Christians in Context: from orthodoxy to orthopraxy.

Careful Caring Isn't Uncaring

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:00:00 +0000

Norm did a nice job of getting us all thinking the other day, wouldn't you say? For those who are not up to speed and are too lazy to click the link and read his post, I'll summarize: Christians should take suffering and death seriously because real people are involved. Therefore, extending health care to those who cannot afford it needs to be a real priority.

And I offer a hearty "amen". If you are a Christian and and withhold an "amen", then, well...then...gosh, I don't know what to say to you. You're being dumb. There, does that cover it?

Good. We all agree so far.

I wish I could tell you that I have read widely and can offer a thoughtful opinion about how we ought to handle this incredibly complex problem, but I can't. What I can offer is an opinion about how we go about having conversations like this.

Here is an opinion on health care that I'm tired of: "People are dying, no one's helping, the government wants to, so we should be fine with that- so what if it costs you a few extra tax dollars?" It's almost an "I don't care what we do as long as we do something" position. Typically an advocate of this thinking caricatures those who disagree as uncaring, financially selfish, in bed with the Republicans, or simply not aware of how bad it really is.

So here is my opinion: this isn't helpful to anyone. Here are 5 reasons why:

1. I know almost no Christians who are actually like that. They're probably out there, but I don't know them.

2. This wildly underestimates how complex the issues really are. It's all well and good that people want to care for the poor- really, it is. But the issue isn't simple, and a simple solution probably won't do.

3. Therefore, when a Christian disagrees that the government will genuinely be helpful with this, it may actually be because s/he has a thoughtful opinion about this complex subject. S/he may, in fact, care so deeply for those in need that s/he is not satisfied with what s/he thinks is a less-than-adequate solution, or a solution that will be hurtful in the long run, or a solution that will set us back even now. In this case, s/he is not being at all uncaring, unreasonable, or unbiblical, even if s/he is wrong. Which means the other side is being foolish to shrug off the opinion as any of these things.

4. Further, how we care for those in need is really, really important. The rush to care is sweet, but it may actually be unhelpful. I need only to point you to Africa for support, where it seems that more people are saying all the time, "All this foreign aid may actually be hurting them in the long term." It is important that we care, but it is equally important that we care thoughtfully. Careful caring isn't uncaring.

5. On top of all of this, there are legitimate biblical concerns that also deserve serious thought. For one thing, if anyone who is passionate about government health care wants to get Christians who disagree to change their minds, that person will need to articulate the case thoughtfully. Passion alone won't do it. For another, some of those arguments are serious, and you need to actually deal with them if you disagree. Again, I see too much shrugging off because, well, the Bible says we should care. That's true. It does. But it says a lot of things- we evangelicals must deal with the whole counsel of Scripture.

I suspect that if pro-government health care types took these points seriously, they might be more helpful to those who aren't convinced.

Rounding the Bases

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:00:00 +0000

Pray for World Vision in Pakistan, where 6 staff members were killed in a senseless shooting.

A little irony, perhaps: Fundamentalism Dressed Up in Postmodern Clothing?

An absolutely hilarious and utterly sarcastic, imagined Oscar roundtable discussion with Mark Driscoll, Brian Mc Laren, Ed Young Jr., David Dark, and Rev. Smith, pastor of Berean Baptist Church.

Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches Who Preach Social Justice

Memorize Scripture Using Your iphone

Justin Taylor warns Christians to obey the law and fill out the census!

A Few Thoughts on Healthcare

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:14:00 +0000

I've gone back and forth with myself on whether or not to post my thoughts on this topic. Recent Healthcare debates have become so polemical, both in Washington and the public sphere, and these discussions often just end up becoming counter-productive. But, alas, I can't resist; I sat in on a seminar for the Transplant Donor Network the other day and it reignited that tug to write a post. Now, I've gone back and forth on this issue; as young married man and father who's trying to establish himself I feel like I don't want to pay anymore than I already do. I feel like the government has consistently done a poor job handling tax revenues, and I really don't appreciate the constant borrowing. All of this makes me reticent to support such a large expenditure. At the same time, I do feel that everyone should have access to healthcare. In the hospital I see many families facing grave financial issues alongside their medical issues- and the financial issues that arise are not the result of laziness, but tragedy. I also have to ask myself these questions in light of what I would want for my own family; if my father, mother, uncle, or perhaps even closer, my wife, or one of my sons got sick and did not have healthcare, I would not be alright with them not receiving help. And this is one of the primary points. We have to make this issue personal as we sort it out. It can't be a legislative abstraction for us to use as banter for debate; we're talking about life and death here. We're talking about people. We're talking about families. This fact was brought home for me in the seminar I attended; the speaker, responding to a question raised about whether or not a person without healthcare would receive treatment, explained emphatically that a person will simply not be seen by a doctor for a transplant unless they have adequate healthcare coverage. This means, to make it even more practical, that a person in liver failure for example, facing death, will not get care.

Christians must also consider the theological and ethical implications. From what I can tell, without reducing the gospel to mere social justice, the kingdom of God is supposed to be just. And as representatives of a kingdom that has been inaugurated, it seems counter-intuitive to think that justice and love should somehow be withheld. Does this answer all the logistical and financial objections? Certainly not. But it seems more costly in the long run to ignore suffering...

Book Review: The Reason For Sports by Ted Kluck

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0000

I was first introduced to Ted Kluck and his writings in his tag-team style book with Kevin DeYoung addressing the Emergent (and emerging) Church, enigmatically titled Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be).

The same subtleties—along with a healthy dose of humor—make his latest book, The Reason For Sports: A Christian Fanifesto, a very easy and enjoyable read. Kluck has written for ESPN The Magazine and Sports Spectrum, and his knowledge and love of sports show on every page.

While the spiritual content carries less of the weight than does the sports content, I imagine it would be annoying and heavy-handed if it were any different. Don't pick up this book expecting a deep theological treatise on how we are drawn to sports because the Christian life is a battle or how we will all one day "win" when Jesus returns. Rather, this book reads like a collection of essays centered around sports and how certain themes emerge for the fans (and players) that can be addressed by a Christian worldview. Such themes include steroids, sin and apologies, honesty and authenticity.

Kluck succeeds in writing a book that will appeal to sports fans while still writing a book that deserves to be on a Christian publisher's roster (yeah, I said it). While I did come away with one disappointment (What is the reason for sports? I still want to know), The Reason For Sports is a worthy read for any sports fan. In fact, it was the first book I have given to anyone this year for that very reason.

This book was a free review copy provided by Moody Publishers.

Rounding the Bases

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0000

Wanna memorize lots of Scripture? I thought so..Here's link to a series of short music tracks a friend of mine made, where he recorded Scripture verses to music. Think of this as oral tradition 2.0. When you get to the profile page, you'll see four samples. If you click on "albums", just click on the album entitled "a cure for the song shaped hole in your heart" and fully expand the list; he's put dozens of passages to music! Check it out!

Michael Bird comments on the passing of E. Earle Ellis this week.

Joe Hellerman advocates pastoral response to large-scale crisis (e.g. the earthquake in Haiti) that affirms God's sovereignty without being glib or uncaring. Really helpful stuff from a seminary professor and pastor.

A creative, well-made, and easy to understand video addressing a very tough theological and historical question. Perhaps a good piece to encourage your church's youth to give inspiration some thought: Who Wrote the Bible: God or Humans?

Tim Keller reflects on five big issues facing/soon facing the church: culture-making in the local church, the renewal of apologetics, the need for a variety of church models, the development of a theology of suffering, and the need for urban churches. This is such a good post that I almost gave it its own space here this week- I only saved it for this list because we're trying to get more consistent with the links posts!

Michael Bird discusses James Dunn on James

Monday's with Mounce: "This is why all full expressions of the doctrine of inerrancy make allowance for grammatical “mistakes.” "

And last but not least....I'm 31 today!

A Portrait of a Foolish Pastor

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0000

My past contributions to this blog will be all the evidence you need to support the following self-descriptive claim: I am the type of fellow who endlessly analyzes and strategizes about, among other things, how we ought to be doing church. So imagine my surprise when it occurred to me the other day that I have been wasting my time.

My moment of enlightenment (and it was enlightening) came when I was standing in the back of a musical worship session at the camp I took my high school students to this last weekend. As I saw students confessing sin and praying for one another, the following thought entered my mind: "You do not pray seriously about your ministry, and therefore do not actually rely God to minister. This is foolish."

The next thing I did was laugh. Folly is funny, even when it is your own. I laughed at how a guy with as much Bible training as I have could still manage to be so foolish. Then I thought, "I wonder how many other reasonably smart, personable, and generally competent folks are out there ceaselessly thinking and talking about ministry who don't spend real time praying for the Spirit to work."

I assume there are many. Some of them probably read this blog.

So here is the point of this post: what we really need to do if we care about being effective ministers of the gospel is to pray. We need to pray a lot. We need to pray alone and we need to pray in groups. We need to pray specifically for our congregations, our leaders, our ministries, and the non-Christians we know. And if we aren't doing these things, we need to repent and start praying.

We can plant and water all day, but God must cause the growth (1 Cor. 3:6). There is no clearer indication of our belief in this truth than our commitment to prayer. Revivals don't come from the analyzing and strategizing- or at least not primarily. They come when we pray.

Book Review: On Guard by William Lane Craig

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0000

William Lane Craig is one of the top Christian apologists alive today. So when he writes a book on apologetics, I expect it to be well-argued and -reasoned. But I do not necessarily expect it to be accessible to the average reader, for better or for worse.

Yet On Guard, released this week by David C. Cook Publishers, is just that and more. This book is ready-made for undergraduate classes, church small groups or any Christian looking for an introduction to the key arguments in defense of Christianity.

Most of the content is not new to the discussion, but the format by which it is presented is. This is one of the primary appeals to this work. There are wide margins on the pages perfect for note-taking, unless that space is used for definitions of key words and logical fallacies. There are even profiles of some of the key thinkers along the way.

Craig presents the chapters in ascending logical order of arguments, from "What difference does it make if God exists?" to "Is Jesus the only way to God?". Along the way he hits some of the most popular arguments today for God's existence: the moral argument, the design argument, and of course the kalam cosmological argument, which Craig is especially well-known for modifying in his doctorate thesis.

If there is one weakness in the book, it is that it tries to be all things to all men. While the book is meant to be introductory, there are points when the content will simply be heavy lifting due to the subject matter at hand—despite the occasional single-panel cartoon thrown in. And the "Talk About It" questions seemingly geared for the small group are, in my humble opinion, more distracting than beneficial.

With only these few exceptions, William Lane Craig has written the perfect introduction to Christian apologetics. I know it will be among the first books I recommend when a Christian wants to get his feet wet in the defense of the Christian faith. Even to those familiar with the arguments, this book will be a worthwhile tool to add to the belt.

This book was a free review copy provided by David C. Cook Publishers.

Rejoice You Haitians, Rejoice!

tom@christiansincontext.org (Tom Miller) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0000

Some time ago a poster campaign was undertaken in the UK. It was billed as public demonstration of the rise in New Atheists' power as a reasonable force in the abolition of religion. They even had Richard Dawkins as the proud poster boy. They led with the tag-line:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Aside from their refusal to hedge their bets and actually stick some resolve behind the message with which they wish to change 2,000 years of Western thought, there is a deeper and more alarming consequence of such statement. The assumption is that joy can only come without God.

Why would this ever be the case? The perusal of any new atheist writing makes their rationale clear why - one can only be left gobsmacked by the caricature of God presented through the selective and often misread passages of say Dawkins in The God Delusion. God is genocidal, sexist, filicidal, malevolent, fickle, demanding but most of all uncaring and unloving. How could the possessor of these traits be anything other than joyless? Or are there Shakespearian shades of 'he doth protest too much'? Put simply does our utter refusal to accept the consequences of our actions underlie the insistence of God being joyless? It's not my fault, but His. To surmise - and I do not think I'm skewing this at all - people find it wholly unacceptable that there is inherently nothing lovely or loveable about us. We are so blinkered by self-obsession that we act as errant spoilt children who are so self-absorbed that we refuse to acknowledge fault even when it is blatantly obvious.

Much is made of our Perfect and Holy God and the general abhorrence towards the fact we need to be without sin to approach Him. "I'm a good person, sin is for all those other people" people cry. After all we may have faults but at least we're better than that guy - God may not want him but he definitely wants me. In short there is no joy because we refuse to accept that all have sin and so no one can approach God. One thing that often comes to my mind when considering issues like these is that if we were to be treated within our earthly relationships as we have treated our Heavenly one then there would be no one who would stand for such behaviour. We would be encouraged to leave that person behind - "you don't need that stress in your life, you're too good for them". Without being too personal would Dawkins, Harris, Dennett et al. accept repeated adultery, the refusal to listen to instructions or requests, permanent self-obsession or the inability to accept the disastrous consequences of poorly thought through decisions? They may say they could but I doubt it. I for one certainly could not. So why do we demand this of God who is perfect and holy, vastly divorced from our sinful disposition? John makes it clear how we delude ourselves and hide from God's awesome glory (c.f. 1 John 1:5-8).

Back to the point and the source material: the Bible gives extended accounts of when God Incarnate walked on Earth. I for one struggle to find any examples of Jesus bringing anything other than joy unless you are a Pharisee or caught up amidst His Passion. No one moped because Jesus was in tow. So I struggle to find examples of how God is a killjoy - indeed He wishes for us to be joyful and share in the intra-Trinitarian relationship which is hardly characterised by misery!

This humanist message also carries a more callous - accidentally I'm sure - undertone. The authors would claim that they hold the keys to happiness - that their worldview of reductionist fatalism is true. To paraphrase one should always be happy because bad stuff just happens. No rhyme nor reason - it is just because. Rejoice you Haitians - there's probably no God, enjoy life! Rejoice you serial victims of rape in the theatre of war - there's probably no God, just get over it and enjoy your life! Now this may not be principal message behind the campaign, yet this flows from their rationale. This stance is entrenched in our obsequious Western middle-class worldview where if truth be told we have no concept of suffering. We are rich and well-provided for. Sure we all have problems but how may of us would swap that for the Third World? We pretend that we understand their situation, yet mock them when they speak of God as if we know better. Again I doubt reductionist fatalism would seem so appealing in Port-au-Prince or Darfur.

Now this is not about truth statements and I encourage you to come at this from an impartial view. Some people in suffering will automatically look for an explanation for their position: some blame the universe, others blame or praise God. Is it unreasonable for those who are broken by their situation to look for the joy of God? Even if God did not exist why would it be a terribly bad thing to look to Him anyway? Bad stuff just happens will not please or comfort anyone. To me it seems fairly obnoxious to demand of those suffering that they forget any reason for their suffering and therefore expect such a paradigm shift when we know nothing of a given situation. I speak with no authority on suffering, but just pray that those involved in the campaign never know the depths to which suffering can take us. It is easy not to worry about God when there is nothing driving you to question your very existence.

Despite my protestations I have nothing against campaigns like these: they open up discussion and allow a Christian response. The danger comes from the implicit messages entangled within their rhetoric and so we need to wary of the impact glib comments may have.

Rounding the Bases

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:01:00 +0000

Pray for the people of Chile! A bit of perspective

Lutherans (ELCA) seeing fallout over the gay clergy issue.

If Rabbi Jacob Neusner thinks Jesus was acting like God, then then I'm pretty sure Jesus acted like God. (See footnote 37)

Pope Benedict XVI meets with bishops in Ireland over the recent clergy abuse scandal.

In the debate raging in Texas over the state's curriculum for public education, Christian politicians are accused of "a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming."

And finally, a few great photos of the Heddal Stave Church in Norway; I encountered these photos while meandering through recent studies of church history

Book Review: Evil and the Justce of God by N.T. Wright

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:00:00 +0000

In Evil and the Justice of God, N.T. Wright enters the conversation of the problem and origin of evil traditionally dominated by the philosophers. However, by offering a fresh—and, at times, unorthodox—approach, Wright brings an offering that makes a reasonable contribution to the conversation.

Wright doesn't seem to approach anything head-on, which is at the same time this book's greatest strength and greatest weakness. He seems often to talk around the subject, but in this way he does cover material that doesn't always get included in the traditional conversation. In this way, the train of thought does go somewhere, even if it feels meandering at times, and the journey is often worthwhile.

On occasion the vagueness can be distracting and even confusing. While he believes evil is a very real thing, it is unclear whether Wright believes the Devil (or "the satan" with a lower-case "s" as he says) or demons are real beings. Not that this idea is integral to the understanding of either the problem or the origin of evil, but as often as "the satan" comes up, it is confusing in such impersonal terms.

InterVarsity Press was kind enough to send me the new Special Edition of the book that includes the DVD on the back cover simply entitled Evil. While the DVD is a good supplement to the book and certainly an excellent tool for a small group discussion, I am glad it accompanies the book because it moves through the material too quickly to standing alone.

In both the book and DVD, the main solution to the problem of evil offered is this: "Forgiveness, then—including God's forgiveness of us, our forgiveness of one another and our forgiveness even of ourselves—is a central part of the deliverance of evil". While this conclusion may be incomplete as a full answer, this was never what Wright set out to accomplish in the first place.

In the end, while Evil and the Justice of God may be less intellectually satisfying than it's more philosophical/theological counterparts, it is at times more existentially satisfying. Wright succeeds in joining the conversation and covering territory that has largely gone unexplored.

This book was a free review copy provided by InterVarsity Press.

Two Animated Parables: "I Love Elvis" and "Wild Thing"

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:02:00 +0000

Back in March of last year I pointed out a great video called "The Sea Parable" that addresses the church's failure to stay focused on our mission to the lost. If you never watched it, do yourself a favor and go do so now.

Well, today I came across two more videos made by ilovepinatas (check out their website for more), the same folks who animated "The Sea Parable." I thank God that there are folks who can create such thoughtful, poignant, well-produced media. Hopefully you'll enjoy these two as much as I did.

I Love Elvis

Wild Thing

Book Review: When a Nation Forgets God by Erwin W. Lutzer

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:00:00 +0000

This book was not always an easy one to read. I imagine it was an even harder one to write. But when your subject matter details the parallels between the political and social climates of Nazi Germany and modern-day America—and when you bring up hot button topics like abortion, censorship, homosexuality and hate speech—author and reader alike would do well to not expect an easy ride. Though I didn't agree with every comparison, Erwin Lutzer made some poignant insights in When a Nation Forgets God.

As Lutzer explains, "Nazism did not arise in a vacuum. There were cultural streams that made it possible for this ideology to emerge and gain a wide acceptance by the popular culture." In particular, it was disturbing to read how inept the majority of the church was during the rise of Nazism. While this is a short book, he deals with some heavy material as the chapters headings suggest:

When God Is Separated from Government, Judgment Follows
It's Always the Economy
That Which Is Legal Might Also Be Evil
Propaganda Can Change a Nation
Parents—Not the State—Are Responsible for a Child's Training
Ordinary Heroes Can Make a Difference
We Must Exalt the Cross in the Gathering Darkness

At times I felt he pressed his comparisons too far, but he was close enough to the mark often enough that the ideas must be dealt with whether one agrees with his conclusions or not. This book would not be one I would loan to my non-Christian friends, but every Christian should read and pray that our hearts would be softened and our spines would be strengthened.

This book was a free review copy provided by Moody Publishers.

Evalutating the Charismatic Movement in its 50th Year

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:32:00 +0000

My Father is an insider in the charismatic movement. He originally became a Christian in the Jesus movement and has pastored Vineyard churches for over 20 years. This experience on top of his general intelligence and godliness combine to make him a credible voice for his last two blog posts, "What Now, Charismatics?" and, more to the point of this post, "Charismatic Boons and Busts", where he evaluates, as the title suggests, the good and the bad of the charismatic movement.

By way of summary, he offers the following mirrored commendations and critiques:

Boon: More focus, both theological and practical, on the person and work of the Holy Spirit; Bust: A lot of bad theology of the Holy Spirit.
Boon: An outburst in compassion ministry; Bust: Personality cults.
Boon: An increase in "lay ministry"; Bust: The "Prophetic Movement", where certain people are always prophesying/projecting "the next big thing".
Boon: Worship music; Bust: Worship music.

I am quite in agreement with these points, but I thought it may be worth offering a few others. I do not have my Dad's charismatic credentials, but I was raised in the Vineyard and still consider myself a charismatic, so know that this all comes from one who is generally in agreement with the basic premises of the movement.

Boon: Emphasis on the place of emotions and experience in the life of a Christian.

Christianity is more than mental assent to a series of beliefs. We believe that the central glory of salvation is that Christians can actually know God in Christ. Charismatic churches work this assumed truth into their meetings more fluidly and regularly than any other churches I have been to without exception. This experience includes emotional overflow, which charismatics are glad for. And why shouldn't they be? If God is really with us- if we can really know Him- then shouldn't we expect that we will feel our responses deeply?

I wonder, by the way, if this explains the recent convergence of charismatics and Reformed types (e.g. Piper, Mahaney, Storms). The theological approach to Christian living popularized most recently and widely by Piper in Desiring God (wherein Christians glorify God by enjoying Him) really does go hand in hand with the charismatic emphasis on experiencing God. It has been a fruitful combination for at least this Reformed charismatic.

Bust: The steadfast refusal to validate the importance of the life of the mind in Christian living.

In my experience, the best, most serious Bible teachers and thinkers have not been charismatics. By contrast, charismatics seem to wrap up experience of God so much in emotions that intellectual response is generally considered "less spiritual". It is as if folks are saying, "Why bother with all your heady theology when I can feel God here and now?" The result has been much of the bad worship songs, bad preaching, and shallow practice that many consider synonymous with charismaticism. There are exceptions, of course (e.g. Wayne Grudem and Gordon Fee), but in my experience, most charismatics would rather sing "In the Secret" than "Before the Throne of God Above". And the lay people themselves are normally not to blame: it is the leaders who have not trained their churches to be thoughtful who are at fault.

I am glad for the indications that this tide is turning. The Vineyard, for example, has created "The Society of Vineyard Scholars", which held its inaugural theological conference this year. Also, the aforementioned convergence of charismaticism with Reformed theology will hopefully have positive effects on all of this. In any case, this is one of the largest oversights in charismaticism at large.

Boon: The recovery of the priesthood of all believers.

OK, I'm cheating here because my Dad already mentioned something quite like this. But I really am convinced that nothing can do more to get everyday Christians ministering than emphasizing that spiritual gifts are for everyone. Most evangelical worship services have basically two people doing the talking/leading: the pastor who is preaching and the worship pastor. This communicates week in and week out that these are the only ones who really minister. But they are not. When my old Vineyard church allowed space every week for any believer in the congregation to prophesy, read Scripture, give words of knowledge, pray for others, or ask for prayer, it was clear that every Christian could and should minister. I love this about the charismatic movement.

Bust: Charismatic excess and bad theology of spiritual gifts.

Nothing has done more to turn people off from charismaticism than the excess of charismatics. The steadfast refusal of charismatics to heed the clear teachings of 1 Cor. 12 & 14 consistently flabbergasts me. Why- I beg you, charismatic leaders, why- why do you allow people to speak in tongues publicly without interpreting? Why will you not weigh prophecy against the Bible more rigorously? Why do you push people down when you want to pray for them to heal them? Charismatic gatherings have so much that is patently unbiblical (even if it really is the Holy Spirit who is at work!) that I cannot blame many for their skepticism.

Right in line with this is the influx of garbage teaching about the nature and practice of spiritual gifts themselves. The "spiritual gifts test" in all its ugly forms is the clearest example of this, but it goes beyond that. CiC has posted plenty on this issue in the past (go here and follow the links), so I'll leave it at that. Charismatics are not the only ones to blame, but of course, they have propagated it with the most vigor.

I should close by reiterating that I love the Vineyard movement in particular (I am a charismatic, yes, but I am no Pentecostal). I am glad to see when it flourishes, and I pray that it only will more. And for those who are not cessationists but who are also not charismatics, may I ask why not? If the "charismatic" gifts are still for the church today, who are you not quenching the Spirit when you do not pursue them intently?

Update: My Dad added another "boons and busts" post with four more. Check it out.

Notes from my Bible study

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:10:00 +0000

This is the first in more years than I'm willing to admit that I am reading through a Through the Bible in a Year plan. I think I avoid those plans because there are certain parts of Scripture that should be read multiple times throughout the year, and I am less likely to do so if I have my whole reading for the year mapped out. But this was a challenge Pastor Lee put forth for the whole church, and so I and my wife decided to participate as well.

So yesterday I was reading through Leviticus (not one of those "multiple times throughout the year" books) and I came to chapters 4 and 5. These two chapters cover the sacrificial processes for those sins committed unintentionally or unknowingly. But as I read these chapters and tried to put myself in the mindset of an Old Testament Jew, a sense of futility began to creep in.

"If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty. When they become aware of the sin they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the Tent of Meeting." Leviticus 4:13,14

"If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect." Leviticus 4:27,28

"Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty." Leviticus 5:2

"If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible." Leviticus 5:17

Now I don't know about you, but when I read this I am glad I was not an Old Testament Jew. I imagine I would go broke making "just in case" sacrifices for all the sins I may have committed unaware (kind of like the extra salvation prayers I made as a kid to make sure I was covered, and those didn't cost me a goat or a ram). But as I read this, the point was really driven home that one could not just have confidence in your system of sacrifices. There were still too many holes. Salvation still had to come by faith in the God who would see imperfect sacrifices by imperfect persons as faith and hope in the One who was to come and fulfill the law. Perfect the system.

Or as Paul put it: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Romans 3:20

"However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:5

I pray this dropped home for more than a few Old Testament Jews, as Paul says it did for Abraham and David. (Rom. 4)

Salvation is not in the law for we cannot keep it perfectly.

Salvation is not in the sacrifices we make at the altar for we cannot sacrifice perfectly.

Salvation is only in God, who justifies the wicked and credits faith as righteousness.

Salvation is only in the Messiah, the perfect High Priest, the perfect sacrifice, the perfect fulfillment of the law.

Saturdays with C. S. Lewis - Why People Try to Be Good

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:08:00 +0000

Some Saturday C. S. Lewis" was introduced and explained here. The following quote is from Mere Christianity.

The Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or — if they think there is not — at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.

A Call to Holiness In My Own Personal Sanctification

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:07:00 +0000

Whatever thing I have denied my selfish desires, Christ denied more to condescend in human likeness and perfect humility.

Whatever temptation I have had to overcome, Christ overcame more on my behalf that he might present a perfect substitute for me before God.

Whatever pain I have endured—whether physical or emotional—in denying the longings of my body and mind, Christ endured more under the just wrath of God on the cross in my place.

Whatever loneliness I feel (imagine: the pathetic loneliness of one who is a temple of the Holy Spirit and a child of God), Christ felt more when the Father turned his back on him because of my sin.

Christ has made a way. He has given me his Spirit. Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe.

So grow up. Be a man. After all, "you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin" (Heb. 12:4).

For a deeper treatment, read The Mortification of Sin by John Owen.

Smoking CCM Radio Unfiltered

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:00:00 +0000

I should stop listening to Christian radio (the music, not the talk). I tune in to sing to some familiar music or maybe even find a good worship song to use in church that I haven't heard before, and instead I wind up getting mad. If I'm alone in the car, I am literally yelling at the radio. I'm fairly certain, if people have seen me as they drive by, they consider calling the authorities (or the white wagon with the bars on the windows).

Now this is a partial exaggeration (though I am embarrassed at the portion that is not). But I have, on more than one occasion, come home from work to rant to my wife about what I heard on the radio. At this point, if anyone is a diehard CCM fan, you may want to stop reading before I challenge one of your sacred cows.

It all started when, during a promo between songs, a chipper, female voice said "I like listening to K____ because I don't have to worry about what I'm going to hear". Now I try to give "Christian culture" the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the motives behind our entertainment and marketing, but I could not get this line out of my head. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but all I hear is "When I turn this station on, I turn my brain off and just set to automatic intake". This flies in the face of the model we have in the Bereans who were commended in the book of Acts for "examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so".

I am making such a big stink for this reason (hear thesis statement): I would suggest that listening to mainstream radio with your guard up and your worldview filter on is safer than listening to Christian radio with your guard down. Subtle, bad theology is more dangerous to unsuspecting Christians than is blatant bad theology.

I don't walk into a Christian bookstore assuming that everything that I read therein will be biblically faithful and theologically true. Yet my impression is (and the radio spot would further suggest) that many people turn on the radio assuming that very thing. Let me give you just two examples of the subtle bad theology I'm talking about by citing two songs currently getting lots of play on the radio.

Brandon Heath has a song ready-made for the lighting of the unity candle at your next wedding in "Love Never Fails", borrowing heavily from 1 Corinthians 13. My gripe however, is that the song never mentions God or Jesus and contains the line "Love is the way, the truth, the life". Now I know, being generous in artistic freedom and theology, one could make an argument for that lyric. However we live in a culture where people already make the one to one assumption that "God is love" is equal to "love is God". This lyric, in my estimation, is at best a shaky artistic blending of theological ideas and at worst more fodder for the fires of "all we need is love, love is all we need". Far too many people already believe that love is the way, the truth, the life. Just watch any romantic comedy in the theaters today, love is their functional savior.

I have a similar complaint of my second example. Kutless is owning the airwaves with their song "What Faith Can Do", but the song never once answers "Faith in whom?" Indeed, at multiple points where they could have given the object of the faith, they seem to make faith itself or even the person with the faith as the key component:

"You think it's more than you can take, but you're stronger than you know"

"You will find your way, if you keep believing"

"When the world says you can't, it'll tell you that you can"

I want to give these artists and songwriters the benefit of the doubt, I really do. Kutless and other bands like them carried me through my teenage years and played a vital role in my brief musical career after college. I confess that I am probably overly critical and more than a little biased being a songwriter myself. I know that scrutinizing every line of these songs as I am doing comes across as bitter jealousy from one who failed to "make it" in a Christian rock band. One will say that, in the artists' defense, these songs should be heard in the context of the entire album. The problem is that CCM radio pulls them out of that context.

Where's the line between artistic freedom and good theology? The line between being faithful to a rhyming pattern and being faithful to the Bible? The line between writing a song that is catchy and subversive enough that it might just influence mainstream culture and writing a song that's just a spiritual sell-out? Does being artistically free excuse one from being theologically careful? And would the Bereans ever say we "don't have to worry about what I'm going to hear"? I don't have the answers to any of these questions, but they do reflect my concerns.

For those with itching fingers, gear your responses towards these two issues: the theology in Christian music and our seemingly unfiltered intake of it.

I know this is coming across as more critical than I intend. I still love Christian music, still partially make my living at it, and will definitely not stop listening to the radio any time soon. I know I am holding most CCM artists and writers to a higher theological standard than they are intending (when they write and record) or expecting (when we listen). I am not making judgments about their hearts, in fact I have the highest of respect for many in the industry. I believe Christian music stands to make a bigger impact in many lives than any book or preacher ever will. This is precisely why my concern for the theology in the music remains.

Book Review: A Million Miles In a Thousand Years by Donald Miller

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:01:00 +0000

I had my first Donald Miller experience in early 2009 with Blue Like Jazz (I know, I know, a little behind the curve, Jared). I loved the narrative-style theology that was described as "non-religious thoughts about Christian spirituality". There was enough depth and orthodoxy that I could loan the book to my mom, but not so much that I couldn't loan it to my coworkers.

The same could not be said of Searching For God Knows What and Through Painted Deserts. While the narrative was still there, the theology and simple, deep humanity was markedly absent. And while the story-telling was good, it was not strong enough to carry the books alone. So I ended 2009 one for three in the Donald Miller book category and looking for redemption.

And I found that redemption in A Million Miles In a Thousand Years. The book takes shape as Miller is approached to make a movie out of his stories in Blue Like Jazz. So as they try to craft the slightly disjointed chapters into a more linear story arc for a movie, Don begins to see the life he has lived in the common elements of storytelling.

While Miller's primary point seems to be that we should stop being mere observers and start taking steps to write a story worth living, I was struck with other thoughts that he perhaps did not intend. Like the fact that a steady, faithful life is as good a story (if not so glamorous) as a bike ride across America or hiking the Inca ruins. Or that our stories are written for us as much as they are written by us.

Don't expect the same theological depth as Blue Like Jazz. I have a sneaking suspicion that Donald Miller would feel like that was cheating, like he was using the same angle. But A Million Miles is a satisfying offering and a worthy shelfmate by Donald's first opus.

This book was a free review copy generously provided by Thomas Nelson.

A Homosexual Liberaton Theology of "The Queer Christ"

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:03:00 +0000

As I've said before, one of the many things that come with living in San Francisco is that your guaranteed to encounter all that is counter-cultural. I was recently handed a theology text, entitled, "Gay and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions with Critical Difference" by Elizabeth Stuart. This text is essentially a sort of summarized compendium of theologies, written by Gay and Lesbian theologians. I've just started skimming the text; I'm always interested in hearing or reading how someone develops an argument, and this was simply too provocative to pass up. I can see right away that this text takes all that is traditional, or seemingly axiomatic, and attempts to turn it on its head. I'm planning to blog a bit through this book and offer critique, but for now, let me simply offer offer an excerpt from Stuart's text, summarizing the thought of one theologian named Robert Goss,

"The Queer Christ

Goss maintains that Christology has been used to convey an anti-sexual rhetoric throughout Christian history. Distrust of sexual pleasure, desire and the body were absorbed into Christian discourse through the influence of Hellenistic philosophy and Gnosticism. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the contruction of Jesus as a celibate both reflected and reinforced the Church's increasing distrust of the sexual and it's promotion of the 'ascetic self'. Jesus' asexual maleness became normative and divinised with the result that women were excluded from full participation in the Church. Though the Reformation brought a change of emphasis the result was equally unfortunate with heterosexual marriage and family life now occupying the pedestal upon which the idol of celibacy had sat. Even contemporary Roman Catholicism worships this new idol.

Having deconstructed traditional Christology, Goss sets out to develop a queer Christology. He roots his Christology in Jesus' proclamation of the basileia, the reign of God which 'signified the political transformation of his society into a radically egalitarian, new age, where sexual, social, religious, and political distinctions would be irrelevant'. Jesus acted out his basileia message by standing with the outcast and oppressed of his society and by forming discipleship of equals. In a social structure in which Jewish peasants were crippled by debt Jesus proclaimed a God who cancelled debt and offered not only daily bread but also feasts. This was politically explosive and led Jesus to the cross. The key event that led to Jesus' death was what Goss labels the Stop the Temple action which was Jesus' most aggressive demonstration of the 'egalitarian, unbrokered reign of God'.

Goss argues that at Easter Jesus became the queer Christ. This is not any comment upon Jesus' sexuality, although Goss is keen to point out the homophobic assumptions that lie behind the construction of an asexual or heterosexual Christ. Rather, for Goss the resurrection is God's 'coming out' on the side of Jesus, confirming his basileia message. Jesus' resurrection is therefore the hope for queer people for it is through it that God turns Jesus into a parable about God and so we know that God is on the side of the oppressed. At Easter "God raised Jesus to the level of a discursive symbol and praxis, and Jesus became the Christ, the liberative practice of God's compassion in the world'. So that for all time and space Jesus identifies with the oppressed. Just as it is possible for people to proclaim that 'Jesus is black' and women to relate to the image of the Christa, so it is that queer people can declare that 'Jesus is Queer'. Indeed, if Jesus is not queer then the gospel is at best irrelevant and at worst bad news for queer people."

Existence = Freedom? Discuss.

tom@christiansincontext.org (Tom Miller) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:19:00 +0000

Every Christmas in the UK we have a highly publicised competition for the Christmas Number One (equivalent to the Billboard Number One). The winners have traditionally been saccharine but perfectly pleasant. Then a couple of years ago along came Simon Cowell and his tedious creation 'The X-Factor', which has changed British music into a vacuous talent contest, the final of which coincides with the Christmas charts. The unwritten rule was that to win 'The X-Factor' you would be assured the Christmas number one. That changed in 2009.

A Facebook group was established which recruited hundreds of thousands of people to buy ‘Killing in the Name’ by Rage Against The Machine. It was designed as a protest against the manner in which the marketing men actually ruled the charts and who better to carry that message than RATM? The movement was branded as cynical and pathetic by Cowell, who egocentrically viewed it as an attack on himself and appealed to the nation’s heartstrings that to be Christmas number one had been his stable boy’s dream forever and a day. RATM won and it was declared a massive triumph for freedom – a great moral victory had been won against the man. Then it turns out the real winner was Sony Music who own both artists which made me wonder what is freedom? Does it exist?

Clearly I won’t answer this question given the Copenhagan’s protestor’s nightmare that is the great swathes of trees culled for the answer but some thoughts have entered my head recently. Neuroscience is rapidly approaching the deterministic conclusion-du-jour that that there is no such thing as free will or choice. Our neurophysiological mechanisms determine our actions and behaviours in a long causal chain of which we have no control. Now this is a very broad stroke and I hope to be able to get into this subject a bit more in the future, but the triumphal harrumph from some parts of neuroscience is “Forget freedom. There is no such thing.”

Logically this does make sense: freedom as we know it is limited and therefore no freedom at all – please stay with me on this one! The issue these statements raise is that of ontological freedom – what does it mean to be an entirely free being, absent from any constraint? We are part of creation, yet we are limited by it. We cannot perform any action we choose as we are limited by the laws of nature. Think about it on the most fundamental level: we did not choose to be, that decision was made for us! Even the very nature of creation is limited: it relied on something outside of itself for its existence. Now this is not an appeal to God, this is fact. Dennett speaks of how the universe existed in a half-existent-half-not state prior to the big bang ignoring the fact that matter either exists or does not (from 'Breaking the Spell' quoted from 'The Future of Atheism' page 75); cosmologists offer multiverse’s and never-ending sequences of expansion and contraction. Either way the universe does not seem to exist as an ontologically free substance and because of this it imputes its rules to us we therefore are not free either.

Ontological freedom requires therefore a being that exists outside creation, one who is free from contingency. God is such a being. He exists eternally and entirely free, choosing to create or to not. He is not limited by nature and demonstrates true freedom in His love: His love gives rise to Creation and of course mercy through Christ. True ontological freedom may therefore be found in God’s love – through Christ – which we may share. The interesting practical point that comes from this is that to love other Christians as God and Christ do is to transcend nature itself. So perhaps existence does not equal freedom, but God and His love does: freedom from our created selves and the sin that brings. Ever see Christian brothers and sisters as key to our ontological freedom? Nor did I.

Book Review: The Michael Horton Duology

jared@redeemeromaha.org (Jared) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:00:00 +0000

As a sort of early Christmas present, the generous folks over at Baker Books sent me both of Michael Horton's latest books and I have been quite excited to review them. In retrospect, I am happy I was able to read them back to back, and I would suggest anyone else interested in either of the books do the same. Christless Christianity, while an excellent book in it's own right, leans toward a bleak picture without The Gospel-Driven Life to balance it. Of course, if you have heard anything about the duology, you know that's sort of the idea.

Christless Christianity is Michael Horton's diagnosis and prognosis of the state of the Christian church in America. Going into painful detail, he presses in on the places where the church has shifted its focus from God's activity to ours, from Christ as Savior to Christ as coach, from the transforming Good News to our own transformed lives.

Horton says that our narcissism has taken the form of what has been coined "moralistic, therapeutic deism", but he suggests that, at its core, it is simply a repackaged Pelagianism. He calls it "the default setting of the human heart: the religion of self-salvation".

While Horton seems uncomfortably spot on through much of the book, I imagine every reader will find a critique with which they might disagree (or in the case of the fans of Joel Osteen, an entire chapter). Also placed under the microscope are the Emergent Church, fundamentalism and the religious left and right, but his diagnosis is so often returning to the Gospel message that it is hard to argue against it.

While Michael's writing style flows well and moves at a good pace, there was one thing that made this book a slightly harder read: 260 pages were broken up between only seven chapters. I know this is a bit of a juvenile complaint, but long chapters just make a book feel longer.

Christless Christianity is sharp critique of the state of the modern church, and I imagine that no one can walk away from this book perfectly unscathed. However, it is well-reasoned and -argued, and the cuts it makes seem to be the necessary and precise cuts of a surgeon.

If Christless Christianity was Michael Horton's diagnosis of the Christian church, The Gospel-Driven Life is his prescription. Using the lingo of the news room, Michael argues in his sequel that the church needs to reorient to the "Good News" as central to our faith and practice.

Where the former book was bleak, this book is hopeful. The book is split into two halves, the first focuses on getting the elements of the Gospel straight and the second details what sort of a community the true Gospel creates (what he calls a "cross-cultural community" and, yes, pun intended). Horton memorably says that we need to get back to "Drama, Doctrine, Doxology, Discipleship", themes that continually recur throughout the book.

In contrast with the narcissism and Pelagianism that Horton diagnosed as the church's primary problems in Christless Christianity, he offers this as the solution: "The gospel makes us extroverts: looking outside ourselves to Christ in faith and to our neighbor in love."

Again, as in Christless Christianity, Michael is sure to ruffle everyone's theological feathers at some point. For me it came when (I felt) he overstated his case for the sacraments and the inclusion of the believers' children under the new covenant. Still, when it is so relentlessly couched in Gospel, I am more inclined to consider Michael's position, and this is one of the greatest strengths of the book.

I wholeheartedly recommend both of these books to every Christian, but particularly to those involved in church leadership.

This book was a free review copy generously provided by Baker Books.

Fashion Gurus and Church Consultants

norm@christiansincontext.org (Norman Jeune III) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:03:00 +0000

I'm not one who typically stays abreast of the latest fashion trends, but I happened upon this article featuring the new collection from a fashion designer named Vivienne Westwood; her theme, homelessness...Yes, homelessness is apparently now sexy! Or at least a good hook for grabbing attention in a venue where the bar for doing so is always going up. As I reflected on this article, noting the rabid cheers of approval, the implicit message was 'mission accomplished!' Ms. Westwood had successfully captured the attention she was looking for; she shocked her audience, crossing lines in the unadulterated pursuit of "success".

Now it seems obvious to say that the fashion world is probably one of the most transparent examples of this type of narcissistic behavior, but I have to admit, as I read this, I couldn't help but think of some of our prominent public leaders in the church. So the question I want to pose is whether or not we're really any different in the church? Afterall, couldn't the case be made that, in certain instances, the same type of vain efforts are brought to bear for the sake of advancing one's name and cause in the church? Certainly the look and feel of this in Christian circles can be, but is not necessariy more subtle. I could easily name more than a few public figures in the church who make it a habit to consistently grab the church-at-large with the next new book, and the next new conference, where the next new question will be asked that no one has ever asked before. And let's not forget Facebook; constant invitations with messages like, 'Norman Jeune III suggests that you become a fan of Norman Jeune III.' Not to mention the endless Twitter publicity campaigns, etc.

Now, at the same time, I don't want to leave readers with the idea that all social media is wrong; as a blogger that would make me terribly hypocrital! I guess the point is that, like many other issues, its about our most deeply held motivations. I think the development of social media offers new temptations; temptations that feed our narcissism. Social media makes it easier than ever for just about anyone with a little saavy to build a carefully tailored public persona. Are we looking for the next new and provocative angle to grab some attention? Is it truly about people, ministry, and the gospel? I may not be able to look into anyone else's heart and point with a definitive answer about their motivation, but I can look back at myself, and I can challenge you to do the same.

Spiritual Dyspraxia

tom@christiansincontext.org (Tom Miller) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:57:00 +0000

I must admit I do feel a bit of pressure in starting to write for this blog. Fallen pride means I enter into this wanting to be liked, for my ideas and efforts to be appreciated though not necessarily celebrated. Oh the vanity of life! (c.f. Ecclesiastes 1:2). The pressure comes with wanting to start with a bang. So I struggled in thinking of the subject of my first post, as if there was something I could do about it. Then whilst reflecting over my reading in recent months I have come to appreciate that deeper knowledge of God is a wonderful thing, yet we are indebted to do something with the knowledge we attain. Then I finally came to rest on the tagline for the blog: ‘From orthodoxy to orthopraxis’. In so doing I came to dwell on praxis and just what an interesting word it is.

Praxis derives from the Greek πραξις (doing, a way of acting) and like so many other words contains was utilised by the ancient Greek philosophers to great effect to encapsulate a concept. Aristotle spoke of the three basic actions of man each followed by the next: theoria, poiesis and praxis. Theoria (derived from θεωία, contemplation) relates to the pursuit of truth, leading to poiesis relating to the production of something (from ποιέω, to make) which finally culminates in praxis, or action. That, I guess, is the charge of this blog: literally the correct action.

Clinically and neuropsychologically the term praxis is utilised in a slightly different way from Aristotle. Praxis in this sense is the ability to produce complicated and sequenced actions, which may for instance include dressing or cooking. These actions are often considered key to living as an independent adult. The concept of praxis – the ability to perform complicated actions - is so key that it forms one of the seven core cognitive functions (clinically speaking).

Patients lack nothing of the basic abilities needed to perform complex tasks – they do not lack strength, the ability to move limbs, coordination or even the ability to understand what it is they are asked to do. They are even able to perform basic actions that constitute more complex ones. What they lack is the sequencing of those actions into some product or meaningful action. Their product falls woefully short of their intentions; they do not lack ability, just final product. They are, unfortunately, ineffective. This diversion illustrates what I understand the purpose of this blog to be: Christianity is ultimately about action. We can eulogise about theologians we like or impress others with our extensive knowledge of God or even which blogs we read, yet these are of little value unless put into action. We can have all the constituent parts of a life lived conspicuously for Christ, yet neglect the sequencing of it into a tangible action - an action conducive to spiritual life. The warning here is of spiritual dyspraxia. An ineffective Christian is devastating. Yes, let us rejoice in the great depths of knowledge God allows to have of Himself; yes let us be encouraged in engaging conversation with other Christians; but authentic Christianity should never theoria without its poiesis and praxis - a theological praxis. So it is with God and the Apostle John I finish and surely there is no greater bang than that:

“Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18.)

A Note to Readers Who Get Here through Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

There are now nine total contributors to Christians in Context: me (Andrew), Norm, Damian, Jared, Jeff, Jenny, Tom, Matt and Ian. Those of you who read our blog via RSS know who wrote each post because the author's name shows up at the top of your reader. Those who read it the old-fashioned way (you know, typing in the URL in the address bar of your browser and pressing enter- an outmoded, horrendously inefficient method that you should be ashamed of employing) presumably scroll to the bottom of the post, look in the little gray box, and see the byline.

But then there is that group of you who click in through facebook. We need to have a little chat.

Here's the thing: three of us (me, Norm, and Jared) have every post on this site, regardless of its author, automatically uploading into our facebook feeds. So when Ian posts, many of you see it on my facebook feed. That does not mean that I wrote it. To find out who did, scroll to the bottom of the post and look in the gray box.

Got it? Good.

Because judging by some of the comments on facebook and on here, some of you apparently were confused.

Glad we could clear that up.

Saturdays with C. S. Lewis - The First Job

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Faris) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:11:00 +0000

"Some Saturday C. S. Lewis" was introduced and explained here. It's been awhile since I've put up a Lewis post. There is a good reason for this: I am lazy and disorganized. Your forgiveness will not go unappreciated. In any case, while I try to get back on the wagon, here is a well-known section from Mere Christianity, Book IV, Chapter 8. I'm not totally convinced of his use of "Be perfect", but his point still stands, doesn't it?

The real problem of the Christian life comes where people do not usually look for it. It comes the very moment you wake up each morning. All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in. And so on, all day. Standing back from all your natural fussing and frettings; coming in out of the wind.

We can only do it for moments at first. But from those moments the new sort of life will be spreading through our system: because now we are letting Him work at the right part of us. It is the difference between paint, which is merely laid on the surface, and a dye or stain which soaks right though. He never talked vague, idealistic gas. When He said, 'Be perfect,' He meant it. He meant that we must go in for the full treatment. It is hard; but the sort of compromise we are all hankering after is harder- in fact, it is impossible. It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad...

This is the whole of Christianity. There is nothing else. It is so easy to get muddled about that. It is easy to think that the Church has a lot of different objects- education, building, missions, holding services. Just as it is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects- military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden- that is what the State is for....

In the same way the Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose. It is even doubtful, you know, whether the whole universe was created for any other purpose.