! Wearing all these things!
Since when did following God's will for your life become about anything you do? When did it stop being about God using you and working through you? When did we feel it necessary to put ourselves in the way?

Why does preaching suck these days? Because we have no real pastors. We have performers in pastor costumes. Thus is Preacher-boy Syndrome; thus is another plight and blight upon the modern church.

A Statement on the Direction of a Certain Liberal Arts College

Author's Note: The proceeding was written on paper over a month ago, after a passionate, enlightening discussion with some friends of mine. Since then, certain things have set in motion within this certain liberal arts college that may mean good changes in the future. Therefore, some of what is said here may be a little dated by now. Nevertheless, what was written is still true and, seeing as how the changes are still up in the air, still relevant to the discussion. I name no names here, but merely speak my heart. Take from it what you will. It may be that other colleges are experiencing a similar crisis.

The Thesis: The current administration of this certain liberal arts college is destroying my school by hijacking it with its urban ministry agenda. This college is a center for higher learner, i.e., a school. It is not a headquarters for ministry and missionary work, i.e., a church. This college is to equip young Christians with the knowledge and thinking skills necessary to engage the multiple facets of thought in the world with the gospel. In short, this college was to make us think critically, grow spiritually, and change our world.

The Change: Under the current administration's agenda driven school, the college's purpose has changed, and that to its detriment:

• "Think Critically," unless it interferes with school ministry, then it's okay to flunk a class for the sake of ministry. Besides being a flagrant violation of Ecclesiastes 9:10, Romans 12:11, Ephesians 6:6, and Colossians 3:22, 23 (all work done unto God), if you think it's okay to just flunk a class at the drop of a hat, then don't go to college. When you come to a college, your primary concern in the college is to learn. If you want to minister, then go to a church, or a ministerial organization or charity; but don't come around here and play school.
• "Grow Spiritually," as long as your spiritual growth is seen solely through the lens of racism and racial reconciliation. This is a sure fire way to completely stunt the growth of a Christian. There is more to our spiritual growth than racial reconciliation. If you want to make that a part of our growth,that's wonderful (for racism is an evil). Do not, however, channel all our spiritual growth through this one dimension, and do not cram it down our throats in every class: what in the world does racial reconciliation have to do with learning Greek?
• "Change your world," i.e., change the inner city. Lord knows our city needs spiritual renewal (or overhaul), but this minimalistic tunnel vision that focuses solely on the inner city is nothing more than blinders in the long run. We here talk of "reaching our world," but it is ultimately just talk. The current agenda driven school is focused squarely and solely on the inner city. Ask yourself: what use is urban studies to someone whose calling is not in cities at all? What use is a sole focus on racial reconciliation when your calling is not focused on racism? These things, though wonderful and good to the right people (i.e., people called to do those things), are absolutely useless to the other people, yet it is crammed down their throats in every class.

The New Segregation: Another thing that this administration's agenda driven school has produced is a new segregation between those who "get on board" with the hijacking agenda, and those who do not agree with its direction, tactics, or methods; between those who "catch the vision," and those who hold to the old vision, i.e., that this certain college is a liberal arts center of higher learner meant to equip Christians to engage the world on any level. Those who "catch the vision" and "get on board" are considered to be (by the administration) exemplary Christians and a true example of Christ-likeness. Those who disagree are dubbed "racist," "cloistered," "snobs," "Pharisees," "bad Christians," and (ironically) "divisive." The last one is ironic because it is those who "catch the vision" who treat this disagreement as "divisive," and therefore it is they who divide the student body into those who get with it and those who do not. The one's who disagree with the agenda see this disagreement as their Christian responsibility as salt and light (see Matthew 5:13-16; our "works" are to cleanse corruption and reveal the truth) to point out, address, and try to correct what is wrong or in error. As it stands, the college is firmly in the grasp of the administrative agenda; you either get with it or get run over an marginalized by it. If change does not occur, then the old college, the college of academic excellence and well-rounded faith, will fade into the twilight.

A Prediction: I make a prediction. If nothing changes, then within ten years, this certain college will be no more. There may be a building with some sort of activity going on, but it won't be the old college. It won't even be a "college." It will be the "Urban Ministry Center of the City," or "The City Seminary of Urban Ministries," but it will not be the college anymore. Whatever the name, it will be a church posing as a school, or a school posing as a church. Either way, this certain college, the Christian liberal arts school that stressed multifaceted critical thinking, well-rounded and grounded faith, and a true vision for the world, will be no more. It will have been replaced by an academically dormant, spiritually stunted, cloistered shell of an institution.

For the Record: Those who created, started, and support this agenda are moral, wonderful people with excellent character and hearts for God (generally speaking). However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and they are (inadvertently or otherwise) laying more bricks on the road to this certain college's destruction. Like a Shakespearean tragedy, with good intentions they inadvertently destroy all that they desire. The same is happening at this school. Pray that it stops soon.

A Comment to Master Jenkins on Psychological Screw Jobs

In regards to psychological profit from frisson.

Chesterton once said (in "Orthodoxy") that humans have a paradoxical need for both security and adventure. Perhaps in Modern Christendom Suburbia, this boils down to a tension between laziness and restlessness, a strange desire to be content and create change.
So what typically happens? Do people actually seek out what's actually wrong and actually change it, and actually seek out what's actually true and actually rest therein? No; they start up fancy movements "touring in eleven cities" that cost a hundred smackers to see, which skim the surface of the issues, give pet answers, pump up self-esteem ("You're all okay!"), and leave everybody without real change (so they still feel content) but with the illusion of having done something (so they feel like they satiated their need for change).
Real contentment is too irrelevant, and real change is to costly. Instead, we get a huge psychological screw job under the auspice of a "Christian" seal of approval.

A Lengthy Comment to Master Jenkins on Temples of Self-Worship

In regards to "J-Mime".

First of all, how is this "miming" any different from ad hoc worship interpretive dancing? Does changing the rhetoric without changing the form make this a NEW ministry? A NEW thing? Something relevant and chic? Was ad hoc dancing going out of style that fast?
Second of all, to what purpose did the girls in the background serve? They just stood there. Do they represent something about the prayer of Jabez? What exactly? If this crap is supposed to be "Christian art" then the form must match the theme entirely, not partially.
Third of all, what is the "Ministering Prayer of Jabez" really saying? "God enlarge my territory, God I pray for increase in my anointing, I pray for increase in my ministry, I pray for increase in my finances.. Oh God Bless Me Indeed!!!" THAT is what "enlarge my territory" means? Let's break it down:

• Increased anointing? I thought the Holy Spirit is given to us completely at salvation, not in installments.
  
• Increased ministry? What happens when God lets your ministry die? Did you not pray hard enough? Did you not have enough faith? They are not allowing God the room He needs to be God, which includes wounding you for your own good (see The Great Physician).
  
• Increased finances? Oh, of course. Fill me up with the fleeting things of this world. Such a "blessing" is purely materialistic and has nothing to do with true Christianity. What if God lets your finances fail? What then? Like "increasing ministry," there is no room allowed for God to be God.

The really sad part of all this is that it is so hard to discuss this stuff without feeling like you'll offend someone's feelings or be accused of racism. Let it be said here that the ridiculous and the blasphemous cuts through all churches of every color and culture. That Christians choose to let Christianity be filtered through their own personal emotive and/or political filters is a sad sign of the state of the Church, and that state is this: we have a whole lot of religious people and very few regenerated people. There are few people in it to know God, but a whole lot of people in it for themselves.
Too many churches are clogged with people "doing religion" for emotional, psychological, political, and/or cultural reasons. Very few are the people who come seeking a relationship with God, to walk with Him in EVERY circumstance (good, bad, and ugly) and see His hand draw you closer into Himself through every circumstance. Instead, it all becomes about what you can get out of it.
Churches, of all denominations, traditions, and cultures have become temples of self-worship. Even "traditional" churches who abstain from Praise and Worship blasphemous fluff can still be havens for people who go to church to gratify themselves emotionally, psychologically, politically, and/or culturally. Remember this fact: Modern Christendom always points to self, but Christianity always points to God.

Nitpickyism

This was an interesting article. In a nutshell, the guy is having a contest of sorts as to what is the worst theological invention of all time. Some of the suggestions I found to be good choices, such as: papal infallibility, prosperity gospel, limited atonement, predestination, original sin that makes all our sexual desires to be evil, the Purpose Driven anything.
There were some that, though I did not agree with them, I found them to be inevitable and interesting, such as: the rapture, Congregationalism, Christian Zionism, King James Onlyism (that was my favorite).

However, there were some that boggled my mind, and made me wonder if these people commenting on this blog entry knew any ounce of theology at all. This are the main ones:

1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement; so I'm guessing by the addition of the word "penal" that we are dealing with what my brother called "squishy people," or people like Dorothy Sayers mentioned in her essay "The Dogma is the Drama," i.e., people who think this doctrine treats God as a sadist and Christ as the innocent victim. If this is what they are thinking, then they need to read Romans again (actually, they probably need to read all of the Pauline epistles again).
2. Biblical Inerrancy; I'm not sure what they mean here. Somebody mentioned something about "19th century Victorian conservative reactionism," so I'm guessing what they mean is somebody in the 19th century pointed out something like the writer of First Samuel said, "500,000 soldiers," but the writer of First Kings said, "300,000 men," but the writer of First Chronicles said, "a great host." Seeing as how the writers all disagree, then the Bible has an error in it; and since it has an error in it, the it is not inerrant (or infallible, as some put it). I'm not sure if the people who listed "biblical inerrancy" realize the Pandora's box that is "the bible has errors in minor details, therefore it is not all true." Biblical inerrancy/infallibility means (as I understand it) that the truths that the Bible speaks are true, because it is the word of God, and God cannot lie.
3. Bodily Resurrection; Whose bodily resurrection? If ours, then you have no understanding of the context of Jewish tradition and the role it played in Christian belief (in other words, you have never read the New Testament...or the Old). If Christ's, then you clearly haven't read the gospels, especially the end of the Gospel of Luke.
4. Hell; Part of my wanted to place this under the "I should have expected this" category, but I just couldn't. How can anybody who reads the Bible (if they are awake) not grasp that their is some sort of necessary retribution for sin? What is this wussy Christianity that denies God's justice and holiness. On the other hand, do these people simply mean "literal hell," as in literal fire and such?
5. Sola Scriptura; Am I sensing some disgruntled Catholics? Are these people saying that the Bible isn't our finally authority? Perhaps this ties in with "biblical inerrancy"?
6. Sola Fide; If salvation is not "by grace through faith," then what is it through?
   

A question I must ask myself is, "What would I have posted as my nomination?" I'm not sure about "theological invention," but I have one for "worst Christian invention." I call it "Nitpickyism." The nominations posted were primarily examples of "Nitpickyism" for the following reasons:

1. NONE of the nominations were theological inventions. I think one person nominated "Arianism," i.e., the belief that God created Jesus, and therefore Jesus is not God. Even that, however, is more Christological than theological. In short, nobody actually met the contest's requirement: provide a theological invention. One or two people noticed this trend (one commenter said people were just spouting their "hate lists"), but their concern fell on deaf ears. Apparently, no one was getting that this was about nominating a true theological disaster, not their opinions on what belief they believe is bullcrap or not.
2. MOST of the nominations given were nothing but pathetic potshots: Demonology (of the Frank Peretti kind), "Jesus as my personal Saviour," all forms of Protestantism, Jack Chick Comics, people saying "Amen" and "Preach it Brother" during services, and so on. Even Christian Zionism, the superiority of the KJV, and the Rapture boiled down into unChristlike mudslinging.

This is "Nitpickyism": sweating over your opinion of the minor details instead of dealing with the larger truths (i.e., throwing potshots at Jack Chick instead of seriously considering horrible theological inventions). It affects all traditions and sects, and is another one of those things that makes Modern Christendom so dad gum annoying.

Mr. Chambers on Modern Christendom

The following is from Mr. Chamber's book The Highest Good:

We have, as Christian disciples, to continually recognize that much of what is called Christianity today is not the Christianity of the New Testament; it is distinctly different in generation and manifestation. Jesus is not the fountainhead of modern Christianity; He is scarcely thought about. Christian preachers, Sunday school teachers, religious books, all without apology patronize Jesus Christ and put Him to one side. We have to learn that to stand true to Jesus Christ's point of view means ostracism, the ostracism that was brought on Him; mots of us know nothing whatever about it. The modern view looks upon human nature as pathetic: Men and women are poor ignorant babes in the wood who have lost themselves. Jesus Christ's view is totally different. He does not look on men and women as babes in the wood, but as sinners who need saving, and the modern mind detests His view. Our Lord's teaching is based on something we violently hate, that is, His doctrine of sin; we do not believe it unless we have had a radical dealing with God on the line of His teaching.

Remember that a disciple is committed to much more than belief in Jesus; he or she is committed to the Lord's view of the world, humanity, of God, and of sin."

The keynote of Modern Christendom that Mr. Chambers points out is its removal of Christ's doctrine of sin. This removal creates a vacuum: if sin is nonexistent, then why did Christ die? The main voices of Modern Christendom answer as follows:

1. Prosperity: Jesus died to free you from poverty and sickness.
2. Social: Jesus died to educate the poor, end world hunger, and cure AIDS.
3. Love: Jesus died because God loves you...and that's it (no atonement, no repentance).
4. Liberation: Jesus died to free you from your oppressive masters (whether they be a government or institution).

All have to fill the empty space left by removing the doctrine of sin, and all produce a gospel that is half-hearted, political, violent, and heretical.

The Loss of the Sacred

Late last month, I wrote on the "coming idiocy," i.e., the passing of foolishness for wisdom by the average man due to the lack of the church's stand in the areas of theology, dogma, and apologetics. The coming generations will hold as immovable truths (if they still believe in such things) ideas and philosophies that (as Bunyan once said) a child in the faith could easily answer. Christians of all walks stopped treating Christianity and all it believes as the way to come to know God intimately, and started treating it like a religion, i.e., a system of "dos" and "don'ts" that you must keep in order to earn brownie points with some all-powerful aloof being, and that this system has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy, science, politics, or any other sphere of life. Religion is its own inclusive sphere; Christianity, however, is the truth that has no bounds.
There are, however, two effects I'd like to talk on and not merely one. One effect is the coming idiocy; the other is the coming boredom. Whereas the idiocy is from those outside the Church, the boredom is from those within it. Step into the secular world and look at and listen to the next generation, and you will see and hear the idiocy coming forth. Likewise, step into the modern church (of any denomination, tradition, or creed) and look at and listen to the next generation, and you will see and hear the boredom coming forth. Face it, folks: the next generation of Christians are just plain bored.
Where do you think relevancy movements came from? Christianity is boring. So what do we do? We jazz it up with things that aren't boring, like movies, or TV, or rock music, or jazz music, or any music (as long as it gets the crowd moving...for Jesus, of course); messages that are fun, funny, and up-to-date; pastors that call themselves "teachers" and teachers that call themselves "friends" or "helpers" so that there is no sense of authority to offend anyone; and all in all, an experience that placates itself to one's own personal preferences, so that all are comfortable, alert, and listening.
Of course, relevancy movements claim to be making Christianity relevant, when in reality they are merely adding relevancy to it. In the end, however, its foundation is Christianity, and Christianity is boring. We do not change something that is boring by merely adding to it. We simply distract from the boredom. All that the people will focus on is the glitz and glamor because it's where the excitement is.

Both the idiocy and the boredom have the same two basic roots. One root is the loss of the deliberate, stubborn, and emphatic belief that this stuff is and that it matters. In other words (and plainly speaking), we just do not take this stuff seriously. The other is the erroneous assumption that all the critics are right: Christianity is boring. There is nothing there that can stir souls or turn worlds upside down. It is a dry convulsion of inconsistent philosophy, unoriginal theology, and meaningless applications. The faithful are practically convinced that they are no better than pagans, that Christendom is just another religion lost in a sea of comparative religions. We feel that we can not take this stuff seriously because it is the same old running gag told over and over again: be good, please God, and listen to Jesus tell you how to be good and please God. Going to a movie sounds more exciting, which is probably why movies are now in the church.

Both unseriousness and assumed boredom find their source in what I call (and others have called) the loss of the sacred. The mystery and majesty of this myth made fact that we call Christianity is lost to all, both the faithful and the heathen. That God is perfectly Three and perfectly One, that Christ is God, that God (and hence, Christ) is the summing up and answer of all human desire, that God died, that eternal perfect communion was for the first time divided, that God as a man has passed through the grave and gate of death, that He has ascended from death and in His ascension brought creation with Him, that life is found in knowing Him in the sense of lovers, that life is about knowing Him in the sense of lovers, that God can be born in us, that we can be one with the eternal perfect communion, that all things are now possible; all the wonders, mysteries, and soul stirring and cleaving truths that are the Christian faith have been lost to all. The sacred has not been profaned; it has been lost altogether, and with it all the hopes and fears of all the years. If we saw the message that we believe as sacred, as something that ascends us to the realm of Reality, we would never let that message be lost and allow foolishness to pass for wisdom (for it is truth and not another religion) or tolerate glitz and glamor being added (for all the glitz in the world can no more add to the splendor of Christianity than a candle can distract from the full blaze of the risen sun).
Dorothy Sayers met the idiocy and boredom in "The Dogma is the Drama," where she tried in vain to convince some "young men" that all of the exciting elements that were in her play were not figments of her own imagination, but were actually doctrine of the church, i.e., that Christ was God, that the Trinity represents perfect communion, and how we are to be united in that perfect communion. Christianity is foolish (in a bad sense) to the heathen and boring to the faithful because we no longer believe that this belief was founded by a man who neither was explained away by his peers nor bored a single soul in the thirty-three years he passed through this world "like a flame" (as Ms. Sayers said). We must redeem the mystery and beauty and majesty of the Christian faith. People are looking for purpose and hope, and we are the children of Purpose and the siblings of Hope incarnate. I think it's about time we started acting like it.

Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up?

Last Sunday, my Sunday School teacher (that's right, Sunday School...it's not a curse word, people) gave a simple yet very important (I believe) message about the gospel. The message basically was about setting the record straight in regards to what the good news really is. Going through The Roman's Road, he revealed four simple yet key components that make the gospel what it is. What he was implying, and what I am now saying, is that if what someone preaches is missing any of these key elements, then it ain't the gospel:

1. We are lost. This is a statement of condition. Sin has placed us in this condition, i.e., separate from God.
2. We are headed to hell. This is the consequence of the condition. Apparently, our condition merits some sort of response, and that response is damnation. Sin has placed us in a state of damnation, i.e., permanent separation from God
3. We have a way of escape. This is a statement about Christ. Apparently, the consequence to our condition is not inevitable. Christ has given us a way out. That is what His death basically means, i.e., bringing us back to God.
4. We must believe in Christ to be saved. This is a statement about choice. The ball is now in our court, i.e., what will we do with Christ, with His way of escape?

Why I find this important is because these simple yet key elements can help one distinguish the true gospel from other mainstream "gospels" out there, i.e., Prosperity, Social, and Love. All three of these "gospels" do the exact same thing in regards to these four key components: they omit components "1" and "2". Of course, when this happens they create a vacuum that must be filled, for "3" and "4" logically follow from "1" and "2". If Christ did not come and die to redeem us, to destroy the works of the devil, to go through death so that He might destroy the one who had the power of death, then what did he die for? The three mainstream "gospels" fill in the blanks in their own way:

• Prosperity-Jesus came and died to make us healthy, wealthy and wise because before He came we were sick, poor and foolish, and sickness, poverty and foolishness have nothing to do with God.
• Social-Jesus came so that he could cure diseases, end world hunger, and give everyone a good education. His death marked the tragic end of His good works and marked the beginning of our good works. Again, sickness, poverty and foolishness are not of God.
• Love-Jesus came and died because...well, because God loves us...and that's it.

The part of the gospel we must redeem from Modern Christendom and mainstream "gospels" is the truth about our condition and its consequence. Side notes can be the redeeming of sickness, poverty and foolishness (Christ was acquainted with grief and had no place to lay His head, and foolishness is God's weapon of choice against the wise), but we must above all else drag the truth of (if I may say so) "hellfire and damnation" back into the public mind. We are sinners, and we must be saved. Salvation is what a savior does, and if Christ is not a savior, then He is nothing but the same old running gag played over and over again from aesthetic pagans and righteous heathens--be good and help those who are hurting.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: health, wealth, wisdom, a new house, freshly upholstered furniture, new clothes, good stock portfolios, fat bank accounts, social amiability, good hygiene, and a bass boat are nice and all, but what good are they towards curing the soul? How do these things make you unlost? How do they save you? Tell someone that you know who can fix their broken home or liver or bank account, and they will rejoice and be glad, but they will still have lost their souls in the end. Tell someone that you know Who can fix their broken souls, however, and you will have given them truly good news. You may have been unfaithful to the institutions and their advocates, but you will not have been unfaithful to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Joy and Sorrow

What I am about to write is the official Mission Statement and Purpose for my home church given by our pastor, which he felt needed to be reiterated:

The East Side Baptist Church exists for the purpose of...

Making Jesus known to the world, encouraging true worship and study of the Word of God, and training believers in ministry and daily living to share Jesus as He is to people as they are.

The Purpose of East Side Baptist Church is to glorify God through our Worship and Witness. We are to win the lost, edify each other, enlist the saints in service, and provide an atmosphere for personal growth in holiness.

The joy of this Statement/Purpose is this:

1. That we are to encourage true worship and study, i.e., there is a right and wrong way to do these things, not a relevant and irrelevant way.
2. That we are to train believers in ministry, i.e., ministry is not the job of the clergy. We all have a responsibility as the "sons of God" to continue the work Jesus started long ago.
3. That we are to share Jesus as He is, i.e., not the way we see Him, or the way that is more relevant.
4. That we are to share Jesus to people as they are, i.e., to not be surprised that sinners are sinners, that the lost are lost, that the broken are broken. We do not try and fix people and then take them to Jesus; we take people to Jesus so He can fix them.
5. That we are to edify each other, i.e., we do not come to this building to sit down next to strangers. We come to this building, into the presence of God, with the family of God, and we are to build each other up. There is a lot of pain in the pews that goes untouched because we think everything is supposed to be fine in church.
6. We are to provide an atmosphere for personal growth in holiness, not your bank account, not in positive thinking, not in good manners and social amiableness, but holiness, i.e., God-likeness, a strong family resemblance to Jesus Christ (as Oswald Chambers would say).

However, the sorrow of this Statement/Purpose is this: that we even have to emphasis true worship and study, the universality of ministry, the real Jesus, reaching real people, edifying each other, and growing in holiness, is a shame. It is good to remember, but bad that we have forgotten.

A Modest Experiment

First, show a member of "The Church of Relevancy and God, Inc." this article.

Next, ask them what's wrong with the man in the article?

If they say, "What he says does not line up with the Bible," ask them what difference does the Bible make in matters of church doctrine or personal belief?

Sit back, and enjoy.

Rinse, repeat.

A Modest Rambling

Let us be honest with ourselves: 99% of the time, chapel...I mean, THE HOUR (da da da, ominous music) somehow manages to successfully suck and blow at the same time without missing a beat. Cheesy (and sometimes horrid) worship mixed with mediocre and oft repetitious messages, or pep talks, or guilt trips, or whatever they are, make up the usual fare.
In addition, 99% of the time these "whatever they are's" fall into three separate categories:

(1) CREW: Let's be honest again--ANY talk on CREW is merely social gospel in disguise (see below in this entry for rantings on social gospel). Do this, do that because that's what Christians do (of course, the Cross cannot be found). Coming from a extremely fundamental conservative Christian background, I must say that talks on CREW always sound suspiciously like the legalistic mantra I'm used to: "Do this, do that because God will frown on you if you don't, you bad Christian you!"

(2) Sex, Love, and Dating: Sometimes good, sometimes bad, and always the same thing over and over again (wait till your maweed!). One shining light of hope came last week when the bioethics expert (Dennis Hollinger? His last name escapes me) treated sex as more than a biological function. Typical SLD messages revolve around sex as a biological function only, and that we should wait because God "says so." In today's post-modern world (both Christian and secular), "say so's" don't count for squat anymore. People need to know why (and God's reason's for why are amazingly deep and mysterious, treating sex and humans as sacred and spiritual things/beings). And, of course, the Cross cannot be found.

(3) Racial Reconciliation and Diversity: In the last "The Hour Live Show" version of chapel, the host decided to kick off the event with a little RRD. His weapon of choice? A typical "White Man Guilt Trip" story that played the same old card: black person got gypped by a white person of authority. Shame on you white man; shame on you all--that's the message that was received. Let's be honest AGAIN: no one is going to dispute that the injustice happened (I certainly don't), but does our RRD department really think that races can be reconciled by creating racial tension by constantly bringing up examples of racism? All "The Hour Live Show" accomplished was to make the racial relations between blacks and whites seem stuck in the 1930's (and can we PLEASE mix it up a bit? Why not a story of black injustice on white people? Or Latino injustice on blacks? Or Latino on Asian? Or Asian on white? Or Arabic on white? Or White on Arabic? Or Latino on white? Or White on Latino? Or Asian on Latino? Or White on Asian? The list of examples seems endless, and endlessly untapped).
Most RRD begins with a guilt trip story whose moral is "Shame on you, white man" and ends with everyone being reminded that we still hate each other. And, again, the Cross cannot be found (A friend of mine once asked a RRD lecturer how we as races are made one together in Christ. The lecturer laughed nervously, called my friend "brother" a bunch of times, and then kindly ignored the question).

Oh, there is some kind of "gospel" that gets presented at chapel, but it is not the gospel of Christ. The "gospel" that gets presented can also fall into three separate categories:

(1) Prosperity Gospel: Oh sure, sure, we had that little seminar on the subject a week ago, and nominal consensus around campus is that Prosperity Gospel is a load of horse manure. But it still can sneak in. Mostly, it sneaks in during what feels like a underglorified Christian pep rally. The speaker quotes some obscure passage from II Chronicles and uses it as a springboard to launch into a "You can do it!" dish with Christendom on the side. There is no accounting for suffering, and therefore, again, the Cross cannot be found.

(2) Social Gospel: This one is deadly because it sounds so, so...Christian. It follows St. James command to a "T": they take care of the fatherless and widowed and sick and helpless. It seems so holy, so righteous; how can one speak out against it (and its children: SOS and CREW)? Here's how: the Cross cannot be found. "What profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" Paraphrase: What profits people if we remodel their house, buy them clothes, read to them, cure AIDS, or end world hunger when they still die and go to hell? I doubt the horror of separation from God will be lessened by their freshly upholstered furniture.
"But, Jesus met people's physical needs before he met their spiritual ones." That's bologna. Before Jesus healed the paralytic, He said, "Your sins are forgiven." Jesus' entire life was bound up in the Cross and the redemption of the world so that suffering is no longer meaningless or the end of all things. Ask yourself, What is more Christian: fixing some one's broken house, or leading someone to the One who can fix a broken soul?

(3) Love Gospel: Perhaps the most devilish of them all because it sounds even more Christian than Social Gospel: God sent His Son to die because He loves you. Okay. Right on target. However, why should we accept such salvation? Because...God loves you! He's crazy about you! He's foaming at the mouth practically! Can't you see how much He loves you?! He's going crazy! I'm going crazy! AAAHHH HA HAAAAAAAAAA!
Love Gospel is missing two things: (1) sin, and (2) repentance. The devilishness comes in the fact that there is NO CROSS, and yet there is a silhouette, i.e., Jesus' death is acknowledged, but its reasons are twisted. Why did Jesus die on the cross? According to one previous chapel speaker: "Because God wanted a dramatic way to show that He LOVES YOU! HE'S CRAZY ABOUT YOU! WEE HEE HEE!" No sacrificial love, no "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins," no Christ being "made sin for us," no nothing. The violence of the Cross was because God wanted you to know His love? Good grief! Either God is a sadist, reckless, or BOTH. A simple reading of John 3:16 would have sufficed to all that bloodshed. Love Gospel strips the Cross of its power and its glory, and just like its prosperity and social cousins, it leaves no room for the reality of suffering or the reality of God being made one with our suffering.

Oh, and don't get me started on the music. One time the singing was so bad it even made me grimace. That is a profound thing. Usually when musical garbage is being pounded into my ears, I remain quiet and politely stand still while others who like that stuff proceed to enjoy themselves (and it is themselves that they are enjoying). But I will not lie: I was raised by a college trained pianist for a mother, and thus have a musical ear. The "worship" presented one time was so horrid that a keeled over, clamped my hand over my mouth, and physically shook to keep in the laughter. Hoo, boy--these people where flat, off beat, and out of tune at the same time while singing in the key of Q. It didn't help that they were singing a song nobody knew, leaving even the praise and worship crowd to awkwardly shuffle back and forth while forty-somethings sang noise at us. Christianity needs a Simon Cowell. The only time I can remember when the worship music actually put people in a worshipfully state was when Josh Smith lead us in old hymns of the faith. What a coincidence. And an ignored fact.

Take heart, though. There is still the 1% of the time when chapel does not suck/blow, but actually is a place where the Spirit of God moves freely: times like Stuart Briscoe, Brian Loritts, or Dennis Hollinger. Even today's chapel was good. Why? Because the Cross was there, and there boldly, without apology, without flinching, without fluff, without fear, without a sugar-coating, and without the key of Q.