My Translation of Philippians 3:1-11 from the Greek Text with Textual Analysis
1. In addition, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write to you the same things is, indeed, not troublesome, but for you is a safeguard.
2. Look out for the dogs! Look out for the evil worker! Look out for the "chopping-off"!
3. For we are the circumcision, the ones serving by the Spirit of God and the ones boasting in Christ Jesus and not the ones trusting in flesh.
4. Although I have confidence also in flesh if any other thinks to trust in flesh, I have all the more!
5. Circumcised on the eighth day, of the lineage of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, according to the Law, a Pharisee,
6. According to zeal a persecutor of the Church, according to what God requires in the Law one being faultless.
7. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as a loss because of Christ.
8. Not only that, but also I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing excellence of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord, because of whom I have suffered loss of all things, and count them dung in order that I might gain Christ,
9. and be found in him, not having my righteousness from the Law, but the one that is through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that is upon faith,
10. for the purpose that (1.) I know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death,
11. if somehow I may attain to the resurrection out from the dead.
Textual Notes
In verse three there is some debate over the structure of and inclusion of θεο. The editor of the textual apparatus give the reading a "C" rating, which means that there is considerable doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the correct reading. The inclusion of θεο is supported by Codexes Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,and Vaticanus, a plethora of minuscules, the reading of the majority of lectionaries, many other manuscripts such as the Syriac and the Coptic, and a myriad of the early church fathers.
The variant θε is mentioned in the corrected version of Codex Sinaiticus and a few other minor Codexes. A small amount of the minuscules mention the variant. This reading is also backed by the Vulgate and the Syriac, the Gothic and possibly the Armenian. Many church fathers include this reading as well as the aforementioned. A variant of this variant, θεὶῳ, is mentioned only once and this is in minuscule 1984.
There is another small variant which chooses to exclude the word all together. The only textual evidence for this is found in papyrus 46. The evidence may appear weak at first, but the papyrus in question is the earliest copy of the epistles of Paul, which dates about the year 200. (2.)
FOOTNOTES
(1.) See discussion in H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1955), 283-285.
(2.) Discussion taken from textual apparatus in Kurt Aland, et. al., The Greek New Testament 3rd. ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1983), 687. and Bruce M. Metzger, The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 614.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Kurt, et.al. The Greek New Testament. 3rd. ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1983.
Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1955.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.
Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Today, the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Mississippi was blessed by the Jackson, Mississippi ClearChannel Radio Stations with an all day radio-thon that we called "Stories of Light." In recognition of the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we set a goal of $25,000 (five wishes) specifically targeting families impacted by the storm. We are still counting the pledges and holding open the deadline for a few more days to reach our goal. I cannot say enough about Jan Michaels, Station Manager for Q105.1!!! Thank you so much!!!
By the way, Stance Bingham, one of the excellent DJ's on MISS 103, found this wish story on YouTube. While it was not facilitated by the Mississippi Chapter, Kevin's wish to be on Sesame Street is a beautiful story. Way to go Metro New York Chapter!
Monday, August 27, 2007
A Simple Homily on the Gospel of Mark 11:20-26
Many people, and indeed many ministers, would have others believe that if anyone's faith is real one can do literally anything.
It must be stated that the whole event surrounding the fig-tree was an acted parable. If this is not understood, all sorts of irrelevant questions arise. The fig-tree is a symbol of Israel, along with the vine. Even though the "season was not of figs", many fig-trees do produce figs early along with the new growth. It appears that this is what Jesus was looking for on the tree.
The reason Jesus cursed the fig-tree was in order to correlate its similarity to Israel. Israel was giving an outward sign of fruit but there was no fruit to be found, not even any developing. Jesus was looking for fruit among God's people, but there was none, even though outward profession was plenty. Therefore, Israel was to be withered and fruitless.
As to the trouble surrounding prayer and faith, the disciples were astonished that the fig-tree was withered, yet Jesus said to them that they could uproot mountains. The need for faith when praying was vital part of Jesus' teachings. But, faith is not a condition of prayer; it is the condition of a relationship with God. Truly, it was radical when Jesus said that mountains would be moved, but it would be by God's power and not that of the disciples'. In verse 24, it is shown that once God has been asked in the relationship of faith, the disciples' attitude should be one of expectant reality. In other words, once faith is placed in God, anything asked in that relationship should be seen as having already occurred.
In verse 25, Jesus added a "condition" to the prayer life of his disciples. This condition was forgiveness of fellow disciples/brothers. Indeed, unless a disciple forgives a fellow disciple freely, it shows that there is no understanding of God's grace or that the true relationship of faith and forgiveness is not understood.
Verses 23-25 must be seen together to prevent any misuse of the text. To summarize in a personal fashion: We must be at all times bearing fruit, or indeed judgement will come. The object of our faith must be God not for what we are praying. Indeed, in our relationship with God we can believe that God has already provided what we asked. Most importantly, we must forgive others if we have truly been forgiven by God. Our forgiveness is contingent upon our willingness to forgive.
Many people, and indeed many ministers, would have others believe that if anyone's faith is real one can do literally anything.
It must be stated that the whole event surrounding the fig-tree was an acted parable. If this is not understood, all sorts of irrelevant questions arise. The fig-tree is a symbol of Israel, along with the vine. Even though the "season was not of figs", many fig-trees do produce figs early along with the new growth. It appears that this is what Jesus was looking for on the tree.
The reason Jesus cursed the fig-tree was in order to correlate its similarity to Israel. Israel was giving an outward sign of fruit but there was no fruit to be found, not even any developing. Jesus was looking for fruit among God's people, but there was none, even though outward profession was plenty. Therefore, Israel was to be withered and fruitless.
As to the trouble surrounding prayer and faith, the disciples were astonished that the fig-tree was withered, yet Jesus said to them that they could uproot mountains. The need for faith when praying was vital part of Jesus' teachings. But, faith is not a condition of prayer; it is the condition of a relationship with God. Truly, it was radical when Jesus said that mountains would be moved, but it would be by God's power and not that of the disciples'. In verse 24, it is shown that once God has been asked in the relationship of faith, the disciples' attitude should be one of expectant reality. In other words, once faith is placed in God, anything asked in that relationship should be seen as having already occurred.
In verse 25, Jesus added a "condition" to the prayer life of his disciples. This condition was forgiveness of fellow disciples/brothers. Indeed, unless a disciple forgives a fellow disciple freely, it shows that there is no understanding of God's grace or that the true relationship of faith and forgiveness is not understood.
Verses 23-25 must be seen together to prevent any misuse of the text. To summarize in a personal fashion: We must be at all times bearing fruit, or indeed judgement will come. The object of our faith must be God not for what we are praying. Indeed, in our relationship with God we can believe that God has already provided what we asked. Most importantly, we must forgive others if we have truly been forgiven by God. Our forgiveness is contingent upon our willingness to forgive.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Here is an interview I conducted with Don Gann, then the director of the Baptist Student Union at Mississippi College, on October 23, 1994. I had the pleasure of taking Church Growth Evangelism with renowned evangelist, Malcolm McDow.
INTRODUCTION
This report is based upon an interview with an evangelistic pastor -- Don Gann, Mississippi College Baptist Student Union Director. Though not a pastor of a church, Don fulfills the pastoral role with a more specific congregation. This interview will include demographics of the community, school and B.S.U. There will also be a summary of the interview and an evaluation of the evangelistic program presently in use.
DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Mississippi College is located in Clinton, Mississippi, a suburb of Jackson, the capital of Mississippi.
2. The actual population of Clinton is around 21,000, but the Jackson Metropolitan Area has a population of over 200,000 people.
3. The city of Clinton is a classic example of a "bedroom" community.
4. Mississippi College is owned and operated through a trustee system by the Mississippi Baptist Convention.
5. The enrolment of the college for the 1994 fall semester is 3,758.
6. Of this 3,758, approximately 2,500 (or two-thirds) of the students are commuter students.
7. The remaining 1,253 "on campus" students is comprised of 859 male and 924 female.
8. The Baptist Student Union is funded fifty percent by the Department of Student Work and fifty percent by Mississippi College.
9. Each year the Baptist Student Union involves approximately 700 students in some ministry activity.
10. The Baptist Student Union is the main campus ministry outlet for the students of Mississippi College.
SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW
The interview was conducted in a dialogue format. It occurred in the home of Don Gann at around 2:00 P.M. of Sunday, October, 23. The center of discussion was developed around two themes. The first was the evangelistic program and emphasis of the Baptist Student Union. The second was the personal view of evangelism of both Don Gann and Myself.
The evangelistic program of the Baptist Student Union is developed each year by the Executive Council with much advice given by Don Gann. The Baptist Student Union has two main activities that remain firm from one semester to the next. The first of these activities is called the "Gathering." The Gathering is on Monday evenings. The format of Gathering includes prayer time, singing, drama, Bible study, and personal testimony. An attempt is made to present the Gospel at every Gathering with high attendance of seekers. The number of students that attend such meetings averages between 125 to 300.
The second activity is named "Noonday." It occurs during the lunch hour on Tuesdays. The Baptist Student Union provides a home cooked meal for $2.00 and includes an informal Bible Study and share time. The unique ministry of Noonday is that many lost students are invited to come eat and relax without being scared away by the threat of being force fed the Gospel. The attendance at this activity is relatively high at about 150 students.
The evangelistic focus of the Baptist Student Union is centered around the Here's Hope campaign, a joint program of the Home Mission Board and the Nation Student Ministries Department of the Sunday School Board. The Baptist Student Union has adopted a program called One to One, also known as "1-2-1." This program encourages each student to form a relationship with someone that they know is lost and share the Gospel in both proclamation and incarnation. The students are strongly encouraged to not stop at one, but to share the Gospel with all that they come in contact.
The Baptist Student Union also sets aside a week each semester for spiritual emphasis. Spiritual Emphasis Week coincides with the Campus Revival chapel programs. This is a good means for reaching many lost students because of the mandatory chapel attendance policy at Mississippi College. During this week an attempt is made to present the Gospel in a meaningful way, so Don Gann has been placed in charge of developing the program.
The Baptist Student Union has many other activities during the semester that include evangelism. There are the Fall, Mid-Winter, and Spring Retreats. The students are taken each year to a Student Week at either Glorieta or Ridgecrest or some regional student meeting. The students are also engaged in action teams, which are revival teams sent to churches which cannot afford regular revivals. Finally, the student are actively involved in local ministries like working in the soup kitchens or tutoring at the children's home. In all these events, evangelism is the goal, the activity is simply the means.
EVALUATION
WEAKNESSES:
1. Out of personal experience, what is intended evangelistically from a program is often over shadowed by the program itself.
2. The Baptist Student Union can often times become simply another group on campus rather than an outlet for ministry.
3. Don Gann needs to regularly remind the students involved in the Baptist Student Union to actively include evangelism into their daily routine.
4. Not only must Don Gann encourage evangelism, he must also set the example by both his actions and his lifestyles.
5. Because of the tendency to "circle the wagons," the Baptist Student Union must put itself in the business of bridge building over the many obstacles of the Gospel.
6. The obstacles include: apathy on the part of the Christian students, being to busy to present the Gospel to a lost student, and not even knowing in importance of evangelism in the Christian life.
7. The present focus of the Baptist Student Union is very close to falling into one of many misconceptions of evangelism -- "it is everything that I do." Simply having programs and outlets for social ministry does not mean that evangelism is occurring, evangelism occurs when the effort is made specifically to win the lost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
STRENGTHS:
1. At present, the Baptist Student Union is on the right track, with the focus of ministry being placed upon evangelism.
2. Don Gann has a proper, Biblical view of evangelism and constantly seeks to both live it out and encourages others to do the same.
3. The Baptist Student Union stands at a place of tremendous ability coupled with tragic need, with its focus placed firmly on Jesus evangelism will continue to grow.
4. All of the programs of the Baptist Student Union encourage both evangelism and discipleship and have not become ends in and of themselves.
5. With the current leadership under Don Gann and the Executive Council, the Baptist Student Union will continue to seek and to save those who are lost.
6. The Gospel train is running smoothly upon the tracks of proclamation at Mississippi College.
7. Under the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit, the supreme example of Jesus Christ, and the highest authority of the Father, the Baptist Student Union of Mississippi College will move with evangelistic zeal into the campus, the community, and even the world with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.
INTRODUCTION
This report is based upon an interview with an evangelistic pastor -- Don Gann, Mississippi College Baptist Student Union Director. Though not a pastor of a church, Don fulfills the pastoral role with a more specific congregation. This interview will include demographics of the community, school and B.S.U. There will also be a summary of the interview and an evaluation of the evangelistic program presently in use.
DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Mississippi College is located in Clinton, Mississippi, a suburb of Jackson, the capital of Mississippi.
2. The actual population of Clinton is around 21,000, but the Jackson Metropolitan Area has a population of over 200,000 people.
3. The city of Clinton is a classic example of a "bedroom" community.
4. Mississippi College is owned and operated through a trustee system by the Mississippi Baptist Convention.
5. The enrolment of the college for the 1994 fall semester is 3,758.
6. Of this 3,758, approximately 2,500 (or two-thirds) of the students are commuter students.
7. The remaining 1,253 "on campus" students is comprised of 859 male and 924 female.
8. The Baptist Student Union is funded fifty percent by the Department of Student Work and fifty percent by Mississippi College.
9. Each year the Baptist Student Union involves approximately 700 students in some ministry activity.
10. The Baptist Student Union is the main campus ministry outlet for the students of Mississippi College.
SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW
The interview was conducted in a dialogue format. It occurred in the home of Don Gann at around 2:00 P.M. of Sunday, October, 23. The center of discussion was developed around two themes. The first was the evangelistic program and emphasis of the Baptist Student Union. The second was the personal view of evangelism of both Don Gann and Myself.
The evangelistic program of the Baptist Student Union is developed each year by the Executive Council with much advice given by Don Gann. The Baptist Student Union has two main activities that remain firm from one semester to the next. The first of these activities is called the "Gathering." The Gathering is on Monday evenings. The format of Gathering includes prayer time, singing, drama, Bible study, and personal testimony. An attempt is made to present the Gospel at every Gathering with high attendance of seekers. The number of students that attend such meetings averages between 125 to 300.
The second activity is named "Noonday." It occurs during the lunch hour on Tuesdays. The Baptist Student Union provides a home cooked meal for $2.00 and includes an informal Bible Study and share time. The unique ministry of Noonday is that many lost students are invited to come eat and relax without being scared away by the threat of being force fed the Gospel. The attendance at this activity is relatively high at about 150 students.
The evangelistic focus of the Baptist Student Union is centered around the Here's Hope campaign, a joint program of the Home Mission Board and the Nation Student Ministries Department of the Sunday School Board. The Baptist Student Union has adopted a program called One to One, also known as "1-2-1." This program encourages each student to form a relationship with someone that they know is lost and share the Gospel in both proclamation and incarnation. The students are strongly encouraged to not stop at one, but to share the Gospel with all that they come in contact.
The Baptist Student Union also sets aside a week each semester for spiritual emphasis. Spiritual Emphasis Week coincides with the Campus Revival chapel programs. This is a good means for reaching many lost students because of the mandatory chapel attendance policy at Mississippi College. During this week an attempt is made to present the Gospel in a meaningful way, so Don Gann has been placed in charge of developing the program.
The Baptist Student Union has many other activities during the semester that include evangelism. There are the Fall, Mid-Winter, and Spring Retreats. The students are taken each year to a Student Week at either Glorieta or Ridgecrest or some regional student meeting. The students are also engaged in action teams, which are revival teams sent to churches which cannot afford regular revivals. Finally, the student are actively involved in local ministries like working in the soup kitchens or tutoring at the children's home. In all these events, evangelism is the goal, the activity is simply the means.
EVALUATION
WEAKNESSES:
1. Out of personal experience, what is intended evangelistically from a program is often over shadowed by the program itself.
2. The Baptist Student Union can often times become simply another group on campus rather than an outlet for ministry.
3. Don Gann needs to regularly remind the students involved in the Baptist Student Union to actively include evangelism into their daily routine.
4. Not only must Don Gann encourage evangelism, he must also set the example by both his actions and his lifestyles.
5. Because of the tendency to "circle the wagons," the Baptist Student Union must put itself in the business of bridge building over the many obstacles of the Gospel.
6. The obstacles include: apathy on the part of the Christian students, being to busy to present the Gospel to a lost student, and not even knowing in importance of evangelism in the Christian life.
7. The present focus of the Baptist Student Union is very close to falling into one of many misconceptions of evangelism -- "it is everything that I do." Simply having programs and outlets for social ministry does not mean that evangelism is occurring, evangelism occurs when the effort is made specifically to win the lost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
STRENGTHS:
1. At present, the Baptist Student Union is on the right track, with the focus of ministry being placed upon evangelism.
2. Don Gann has a proper, Biblical view of evangelism and constantly seeks to both live it out and encourages others to do the same.
3. The Baptist Student Union stands at a place of tremendous ability coupled with tragic need, with its focus placed firmly on Jesus evangelism will continue to grow.
4. All of the programs of the Baptist Student Union encourage both evangelism and discipleship and have not become ends in and of themselves.
5. With the current leadership under Don Gann and the Executive Council, the Baptist Student Union will continue to seek and to save those who are lost.
6. The Gospel train is running smoothly upon the tracks of proclamation at Mississippi College.
7. Under the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit, the supreme example of Jesus Christ, and the highest authority of the Father, the Baptist Student Union of Mississippi College will move with evangelistic zeal into the campus, the community, and even the world with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
SYNOPSIS OF JOHN CALVIN'S WRITINGS RELATING TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE WITH CONCENTRATION UPON DIACONAL CARE
I. Introductory Information
A. Calvin was as or more interested in practical growth in Christian life as he was in predestinary soteriology.
B. Calvin's writings evidence the emphasis that he placed upon the practical ministry of care for the poor and sick.
C. There are three major sources relating to Calvin's interest in social and economic justice.
1. Commentaries.
2. Ecclesiastical Ordinances.
3. Institutes.
II. Calvin: Commentaries 1540 A.D. - 1564 A.D.
A. Calvin reveals his greatest concern for social and economic justice in his Commentaries, Chapter Eight, "Ethics and the Common Life."
B. Love for God must result in treating others justly and kindly, no matter what their status. (316)
C. All living creatures are to be treated justly. (330)
D. Retaliation is not a Christian practice. (334)
E. Family and home life must reflect the nature of the Gospel. (342)
F. Those who have been deprived of regeneration must be treated justly for their contributions are far from negligible. (355)
G. Women and men are of equal status in the eyes of God. (358)
III. Calvin: Ecclesiastical Ordinances 1541 A.D.
A. Calvin revealed in clearest of fashion the method by which social and economic justice may be protected by the diaconate of the Church.
B. There are four offices recognized by Calvin.
1. Pastors.
2. Doctors.
3. Elders.
4. Deacons.
C. There are two different types of deacons.
1. Procurator.
a. Receive goods for the poor.
b. Dispense goods for the poor.
c. Hold goods for the poor.
2. Hospitallers.
a. Care for the sick.
b. Administer allowances to the poor.
D. Together the deacons are to ensure that the public hospital is maintained equally for all people no matter their status.
E. Calvin mentions several groups that must not be neglected.
1. Poor.
2. Sick.
3. Widowed Women.
4. Orphaned Children.
5. Other "poor creatures."
6. Immigrants.
7. Refugees.
8. Plague Victims.
F. Because all basic needs were to be met, Calvin encouraged the removal of loiterers and beggars.
IV. Calvin: Institutes 1536 A.D., 1539 A.D., 1559 A.D.
A. The Institutes must be read within their sixteenth century context.
B. Calvin was fighting a theological battle on four fronts.
1. Rome and the Scholastics.
2. Anti-Rome, Anti-Establishment Groups.
3. Humanist Scholars.
4. Extreme Neo-Pagan Humanists.
C. The Institutes began as a children's catechism but was changed by Calvin into a systematic arrangement of doctrine.
D. The fourth book of the Institutes, "On the external Means or Helps by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and keeps us in it," is where Calvin most concisely presents his concern for social and economic justice through his treatment of the diaconate.
E. Women are encouraged to be deacons. (322)
F. Deacons are to be held accountable for their stewardship. (331)
G. Care for the poor is more important than the Church building. (333)
H. No special sacrament is needed to care for the poor. (646)
V. Concluding Statements
A. The writings of John Calvin reveal the logical, spiritual, and practical connection between love for God and love for neighbor.
B. Even though many times he acted to the contrary, Calvin advocated a life totally devoted to God with a resultant outgrowth of unity, love, compassion, and care for all of God's creatures.
SOURCES
Haroutunian, Joseph, ed. Calvin: Commentaries, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 23. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.
Dillenberger, John, ed. John Calvin: Selections from His Writings, "The Geneva Church, Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances," ch. 3. Scholars Press, 1975. 229-244.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.
I. Introductory Information
A. Calvin was as or more interested in practical growth in Christian life as he was in predestinary soteriology.
B. Calvin's writings evidence the emphasis that he placed upon the practical ministry of care for the poor and sick.
C. There are three major sources relating to Calvin's interest in social and economic justice.
1. Commentaries.
2. Ecclesiastical Ordinances.
3. Institutes.
II. Calvin: Commentaries 1540 A.D. - 1564 A.D.
A. Calvin reveals his greatest concern for social and economic justice in his Commentaries, Chapter Eight, "Ethics and the Common Life."
B. Love for God must result in treating others justly and kindly, no matter what their status. (316)
C. All living creatures are to be treated justly. (330)
D. Retaliation is not a Christian practice. (334)
E. Family and home life must reflect the nature of the Gospel. (342)
F. Those who have been deprived of regeneration must be treated justly for their contributions are far from negligible. (355)
G. Women and men are of equal status in the eyes of God. (358)
III. Calvin: Ecclesiastical Ordinances 1541 A.D.
A. Calvin revealed in clearest of fashion the method by which social and economic justice may be protected by the diaconate of the Church.
B. There are four offices recognized by Calvin.
1. Pastors.
2. Doctors.
3. Elders.
4. Deacons.
C. There are two different types of deacons.
1. Procurator.
a. Receive goods for the poor.
b. Dispense goods for the poor.
c. Hold goods for the poor.
2. Hospitallers.
a. Care for the sick.
b. Administer allowances to the poor.
D. Together the deacons are to ensure that the public hospital is maintained equally for all people no matter their status.
E. Calvin mentions several groups that must not be neglected.
1. Poor.
2. Sick.
3. Widowed Women.
4. Orphaned Children.
5. Other "poor creatures."
6. Immigrants.
7. Refugees.
8. Plague Victims.
F. Because all basic needs were to be met, Calvin encouraged the removal of loiterers and beggars.
IV. Calvin: Institutes 1536 A.D., 1539 A.D., 1559 A.D.
A. The Institutes must be read within their sixteenth century context.
B. Calvin was fighting a theological battle on four fronts.
1. Rome and the Scholastics.
2. Anti-Rome, Anti-Establishment Groups.
3. Humanist Scholars.
4. Extreme Neo-Pagan Humanists.
C. The Institutes began as a children's catechism but was changed by Calvin into a systematic arrangement of doctrine.
D. The fourth book of the Institutes, "On the external Means or Helps by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and keeps us in it," is where Calvin most concisely presents his concern for social and economic justice through his treatment of the diaconate.
E. Women are encouraged to be deacons. (322)
F. Deacons are to be held accountable for their stewardship. (331)
G. Care for the poor is more important than the Church building. (333)
H. No special sacrament is needed to care for the poor. (646)
V. Concluding Statements
A. The writings of John Calvin reveal the logical, spiritual, and practical connection between love for God and love for neighbor.
B. Even though many times he acted to the contrary, Calvin advocated a life totally devoted to God with a resultant outgrowth of unity, love, compassion, and care for all of God's creatures.
SOURCES
Haroutunian, Joseph, ed. Calvin: Commentaries, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 23. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.
Dillenberger, John, ed. John Calvin: Selections from His Writings, "The Geneva Church, Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances," ch. 3. Scholars Press, 1975. 229-244.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
It has become common place in the Christian Right: the violent rhetoric and actions of the pro-life movement, the virtual marriage of politics and religion, and the attempted reconstruction of American society upon the Old Testament legal code. We lie at a major crossroads in American life. Will we take the wide, more traveled road of hatred, distrust, and fear, or will we take the narrow, less traveled road of love, trust, and hope?
The Christian Right and the Pro-life movement are but two sides of the same coin. "Pro-life!" is the Christian Right's battle cry and banner under which it marches. In light of recent actions (i.e. the murder of an abortion doctor), I do not doubt their opposition to abortion, but I do question whether they are truly pro-life. These people are willing to picket abortion clinics while only a few blocks away children and elderly people are going without meals and medical care. The issue, ultimately, is not abortion; rather, it is responding holistically to the issues surrounding the sanctity of human life.
Just listen to the rhetoric of Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country." Now listen to the words of Jesus, "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get any thing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:35-36).
The Christian Right is also actively seeking the destruction of the historic wall of separation between Church and State in the United States of America. The Republican Party in many areas is becoming more and more the puppet of the Christian Right. Moreover, if any one dare speak up against this "takeover," they are called liberal and against "family values." Michael Kinsley, of the Democratic National Committee, aptly states, "if the religious voices want to be welcome in the debate, they must accept vigorous dissent without identifying it as anti-religious prejudice."
Finally, the issue of Reconstruction and its relation to the Christian Right is most startling. Reconstructionists seek to abolish the Constitution and adopt the Bible, and more specifically the Old Testament, as the direct instrument of government. They set forth an abolishment of democracy and intend to replace it with a rule by the elite. They reject religious freedom as liberal and the American system of separation of church and state as unacceptable. The reality of this occurring is even greater when one realizes that W.A. Criswell, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are deeply tied to this thought. Listen to W.A. Criswell, "there is no such thing as separation of church and state. It is merely a figment of the imagination of infidels." (Thus, Roger Williams, John Leland, and even Criswell's predecessor, George Truett, are all "infidels.")
The Christian Right is neither right nor Christian. Throughout history people have done unspeakable things in the name of Christ, and so it continues today. The Christian Right has sold its soul, abandoning the powerful message of Christ for the illusion of secular power. Jesus warns us even today, "do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6).
I strongly believe in Christian participation in government, but I do not support the Church running the government nor the government running the Church. I wholeheartedly stand against abortion on the basis of the sanctity of human life, but I consider God's sanctification of life to exist outside the womb as well as inside. I stand with firm conviction for living with values, morals, and ethics, but I flee from the Reconstructionists yoke of slavery which nullifies the work of Christ and the grace of God for the re-establishment of the Law. As Christians we are called by Jesus to be Salt and Light in this savorless and dark world, but we must do this according to the standard set forth by Christ, not the methods of the world. "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very form God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:5-8).
It has become common place in the Christian Right: the violent rhetoric and actions of the pro-life movement, the virtual marriage of politics and religion, and the attempted reconstruction of American society upon the Old Testament legal code. We lie at a major crossroads in American life. Will we take the wide, more traveled road of hatred, distrust, and fear, or will we take the narrow, less traveled road of love, trust, and hope?
The Christian Right and the Pro-life movement are but two sides of the same coin. "Pro-life!" is the Christian Right's battle cry and banner under which it marches. In light of recent actions (i.e. the murder of an abortion doctor), I do not doubt their opposition to abortion, but I do question whether they are truly pro-life. These people are willing to picket abortion clinics while only a few blocks away children and elderly people are going without meals and medical care. The issue, ultimately, is not abortion; rather, it is responding holistically to the issues surrounding the sanctity of human life.
Just listen to the rhetoric of Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country." Now listen to the words of Jesus, "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get any thing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:35-36).
The Christian Right is also actively seeking the destruction of the historic wall of separation between Church and State in the United States of America. The Republican Party in many areas is becoming more and more the puppet of the Christian Right. Moreover, if any one dare speak up against this "takeover," they are called liberal and against "family values." Michael Kinsley, of the Democratic National Committee, aptly states, "if the religious voices want to be welcome in the debate, they must accept vigorous dissent without identifying it as anti-religious prejudice."
Finally, the issue of Reconstruction and its relation to the Christian Right is most startling. Reconstructionists seek to abolish the Constitution and adopt the Bible, and more specifically the Old Testament, as the direct instrument of government. They set forth an abolishment of democracy and intend to replace it with a rule by the elite. They reject religious freedom as liberal and the American system of separation of church and state as unacceptable. The reality of this occurring is even greater when one realizes that W.A. Criswell, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are deeply tied to this thought. Listen to W.A. Criswell, "there is no such thing as separation of church and state. It is merely a figment of the imagination of infidels." (Thus, Roger Williams, John Leland, and even Criswell's predecessor, George Truett, are all "infidels.")
The Christian Right is neither right nor Christian. Throughout history people have done unspeakable things in the name of Christ, and so it continues today. The Christian Right has sold its soul, abandoning the powerful message of Christ for the illusion of secular power. Jesus warns us even today, "do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6).
I strongly believe in Christian participation in government, but I do not support the Church running the government nor the government running the Church. I wholeheartedly stand against abortion on the basis of the sanctity of human life, but I consider God's sanctification of life to exist outside the womb as well as inside. I stand with firm conviction for living with values, morals, and ethics, but I flee from the Reconstructionists yoke of slavery which nullifies the work of Christ and the grace of God for the re-establishment of the Law. As Christians we are called by Jesus to be Salt and Light in this savorless and dark world, but we must do this according to the standard set forth by Christ, not the methods of the world. "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very form God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:5-8).
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Some More Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Third Maieutic Brief
It is difficult to know where to start writing or thinking when dealing with language. Moreover, the task becomes even more difficult when the focus is placed upon religious language. I have always seemed to struggle with language and its ability to really communicate truth since I was in college. My Greek professor would always say to us, "Words have usage, not meaning" or "Context is the message." Ever since then, I have been intrigued and perplexed about language.
The primary way that I structure reality is through language. And, being that I have a religious world structure, my reality is described through the lens of religious language. But, how is it that I can talk about something that is not empirical? Is the language that I use different from ordinary language in use only or is it qualitatively different? The only way that I have been able to answer this is by accepting both. Somehow, the language that I use for God is similar to ordinary language yet different than ordinary language.
When I talk to someone about God, when I share my faith to a lost person, or when I discuss my ontological views the language that I use is often quite impotent even though the task is very important. The ramifications of this are quite startling when I remember that most or all of my religious language comes from the originary language of Scripture. I do not seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, but in all that it does offer me it always falls short in explaining God or even my existence. However, I am soon caused to remember that God's revelation has been progressive and that God's revelation of Himself is found most fully in Jesus Christ. I am sure that I can talk about God because God has first talked to me.
Eberhard Jungel in God as the Mystery of the World seeks to discover a way to use language when talking about God. In today's world boundaries have been overlapped between religious and scientific language. Jungel states, "the multiple meanings which adhere to our words in daily usage force a science concerned with unambiguity to clarify the various possibilities which language has to call different things by the same name" (Jungel, 268). Thus, I think that Jungle contends that by matter of fact language can refer to two totally different things by the same name. But, what do I do now when I talk about God? What if someone is thinking about something totally different than my concept of God? Jungel attempts to answer this question by determining that there are three different types of predications or three ways to view language when talking about God.
The first of these predications is to view language as univocal. When I view language as univocal, I consider the sameness of things or that language is the same whether talking about trees or talking about God. This view does attract itself to me on the basis of its simplicity. It would be grand if I could talk to someone else about God the same way I can talk to someone about being human. The logic of this statement and view of language falls apart when I consider the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. Univocal language denies the transcendent nature of God. It makes all things immanent, there is no room for an "other than".
The second predication is to view language as equivocal. Equivocal language is totally opposite from univocal language. This view of language makes all things different and unique. It allows me to use the word "God" but does not allow me to define "God." Equivocal language also falls short when I consider the Incarnation. Equivocal language only has room for total transcendence, therefore there is no room for an Incarnation. Ultimately, I think that this view of language leads to a possible linguistic atheism.
In light of these two extremes, Jungel purports a third view of language -- Analogy. Analogy is a synthesis, a model of similarity. This view of language takes a more utilitarian and realistic view. Though things are the same, they are different; and even though things are different, they are at the same time somehow the same. When I use the word "tree" I have a specific image in my mind of a tree that is unique. When I communicate the idea of a tree, though the images are different in each mind, they are still somehow the same. It is my contention that this thought is allowable when thinking "God" because of the analogous use of language. Analogy allows me to talk about God while insuring the transcendence of God.
Yandall Woodfin also has much to say about language and meaning in his chapter, "The Sound of Meaning." Woodfin sees the reality of language as only found in relationships. He states, "One can invent artificial vocables or signs but these are used intelligently only when these are employed within some previously articulated pattern or transpire within established coherent linguistic relationships" (Woodfin, 129). Thus, my Greek professor was not totally correct in his statement, "Words have usage, not meaning." Indeed, words have meaning in and of themselves but these meanings would be incoherent if used outside of particular patterns. Hence, the sentence, "Eat cap page blue cloud run while the switch be wood" makes no sense at all even though the words do have individual meaning.
Woodfin concludes his chapter in an enlightening statement which makes further distinction between religious language and Christian language. Religious language for the Christian is to be used primarily in a function. I am glad to hear a philosopher restate emphatically the goal of proclamation. Language is not just a thing for the Christian, it is a way to make the world a brighter place. I proclaim the Gospel, I use religious language, and speak about meaning in Christ, "in the hope that the spiritual affinities between the biblical and contemporary situation will coalesce in a gracious illuminating moment" (Woodfin, 143). Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the light of the world and I believe with Dr. Woodfin that when this Word is proclaimed and believed the world will become a brighter place for all humanity.
Dr. Newport has much to say about the questions surrounding meaning and religious language. The biblical language is indeed a unique language. I not only believe this in faith, but I also agree with Newport that, "historical events are revelatory only when they are accompanied by the revelatory word." He continues, "it should be noted that God sometimes reveals himself by words alone through inspired biblical writers" (Newport, 118). I hope that I do not disagree to much with, but in the end I must place my emphasis upon a faith relationship with God rather than the revelatory truth of Scripture. I do not mind being called a person of the Book since the Bible is primarily personal and redemptive; but, I would much rather be known as "one being in Christ" and "a person of the Way."
I was greatly intrigued by the article written by Soskice. She contends that behind the metaphors used in both science and religion, the base issue is finding, "the way in which language may mirror or fit the world" (Soskice, 325). She has shown me that when I use religious language I need to realize that the problems which I have are not unique to me. Even though I am attempting to speak or write about a God who transcends the boundaries of knowledge, I am somehow capable of depicting the reality of God.
In the end, I do believe that language is capable of expressing truth but only in a limited way. However, God knows the limitations of language. The paradox is evident especially in religious language. Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead yet he emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Perhaps the only way to express reality is through the use of paradoxical language; furthermore, perhaps reality is paradoxical in itself!
It is difficult to know where to start writing or thinking when dealing with language. Moreover, the task becomes even more difficult when the focus is placed upon religious language. I have always seemed to struggle with language and its ability to really communicate truth since I was in college. My Greek professor would always say to us, "Words have usage, not meaning" or "Context is the message." Ever since then, I have been intrigued and perplexed about language.
The primary way that I structure reality is through language. And, being that I have a religious world structure, my reality is described through the lens of religious language. But, how is it that I can talk about something that is not empirical? Is the language that I use different from ordinary language in use only or is it qualitatively different? The only way that I have been able to answer this is by accepting both. Somehow, the language that I use for God is similar to ordinary language yet different than ordinary language.
When I talk to someone about God, when I share my faith to a lost person, or when I discuss my ontological views the language that I use is often quite impotent even though the task is very important. The ramifications of this are quite startling when I remember that most or all of my religious language comes from the originary language of Scripture. I do not seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, but in all that it does offer me it always falls short in explaining God or even my existence. However, I am soon caused to remember that God's revelation has been progressive and that God's revelation of Himself is found most fully in Jesus Christ. I am sure that I can talk about God because God has first talked to me.
Eberhard Jungel in God as the Mystery of the World seeks to discover a way to use language when talking about God. In today's world boundaries have been overlapped between religious and scientific language. Jungel states, "the multiple meanings which adhere to our words in daily usage force a science concerned with unambiguity to clarify the various possibilities which language has to call different things by the same name" (Jungel, 268). Thus, I think that Jungle contends that by matter of fact language can refer to two totally different things by the same name. But, what do I do now when I talk about God? What if someone is thinking about something totally different than my concept of God? Jungel attempts to answer this question by determining that there are three different types of predications or three ways to view language when talking about God.
The first of these predications is to view language as univocal. When I view language as univocal, I consider the sameness of things or that language is the same whether talking about trees or talking about God. This view does attract itself to me on the basis of its simplicity. It would be grand if I could talk to someone else about God the same way I can talk to someone about being human. The logic of this statement and view of language falls apart when I consider the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. Univocal language denies the transcendent nature of God. It makes all things immanent, there is no room for an "other than".
The second predication is to view language as equivocal. Equivocal language is totally opposite from univocal language. This view of language makes all things different and unique. It allows me to use the word "God" but does not allow me to define "God." Equivocal language also falls short when I consider the Incarnation. Equivocal language only has room for total transcendence, therefore there is no room for an Incarnation. Ultimately, I think that this view of language leads to a possible linguistic atheism.
In light of these two extremes, Jungel purports a third view of language -- Analogy. Analogy is a synthesis, a model of similarity. This view of language takes a more utilitarian and realistic view. Though things are the same, they are different; and even though things are different, they are at the same time somehow the same. When I use the word "tree" I have a specific image in my mind of a tree that is unique. When I communicate the idea of a tree, though the images are different in each mind, they are still somehow the same. It is my contention that this thought is allowable when thinking "God" because of the analogous use of language. Analogy allows me to talk about God while insuring the transcendence of God.
Yandall Woodfin also has much to say about language and meaning in his chapter, "The Sound of Meaning." Woodfin sees the reality of language as only found in relationships. He states, "One can invent artificial vocables or signs but these are used intelligently only when these are employed within some previously articulated pattern or transpire within established coherent linguistic relationships" (Woodfin, 129). Thus, my Greek professor was not totally correct in his statement, "Words have usage, not meaning." Indeed, words have meaning in and of themselves but these meanings would be incoherent if used outside of particular patterns. Hence, the sentence, "Eat cap page blue cloud run while the switch be wood" makes no sense at all even though the words do have individual meaning.
Woodfin concludes his chapter in an enlightening statement which makes further distinction between religious language and Christian language. Religious language for the Christian is to be used primarily in a function. I am glad to hear a philosopher restate emphatically the goal of proclamation. Language is not just a thing for the Christian, it is a way to make the world a brighter place. I proclaim the Gospel, I use religious language, and speak about meaning in Christ, "in the hope that the spiritual affinities between the biblical and contemporary situation will coalesce in a gracious illuminating moment" (Woodfin, 143). Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the light of the world and I believe with Dr. Woodfin that when this Word is proclaimed and believed the world will become a brighter place for all humanity.
Dr. Newport has much to say about the questions surrounding meaning and religious language. The biblical language is indeed a unique language. I not only believe this in faith, but I also agree with Newport that, "historical events are revelatory only when they are accompanied by the revelatory word." He continues, "it should be noted that God sometimes reveals himself by words alone through inspired biblical writers" (Newport, 118). I hope that I do not disagree to much with, but in the end I must place my emphasis upon a faith relationship with God rather than the revelatory truth of Scripture. I do not mind being called a person of the Book since the Bible is primarily personal and redemptive; but, I would much rather be known as "one being in Christ" and "a person of the Way."
I was greatly intrigued by the article written by Soskice. She contends that behind the metaphors used in both science and religion, the base issue is finding, "the way in which language may mirror or fit the world" (Soskice, 325). She has shown me that when I use religious language I need to realize that the problems which I have are not unique to me. Even though I am attempting to speak or write about a God who transcends the boundaries of knowledge, I am somehow capable of depicting the reality of God.
In the end, I do believe that language is capable of expressing truth but only in a limited way. However, God knows the limitations of language. The paradox is evident especially in religious language. Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead yet he emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Perhaps the only way to express reality is through the use of paradoxical language; furthermore, perhaps reality is paradoxical in itself!
Friday, August 17, 2007
Some More Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Second Maieutic Brief
Philip Clayton attempts, I think, to deal with the fact that as Christians we often try to explain our faith using scientific language; yet, rarely hold ourselves to firm scientific standards. I am convinced that this is his claim, "when persons do treat religious beliefs as explanations, they rarely proceed according to the highest scientific standards" (Clayton, 103). The immediate dilemma for me is two-fold. Can the reasons and explanations I give for my faith be according to the standards of another system? Can the faith that I hold to and live by even be explained rationally?
I do not think that a simple "yes" or "no" solution can answer these epistemological inquiries. The world in which I live is permeated by many different world structures. These influencing factors include religion, science, relationships, and life experiences. The reasons that I give for my faith are often given using the languages of other structures. Because I have been exposed to many ways to look at reality, I do think it is capable, in a limited way, to explain my faith according to the standards of another system. Clayton states something rather similar, "in reality, a vast array of nonrational factors exert their influences in actual cases of religious commitment" (Clayton, 117).
The second question that I established for myself is not easily answered. This question is what I consider to be the basis of all epistemological discussions. It is not a matter of whether faith exists or whether reason is capable. The issue is over how these two relate to each other. This question has great impact upon my concept of evangelism. When I seek to share my faith with someone, I am asking that person to reject their world view and accept mine. How I explain and give reasons for my faith, my world view, is directly impacted by the languages of many different structures. I do believe that I can express my faith using reason, but I do not think that my faith is all reason. This could be similar to Clayton's comment, "the objects of religious belief and experience may well lie beyond human grasp, but complexes of religious meaning and belief need not" (Clayton, 113). In the end, I think I can explain my faith somewhat by using reason and scientific language, but any attempt for me to explain God fully will fall short in light of the holiness of God.
John Newport carries this discussion into the realm of practice and modern day application. For several decades now the issue of the relationship between science and a Biblical world view has been hotly debated. I am afraid, though, that in the last several years there has been only screaming and no listening nor dialogue.
From the side of ultra-conservative or fundamentalist Christianity, only heated words, hate mail, and bomb threats have been presented. This perspective sees no alternative to a rigid view of literal creation seen in Genesis. Periodicals, textbooks, and entire schools have been established to support "an anti-evolutionist and biblically literal creationist position" (Newport, 122). These people argue for equal time in presenting both views, yet once they are in control only creationism will be taught. I can understand the fears and deep emotions rooted in this discussion but this is no excuse for hatred, slander, and threats!
The scientific, or more importantly, the evolutionist perspective, has just as much guilt and is equally blameable for the modern polarization. Modern scientists have forgotten their own past. Newport agrees further, "it should be noted that the Protestant Reformation made an important contribution to the new science" (Newport, 128). Many scientists who hold to an evolutionist perspective have not been faithful to their own scientific method. The scientific method has proven "microevolution," but, in spite of what some scientists say, "macroevolution" is not proven by scientific theory. Modern scientists must remain faithful to the scientific method, rather than making unprovable hypotheses in absolutist language.
There must be made room for dialogue, or both sides of the debate will loose, and even worse forsake their own purpose. The Christian perspective must include proper hermeneutic principles applied to the Genesis account. The answer, "because the Bible says so!" is not enough, we must explain our reasons in a logical and proper manner. The scientific community must also stay away from making assumptions rather than deductions! They need to recognize that an attack on macroevolution is not necessarily an attack on microevolution (Newport, 139). The increasing tendency towards polarization can be turned around if the Christian community would act first in love, redemption, and humility (Christlikeness) and the scientific community would remain faithful to its own methods and avoid improper and premature reasoning. In this, inter and intra-community dialogue will be possible and profitable for both sides!
Yandall Woodfin has much to say about finding a theory of knowledge or epistemology. I find his analogy of Winnie the Pooh very similar to my own pilgrimage through this land of faith and reason. I have many times joined the hunting or searching not knowing quite what it was I was looking for. Furthermore, as I continued the journey around and around and around, I became convinced that what I was seeking was awesome in size and strategic in importance. Until, out of the Sacred Blue, God's voice of reason, or the voice of His messenger, says, "Silly old Bear, what were you doing?" (Woodfin, 17). I had gotten myself into such a tizzy that I did not even know where I began or where I would end.
Dr. Woodfin properly states, " . . . there is always the danger that one will become so involved in the process of knowing that one will distort what is being known" (Woodfin, 18). I have discovered for myself through the experiences of this life, that knowing God and knowing that what I know are really two sides of the same coin. This coin that I flip daily is that of reality. What is real and how do I know it once I have found it? The reason that I do not get bogged down here anymore is out of epistemological humility. I am not the first to ask this question and will not be the last. Many great thinkers have come this way and enlightened the path, while others have wandered from the path and were lost forever in skepticism. I agree with Woodfin, the issue for me is not that I know God and I know that I know, the issue is being known by Him (Woodfin, 36-37).
Alvin Plantinga and Terrence Tilley seem to be on opposing sides. More specifically, Tilley appears to be confronting Plantinga and other reformed epistemologists for offering no proof in their contention that belief in God is properly basic (Tilley, 237 and Plantinga, 93). In this argument, I tend to lean more towards Tilley than Plantinga. It seems to me that a reformed epistemology assumes too much in the beginning to build a proper epistemology. This position tends to depend, I contend, more upon presupposition rather than philosophical inquiry. Plantinga seems to make possible the acceptance of any god (Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, et.al.) without reason or inquiry. In the end, his illustration of the Great Pumpkin tends to take away from his syllogism rather than support it (Plantinga, 104).
I believe firmly with Tilley when he establishes the inconsistency of hyper-fundamentalists, who often associate with a reformed epistemology (Tilley, 253). Tilley, I allege, takes more into consideration than just the scriptures (not viewing this negatively). We all take into our religious decisions a lifetime of experiences, community expectations, and subjective reasoning. Using the approach of Tilley, it is possible both to dialogue and to persuade others within the religious community, and those without. Over two-thirds of the world does not know the God of Christian theists, it would be quite improper to assume that their god and my God are united in a belief that is properly basic! It is my contention that this does not weaken or destroy my faith in God, rather it reminds me that my faith was born of a community and remains in a community; not in isolation from the world!
Philip Clayton attempts, I think, to deal with the fact that as Christians we often try to explain our faith using scientific language; yet, rarely hold ourselves to firm scientific standards. I am convinced that this is his claim, "when persons do treat religious beliefs as explanations, they rarely proceed according to the highest scientific standards" (Clayton, 103). The immediate dilemma for me is two-fold. Can the reasons and explanations I give for my faith be according to the standards of another system? Can the faith that I hold to and live by even be explained rationally?
I do not think that a simple "yes" or "no" solution can answer these epistemological inquiries. The world in which I live is permeated by many different world structures. These influencing factors include religion, science, relationships, and life experiences. The reasons that I give for my faith are often given using the languages of other structures. Because I have been exposed to many ways to look at reality, I do think it is capable, in a limited way, to explain my faith according to the standards of another system. Clayton states something rather similar, "in reality, a vast array of nonrational factors exert their influences in actual cases of religious commitment" (Clayton, 117).
The second question that I established for myself is not easily answered. This question is what I consider to be the basis of all epistemological discussions. It is not a matter of whether faith exists or whether reason is capable. The issue is over how these two relate to each other. This question has great impact upon my concept of evangelism. When I seek to share my faith with someone, I am asking that person to reject their world view and accept mine. How I explain and give reasons for my faith, my world view, is directly impacted by the languages of many different structures. I do believe that I can express my faith using reason, but I do not think that my faith is all reason. This could be similar to Clayton's comment, "the objects of religious belief and experience may well lie beyond human grasp, but complexes of religious meaning and belief need not" (Clayton, 113). In the end, I think I can explain my faith somewhat by using reason and scientific language, but any attempt for me to explain God fully will fall short in light of the holiness of God.
John Newport carries this discussion into the realm of practice and modern day application. For several decades now the issue of the relationship between science and a Biblical world view has been hotly debated. I am afraid, though, that in the last several years there has been only screaming and no listening nor dialogue.
From the side of ultra-conservative or fundamentalist Christianity, only heated words, hate mail, and bomb threats have been presented. This perspective sees no alternative to a rigid view of literal creation seen in Genesis. Periodicals, textbooks, and entire schools have been established to support "an anti-evolutionist and biblically literal creationist position" (Newport, 122). These people argue for equal time in presenting both views, yet once they are in control only creationism will be taught. I can understand the fears and deep emotions rooted in this discussion but this is no excuse for hatred, slander, and threats!
The scientific, or more importantly, the evolutionist perspective, has just as much guilt and is equally blameable for the modern polarization. Modern scientists have forgotten their own past. Newport agrees further, "it should be noted that the Protestant Reformation made an important contribution to the new science" (Newport, 128). Many scientists who hold to an evolutionist perspective have not been faithful to their own scientific method. The scientific method has proven "microevolution," but, in spite of what some scientists say, "macroevolution" is not proven by scientific theory. Modern scientists must remain faithful to the scientific method, rather than making unprovable hypotheses in absolutist language.
There must be made room for dialogue, or both sides of the debate will loose, and even worse forsake their own purpose. The Christian perspective must include proper hermeneutic principles applied to the Genesis account. The answer, "because the Bible says so!" is not enough, we must explain our reasons in a logical and proper manner. The scientific community must also stay away from making assumptions rather than deductions! They need to recognize that an attack on macroevolution is not necessarily an attack on microevolution (Newport, 139). The increasing tendency towards polarization can be turned around if the Christian community would act first in love, redemption, and humility (Christlikeness) and the scientific community would remain faithful to its own methods and avoid improper and premature reasoning. In this, inter and intra-community dialogue will be possible and profitable for both sides!
Yandall Woodfin has much to say about finding a theory of knowledge or epistemology. I find his analogy of Winnie the Pooh very similar to my own pilgrimage through this land of faith and reason. I have many times joined the hunting or searching not knowing quite what it was I was looking for. Furthermore, as I continued the journey around and around and around, I became convinced that what I was seeking was awesome in size and strategic in importance. Until, out of the Sacred Blue, God's voice of reason, or the voice of His messenger, says, "Silly old Bear, what were you doing?" (Woodfin, 17). I had gotten myself into such a tizzy that I did not even know where I began or where I would end.
Dr. Woodfin properly states, " . . . there is always the danger that one will become so involved in the process of knowing that one will distort what is being known" (Woodfin, 18). I have discovered for myself through the experiences of this life, that knowing God and knowing that what I know are really two sides of the same coin. This coin that I flip daily is that of reality. What is real and how do I know it once I have found it? The reason that I do not get bogged down here anymore is out of epistemological humility. I am not the first to ask this question and will not be the last. Many great thinkers have come this way and enlightened the path, while others have wandered from the path and were lost forever in skepticism. I agree with Woodfin, the issue for me is not that I know God and I know that I know, the issue is being known by Him (Woodfin, 36-37).
Alvin Plantinga and Terrence Tilley seem to be on opposing sides. More specifically, Tilley appears to be confronting Plantinga and other reformed epistemologists for offering no proof in their contention that belief in God is properly basic (Tilley, 237 and Plantinga, 93). In this argument, I tend to lean more towards Tilley than Plantinga. It seems to me that a reformed epistemology assumes too much in the beginning to build a proper epistemology. This position tends to depend, I contend, more upon presupposition rather than philosophical inquiry. Plantinga seems to make possible the acceptance of any god (Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, et.al.) without reason or inquiry. In the end, his illustration of the Great Pumpkin tends to take away from his syllogism rather than support it (Plantinga, 104).
I believe firmly with Tilley when he establishes the inconsistency of hyper-fundamentalists, who often associate with a reformed epistemology (Tilley, 253). Tilley, I allege, takes more into consideration than just the scriptures (not viewing this negatively). We all take into our religious decisions a lifetime of experiences, community expectations, and subjective reasoning. Using the approach of Tilley, it is possible both to dialogue and to persuade others within the religious community, and those without. Over two-thirds of the world does not know the God of Christian theists, it would be quite improper to assume that their god and my God are united in a belief that is properly basic! It is my contention that this does not weaken or destroy my faith in God, rather it reminds me that my faith was born of a community and remains in a community; not in isolation from the world!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Some Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Maieutic Brief
David Tracy attempts, I contend, to deal with the fact that we all have presuppositions in interpretation and that a total vacuum for interpretation has never existed. I suppose that this is what he is saying by, "The claim is not the claim that ideal speech actually exists. The claim is that this is what ideal speech would be if it ever existed" (Tracy 26). My problem is that I have to apply this to my language, to my structure, to my religious imagination, indeed, to myself.
I understand this to impact the two great loves in my life. No matter how often I try to tell my wife how much I love her, she could never fully and completely understand. I have my idea of love and she has her idea of love. Although our language may be similar, I cannot say exactly how I love her. So how does she know at all? She knows because I gave her, and still give her, my life.
I see this to be similar to the progressive revelation of God in history compared to the Incarnation of God in Christ. Throughout history God was revealing Himself (I must use the patriarchal language of Scripture here) in incomplete, yet adequate ways. Throughout history, men and women have responded in faith to this revelation. However, even as God spoke to Israel and the nations through His prophets, the expression of His love for them was limited by language. Yet, God in the fullness of time did not speak in words, He spoke a Son, the Logos Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). In all humility, this view of language does color my view of scripture as limited by language, but my faith is in the Living Word not the written word.
Peter Berger does an excellent job in dealing with the relationship between religion and world-construction and world-maintenance. I feel that he does not ignore the role of religion, as many sociologists appear to do, rather he feels that, "religion occupies a distinct place in this enterprise" (Berger 3). I am and will always be in the place of making a world structure and maintaining said structure. Notwithstanding, I do disagree with a hard-line interpretation of his fundamental dialectic process. I do not think that it is possible to have society and its creations (e.g. language) totally objectivated. In a limited scope it is possible, but society and language will always remain subjective by nature. Humanity creates her own cultures and languages, and continues to change them almost daily.
My culture, my world-view, and indeed, my language is made up of me. When I change, my whole world changes. It is impossible by the very nature of the matter to be both subjective and objective (Berger 21). My response to God's revelation of Himself was to create for myself a religion. Albeit, humanity creates religion, God offers us a relationship in faith.
WOW! Dr. Woodfin really did a good job in his chapter, "Christ -- The Clue to Reality." I have found myself to be living from one epistemological/ontological crisis to another, similar to what Paul referred to as "being tossed about like the waves." I may never figure out ultimate meaning for my life, but at least I do have Christ who is my clue to Reality!
I have at times found myself asking the same question as the Velveteen Rabbit, "What is Real?" (Woodfin 84). Truly, I have discovered that the Skin Horse is correct. Being real is something that happens to me and becoming real takes a long time. Further, my reality will last forever and I cannot become unreal again. This is part of my world view, my context of reality. Where theology has failed to provide an entrance to reality, faith in Christ has given my religion a metaphysic (Woodfin 84).
T. F. Torrance, quoted by Woodfin (95) has some interesting ideas regarding the Incarnation and its Reality. He contends that the Incarnation did not limit God by space and time. The ramifications of such an idea are far reaching. If we are limited by space/time, then when God relates to us, He too is limited. Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Logos, is God yet also man. There is some Divine Self-limitation in the Incarnation. I struggle to find words that would help explain my reasoning, but there is an uneasiness between corporeal and non-corporeal existence.
At the Incarnation, God has forever been changed. For when the Word became Flesh and later returned to the side of God, humanity became a characteristic of the Trinitarian Union. This is not a belief in a fourth party of the Godhead, but rather the supreme example of God reconciling the world unto Himself. Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word made flesh, has effected redemption by bringing humanity into relationship with God. Therefore, it is only in relation to a historical incarnation of Christ that a Christian discovers a proper epistemology and ontology (95). I acknowledge the realization that at the Fall, humanity lost reality; yet, in Christ humanity is made Real once again!
The two articles in Loades and Rue entitled, "On Grading Religions" and "Can a Buddhist Be a Christian, Too?" addressed and introduced me to the issues surrounding comparing religions. At issue is the fundamental relationship between philosophy and the Christian religion. Can there be a connection between Christianity and other religions? Does Christianity have the right to call itself the only Way in light of so many other ways? These are just a couple of the questions that readily pop into my mind!
I agree with John Hick in his assertion that grading religions shows a mark of seriousness and openness (450). I even agree with his proposed criteria. But, it is with his conclusion that I react negatively. I grew up influenced by a Christian World View, even more specifically, a Southern Baptist World View. I judge other religions not by setting aside my structure; but, instead, by examining the other religions through my world structure. One of the tests by which Hick says we may judge a religion is the founder's character. Here is where I believe Christianity excels. Jesus lived up to the standard which He taught. The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument works well in this situation!
Hick also asserts that the test should judge the ability of the religion to bring about a change of life (462). I fear this is where Christianity may appear to fall tragically short, but to be a fair judge, so do all the rest! Jesus told his disciples that the world would know that He is TRUE by their love for one another! I have fallen short of this because of my choosing to disobey, but in all humility, I am finding it easier to love because of the presence of Jesus in my life.
Hick does such a good job, then blows it all in the last paragraph (469). I agree, it is possible to grade religions. I firmly believe that only Christianity leads to Reality. I agree that the complexity of human existence has established a myriad of religious phenomena. In faith, I state that the only Reality is Jesus Christ. I totally believe that the only transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness can occur in Christ.
John Cobb also falls too quickly and too optimistically into the pluralistic trap. I believe that in his argument not only did he show that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but that in spite of his conclusions, a Buddhist by his own definition cannot accept a Biblical Christ (485). In his argument, Cobb can only prove his statements by redefining terms according to his needs. In a resurgence of Gnosticism, he separates the Man, Jesus, from the Logos, Christ (Cobb 476). The Incarnation is unique in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Logos, not part of a logos infused in all religions.
Finally, Green draws it all together for me by examining the religious imagination. I think that this idea of the imagination is firmly tied to the use of religious language. I view this "imagination" as similar to my structure, my world view. In my imagination, my cosmology, I am united with Christ in the imagination of Love (Green 103). By very nature, God is Love and the change that He brings in my life through the presence of Christ is the ability to love ,like Him, all of humanity. In philosophical humility, I concede defeat, for my imagination, my world structure, is in utter dependence upon the Grace of God.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Autobiographical Ethical Reflections...
Introductory Statement
Finding a staring point for a self-reflection such as this is not easy for me. Before taking this class on ethics, I thought I had dealt with all of the "major" ethical dilemmas in society today. However, as the class began I soon realized that ethics and ethical living is a daily struggle. It is not something to be mastered, but just the opposite, something to be respected and dealt with humbly.
This autobiographical ethical reflection will focus mainly upon some of the larger ethical issues and how they have effected my life over the past semester. It is hoped that this will include an appraisal of the style and approach I use, a development of a decision making method, a discussion of several issues addressed, an honest appraisal of issues still needing development, and a mentioning of any plan of action related to my ethical decision making. I hope to address the specific issues of gambling, human rights, biomedical ethics, business ethics, and sexuality. The intent is to address these topics from a personal, existential perspective.
Gambling
The reason I chose to deal with this topic first is because of my father's active involvement in preventing legalized gambling in the state of Mississippi. Ever since I was an adolescent, I can remember my dad speaking out strongly against the legalization of a lottery, parimutuel wagering, dockside casinos, and even sports betting. The reason why he was and is so vocal is because he is the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Christian Action Commission of the Mississippi Baptist Convention. His job is to deal with the moral and ethical issues facing Baptists in Mississippi. However, as I grew older, I began to realize that he spoke out against gambling not because it was his job, but because the love of Christ compels him.
This had to have been my first ethical teaching that I learned by example. Speaking out against gambling was not an effort to preserve some antiquated Victorian moral code. Gambling is primarily wrong because of its effects on the weak in society. I began to realize that those who suffered from this action were children, the elderly, and the poor. Gambling became unethical for me because it allowed the government to make losers out of its citizens.
In seeking a way to deal with the issue, I first had to establish the focus of the issue. Gambling is quite often disguised in bright lights and extravagant promotional messages, but the corruption lies just beneath the surface. The danger of gambling is twofold, "it is not only harmful but also alluring."1 The scriptures never issue a "thou shalt not" against gambling, but there are principles which indicate that gambling is wrong. The primary principle in question is, "the nature of freedom that a Christian has been granted through relationship with Jesus Christ."2 The principle that I have chosen to adhere to is that the true measure of freedom in Christ is that the good of others motivates me to limit my rights and freedoms. This is best supported by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:9; 8:13; 10:31-33; 10:24.
Not only does gambling violate Biblical principles, but it also has much effect upon society. Gambling often contributes to crime and corruption. It also disrupts the local and state economy. The lives that are wrecked are directly effected by gambling. In the end, there is no justification for gambling. The cost is too high on individuals, family, society, and the economy.
I have chosen to respond to this issue in several ways. First, I am regularly reviewing facts about existing laws regarding gambling. I am also keeping my eyes and ears open to public opinion to combat the lies coming from gambling proponents. I can also testify to others how gambling has caused my father-in-law to loose his retirement. Finally, I will actively support legislative measures, legislators, and law enforcement people who oppose gambling. I realize I have a long way to go on an ever increasing difficult path, but at least I am moving forward.
Human Rights
At first this issue did not seem to even be an ethical issue; however, as I began to reflect more this issue cuts to the core of ethical living. People are suffering around the world at the hands of their own governments. Often times when a person is incarcerated in a foreign prison, torture becomes routine. Women are raped, prisoners are injected with drugs, children are tortured to punish parents, and food and medical care is limited or nonexistent. The violation of human rights is widespread, "a recent survey concludes that 3 billion people in 117 nations . . ., live under governments that are either completely or partially dictatorial."3
The love of Christ compels me to not shut my eyes, ears, and heart to the myriad of people violated daily around the world and even in this nation. I am quickly drawn to the issue of evil and suffering and cry out to God, "why!!!" I want to hide from this reality, but I must face it, "admit its reality, and challenge it."4 In Hebrews 13:3, God through the voice of scripture tells us to remember those in prison and those mistreated because the Church, itself, was born out of suffering.
So what can I do to address such a formidable problem? Again, I believe that principles gleaned from scripture give the best reasons, the most important being that Christ died for all.5 I can support leaders who make human rights a top priority. I can get involved in groups like Amnesty International. From the pulpit, I can preach sermons and inform the laity. Finally, as an active participant in government, I can encourage national response. I agree that, "a great challenge for churches at the end of the twentieth century is to demonstrate a healthy life-style in human relations."6
Biomedical Ethics
The reason why I named this section something other than abortion is because I think we often neglect the entire spectrum of medical issues for the sake of tunnel vision on abortion. In light of the rapidly growing technologies and development of institutions, the combination has resulted in an awesome potential for good but also for evil. It is becoming more and more difficult, "for Christians to ignore or to avoid the consequences of decisions made in the scientific realm."7
Just because we have the ability, should we perform many of the procedures? Should we control birth, control death, control life, and even attempt to control the health care system? This is one of the areas, that because of lack of information and lack of understanding, I will fall short. I think it is honorable to control birth as long as conception is blocked and not terminated. I feel that euthanasia is ultimately murder for the sake of the observer, avoiding the painful reality of death.8 Honestly, I do not even know where to start dealing with "life control" and health care reform!
Probably, the biggest issue in biomedical ethics is abortion right now in our nation. However, I stand neither "Pro-Life" nor "Pro-Choice" because both are right and both are wrong. I choose to stand on the ground of paradox. I must make the decision according to each individual case. The issue for me is a national conflict between sanctity of life and quality of life. Ultimately, I believe abortion should never be used as birth control. However, each person stands before God in determining other cases!
So what can I do? I can emphasize the sanctity of all human life -- born or unborn. I can work behind the scenes to council women not to have abortions. Publicly, I can ask the government not to encourage abortions. Most importantly, I can love and reflect the grace of God that has been shown to me.9 I will try to love and keep my mind open, but I must draw some lines and stand firm on my principles.
Business Ethics
This issue begins with roots in the central issue of whether ethics can be taught. I believe it can be taught and must be taught, but teaching must begin at an early age.10 A survey done by the ICR Survey Research Group states that, "Americans are more likely than ever before to be dishonest with money."11 It seems that the ethical standards of America are dropping, and dropping rapidly.
I can and must respond to the decline in business ethics by doing several things.12 I can lead by example and testify to the presence of Christ in my life by my business and economic dealings. I can speak forth prophetically and challenge the total disregard for the poor, weak, and powerless in economic matters. I can make sure that my finances are clean both personally and in the church. Finally, I can help establish council groups for economic problems and establish a healthy dialogue with business and economic leaders on ethical matters.
Sexuality
I know that this issue is broad, so I will limit my discussion to sexuality expressed in marriage. I would love to deal with the issues of homosexuality, singleness, and abstinence; however, space limits me. I believe totally that sexuality is a gift of God to be expressed in all that this life offers. However, sexual intercourse must be limited solely to people of the opposite sex who have been married.13 The scriptures explicitly state that if a person is not married, they must abstain from intercourse.14
The marriage relationship has been established by God. Marriage provides companionship, procreation, and exists ultimately to support the Kingdom of God. Because my wife and I are Christians, we can distinguish a truly Christian marriage by our intimacy, exclusiveness, faithfulness, and our lasting commitment. Sexually speaking, our marriage must follow the Biblical principle of submission to each other. I will meet my wife's sexual needs, and she will meet my sexual needs. I think that this is the pattern established by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:3-6. Inside the marriage relationship, the sexual possibilities actually increase. Even acts such as oral sex and masturbation have a positive role to play in the marriage expression of sexuality.15
A "Concluding Unscientific Postscript"16
What follows now is a thought developed in My Ethics Journal.17 This class and Dr. Tillman have begun a process that will indeed leave my life remarkably different. Growing up in the home of an ethicist had me believing that I knew all there is to know about ethics and living ethically. This thought is an attempt to record the changes and growth that will occur over the period of the class and possibly beyond. It will also be used to discuss and debate with myself any issues that confront my "pattern" of thinking. I humbling open myself and my "worldview" to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, this will lead to an Understanding of Christian Ethics.
Ethics is the application of the faith life. So how do I respond to this present age? Is this the worst time in human history? I do not think so, but evil is bad enough! I am reminded of a song by TRUTH, "Living Life Upside Down." Its words share the common concern that most Christians have regarding society and culture that have become (and probably always were) extremely secularized and humanistic. The main chorus of the song by TRUTH asks, "what if we've fallen to the bottom of a well, thinking that we've risen to the top of a mountain . . . what if we reach up and touch the ground and find we're living life upside down."18
These words strike hard because they attack my very existence, my hermeneutic of life. How often have I made an error in ethical and moral decisions because my sin nature turned my life upside down? God has made me to be a human; however, sin has made me quite inhumane. If I have lost my moral compass, and my ethical decisions become purely situational, then I am worthless, only to be thrown out and trampled on by the feet of this world. But, my moral and ethical "North" is YHWH, revealed in Christ Jesus. With God in Christ and Christ in me, a correctness and oughtness may be found, but only in deep humility. Thus, in Christ I become salt and light, the savor and direction of this dark and dreary land. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light, it is Jesus Christ the Lord.
1 Issues & Answers: Gambling (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993), 1. Consider also the picture and caption in Life, 2 October 1979, 144.
2 Paul Griffin Jones, II, "The Christian and the Casino," Salt & Light (7 September/October 1994), 1.
3 Issues & Answers: Human Rights (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993), 1.
4 Ibid, 3.
5 William M. Tillman and Timothy D. Gilbert, Christian Ethics: A Primer (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986), 89.
6 William M. Tillman, ed. Understanding Christian Ethics: An Interpretive Approach (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 160.
7 Tillman, Christian Ethics: A Primer, 113.
8 See also Critical Issues: Euthanasia (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994) and David C. Egner, ed. Morals for Mortals (Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, n.d.), 35-46.
9 I agree with some of Critical Issues: What the Bible Teaches About Abortion (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994), but some of the responses recommended defeat the issue and begin to seek too much political power rather than Kingdom of God power.
10 Class discussion early in the semester led me to come to this conclusion.
11 Beth Holmes, "For Your Information," Salt & Light (7 September/October 1994), 2.
12 See Issues & Answers: Business Ethics (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.), 5.
13 For helpful information see Tillman, Christian Ethics: A Primer, 69-79.
14 See important discussion in Critical Issues: A Case for Abstinence (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1991).
15 For helpful and insightful information see Clifford and Joyce Penner, The Gift of Sex (Waco: Word Books, 1981) and Susan E. Davies and Elanor H. Haney, eds. Redefining Sexual Ethics (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991).
16 This conclusion heading is chosen under the influence of Søren Kierkegaard and his influence on H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), 230-256.
17 Paul Griffin Jones, III, "My Ethics Journal" (Fort Worth: n.p., 1994).
18 TRUTH, So Far, So Good, excerpts read by the author, cassette C02091, Benson, 1992.
Critical Issues: A Case for Abstinence. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1991.
Critical Issues: Euthanasia. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994.
Critical Issues: What the Bible Teaches About Abortion. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994.
Davies, Susan E. and Elanor H. Haney, eds. Redefining Sexual Ethics. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991.
Egner, David C. ed. Morals for Mortals. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, n.d.
Holmes, Beth. "For Your Information." Salt & Light. 7 September/October 1994, 2-4.
Issues & Answers: Biomedical Ethics. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Issues & Answers: Business Ethics. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Issues & Answers: Gambling. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993.
Issues & Answers: Human Rights. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Jones, Paul Griffin, II. "The Christian and the Casino." Salt & Light. 7 September/October 1994, 1.
Jones, Paul Griffin, III. "My Ethics Journal." Fort Worth: n.p., 1994.
Life. 2 October 1979, 144.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper and Row, 1951. Penner, Clifford and Joyce. The Gift of Sex. Waco: Word Books, 1981.
Tillman, William M., ed. Understanding Christian Ethics: An Interpretive Approach. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988.
Tillman, William M. and Timothy D. Gilbert. Christian Ethics: A Primer. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986.
TRUTH. So Far, So Good. Excerpts read by the author. Cassette C02091. Benson, 1992.
Introductory Statement
Finding a staring point for a self-reflection such as this is not easy for me. Before taking this class on ethics, I thought I had dealt with all of the "major" ethical dilemmas in society today. However, as the class began I soon realized that ethics and ethical living is a daily struggle. It is not something to be mastered, but just the opposite, something to be respected and dealt with humbly.
This autobiographical ethical reflection will focus mainly upon some of the larger ethical issues and how they have effected my life over the past semester. It is hoped that this will include an appraisal of the style and approach I use, a development of a decision making method, a discussion of several issues addressed, an honest appraisal of issues still needing development, and a mentioning of any plan of action related to my ethical decision making. I hope to address the specific issues of gambling, human rights, biomedical ethics, business ethics, and sexuality. The intent is to address these topics from a personal, existential perspective.
Gambling
The reason I chose to deal with this topic first is because of my father's active involvement in preventing legalized gambling in the state of Mississippi. Ever since I was an adolescent, I can remember my dad speaking out strongly against the legalization of a lottery, parimutuel wagering, dockside casinos, and even sports betting. The reason why he was and is so vocal is because he is the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Christian Action Commission of the Mississippi Baptist Convention. His job is to deal with the moral and ethical issues facing Baptists in Mississippi. However, as I grew older, I began to realize that he spoke out against gambling not because it was his job, but because the love of Christ compels him.
This had to have been my first ethical teaching that I learned by example. Speaking out against gambling was not an effort to preserve some antiquated Victorian moral code. Gambling is primarily wrong because of its effects on the weak in society. I began to realize that those who suffered from this action were children, the elderly, and the poor. Gambling became unethical for me because it allowed the government to make losers out of its citizens.
In seeking a way to deal with the issue, I first had to establish the focus of the issue. Gambling is quite often disguised in bright lights and extravagant promotional messages, but the corruption lies just beneath the surface. The danger of gambling is twofold, "it is not only harmful but also alluring."1 The scriptures never issue a "thou shalt not" against gambling, but there are principles which indicate that gambling is wrong. The primary principle in question is, "the nature of freedom that a Christian has been granted through relationship with Jesus Christ."2 The principle that I have chosen to adhere to is that the true measure of freedom in Christ is that the good of others motivates me to limit my rights and freedoms. This is best supported by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:9; 8:13; 10:31-33; 10:24.
Not only does gambling violate Biblical principles, but it also has much effect upon society. Gambling often contributes to crime and corruption. It also disrupts the local and state economy. The lives that are wrecked are directly effected by gambling. In the end, there is no justification for gambling. The cost is too high on individuals, family, society, and the economy.
I have chosen to respond to this issue in several ways. First, I am regularly reviewing facts about existing laws regarding gambling. I am also keeping my eyes and ears open to public opinion to combat the lies coming from gambling proponents. I can also testify to others how gambling has caused my father-in-law to loose his retirement. Finally, I will actively support legislative measures, legislators, and law enforcement people who oppose gambling. I realize I have a long way to go on an ever increasing difficult path, but at least I am moving forward.
Human Rights
At first this issue did not seem to even be an ethical issue; however, as I began to reflect more this issue cuts to the core of ethical living. People are suffering around the world at the hands of their own governments. Often times when a person is incarcerated in a foreign prison, torture becomes routine. Women are raped, prisoners are injected with drugs, children are tortured to punish parents, and food and medical care is limited or nonexistent. The violation of human rights is widespread, "a recent survey concludes that 3 billion people in 117 nations . . ., live under governments that are either completely or partially dictatorial."3
The love of Christ compels me to not shut my eyes, ears, and heart to the myriad of people violated daily around the world and even in this nation. I am quickly drawn to the issue of evil and suffering and cry out to God, "why!!!" I want to hide from this reality, but I must face it, "admit its reality, and challenge it."4 In Hebrews 13:3, God through the voice of scripture tells us to remember those in prison and those mistreated because the Church, itself, was born out of suffering.
So what can I do to address such a formidable problem? Again, I believe that principles gleaned from scripture give the best reasons, the most important being that Christ died for all.5 I can support leaders who make human rights a top priority. I can get involved in groups like Amnesty International. From the pulpit, I can preach sermons and inform the laity. Finally, as an active participant in government, I can encourage national response. I agree that, "a great challenge for churches at the end of the twentieth century is to demonstrate a healthy life-style in human relations."6
Biomedical Ethics
The reason why I named this section something other than abortion is because I think we often neglect the entire spectrum of medical issues for the sake of tunnel vision on abortion. In light of the rapidly growing technologies and development of institutions, the combination has resulted in an awesome potential for good but also for evil. It is becoming more and more difficult, "for Christians to ignore or to avoid the consequences of decisions made in the scientific realm."7
Just because we have the ability, should we perform many of the procedures? Should we control birth, control death, control life, and even attempt to control the health care system? This is one of the areas, that because of lack of information and lack of understanding, I will fall short. I think it is honorable to control birth as long as conception is blocked and not terminated. I feel that euthanasia is ultimately murder for the sake of the observer, avoiding the painful reality of death.8 Honestly, I do not even know where to start dealing with "life control" and health care reform!
Probably, the biggest issue in biomedical ethics is abortion right now in our nation. However, I stand neither "Pro-Life" nor "Pro-Choice" because both are right and both are wrong. I choose to stand on the ground of paradox. I must make the decision according to each individual case. The issue for me is a national conflict between sanctity of life and quality of life. Ultimately, I believe abortion should never be used as birth control. However, each person stands before God in determining other cases!
So what can I do? I can emphasize the sanctity of all human life -- born or unborn. I can work behind the scenes to council women not to have abortions. Publicly, I can ask the government not to encourage abortions. Most importantly, I can love and reflect the grace of God that has been shown to me.9 I will try to love and keep my mind open, but I must draw some lines and stand firm on my principles.
Business Ethics
This issue begins with roots in the central issue of whether ethics can be taught. I believe it can be taught and must be taught, but teaching must begin at an early age.10 A survey done by the ICR Survey Research Group states that, "Americans are more likely than ever before to be dishonest with money."11 It seems that the ethical standards of America are dropping, and dropping rapidly.
I can and must respond to the decline in business ethics by doing several things.12 I can lead by example and testify to the presence of Christ in my life by my business and economic dealings. I can speak forth prophetically and challenge the total disregard for the poor, weak, and powerless in economic matters. I can make sure that my finances are clean both personally and in the church. Finally, I can help establish council groups for economic problems and establish a healthy dialogue with business and economic leaders on ethical matters.
Sexuality
I know that this issue is broad, so I will limit my discussion to sexuality expressed in marriage. I would love to deal with the issues of homosexuality, singleness, and abstinence; however, space limits me. I believe totally that sexuality is a gift of God to be expressed in all that this life offers. However, sexual intercourse must be limited solely to people of the opposite sex who have been married.13 The scriptures explicitly state that if a person is not married, they must abstain from intercourse.14
The marriage relationship has been established by God. Marriage provides companionship, procreation, and exists ultimately to support the Kingdom of God. Because my wife and I are Christians, we can distinguish a truly Christian marriage by our intimacy, exclusiveness, faithfulness, and our lasting commitment. Sexually speaking, our marriage must follow the Biblical principle of submission to each other. I will meet my wife's sexual needs, and she will meet my sexual needs. I think that this is the pattern established by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:3-6. Inside the marriage relationship, the sexual possibilities actually increase. Even acts such as oral sex and masturbation have a positive role to play in the marriage expression of sexuality.15
A "Concluding Unscientific Postscript"16
What follows now is a thought developed in My Ethics Journal.17 This class and Dr. Tillman have begun a process that will indeed leave my life remarkably different. Growing up in the home of an ethicist had me believing that I knew all there is to know about ethics and living ethically. This thought is an attempt to record the changes and growth that will occur over the period of the class and possibly beyond. It will also be used to discuss and debate with myself any issues that confront my "pattern" of thinking. I humbling open myself and my "worldview" to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, this will lead to an Understanding of Christian Ethics.
Ethics is the application of the faith life. So how do I respond to this present age? Is this the worst time in human history? I do not think so, but evil is bad enough! I am reminded of a song by TRUTH, "Living Life Upside Down." Its words share the common concern that most Christians have regarding society and culture that have become (and probably always were) extremely secularized and humanistic. The main chorus of the song by TRUTH asks, "what if we've fallen to the bottom of a well, thinking that we've risen to the top of a mountain . . . what if we reach up and touch the ground and find we're living life upside down."18
These words strike hard because they attack my very existence, my hermeneutic of life. How often have I made an error in ethical and moral decisions because my sin nature turned my life upside down? God has made me to be a human; however, sin has made me quite inhumane. If I have lost my moral compass, and my ethical decisions become purely situational, then I am worthless, only to be thrown out and trampled on by the feet of this world. But, my moral and ethical "North" is YHWH, revealed in Christ Jesus. With God in Christ and Christ in me, a correctness and oughtness may be found, but only in deep humility. Thus, in Christ I become salt and light, the savor and direction of this dark and dreary land. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light, it is Jesus Christ the Lord.
ENDNOTES
1 Issues & Answers: Gambling (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993), 1. Consider also the picture and caption in Life, 2 October 1979, 144.
2 Paul Griffin Jones, II, "The Christian and the Casino," Salt & Light (7 September/October 1994), 1.
3 Issues & Answers: Human Rights (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993), 1.
4 Ibid, 3.
5 William M. Tillman and Timothy D. Gilbert, Christian Ethics: A Primer (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986), 89.
6 William M. Tillman, ed. Understanding Christian Ethics: An Interpretive Approach (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 160.
7 Tillman, Christian Ethics: A Primer, 113.
8 See also Critical Issues: Euthanasia (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994) and David C. Egner, ed. Morals for Mortals (Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, n.d.), 35-46.
9 I agree with some of Critical Issues: What the Bible Teaches About Abortion (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994), but some of the responses recommended defeat the issue and begin to seek too much political power rather than Kingdom of God power.
10 Class discussion early in the semester led me to come to this conclusion.
11 Beth Holmes, "For Your Information," Salt & Light (7 September/October 1994), 2.
12 See Issues & Answers: Business Ethics (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.), 5.
13 For helpful information see Tillman, Christian Ethics: A Primer, 69-79.
14 See important discussion in Critical Issues: A Case for Abstinence (Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1991).
15 For helpful and insightful information see Clifford and Joyce Penner, The Gift of Sex (Waco: Word Books, 1981) and Susan E. Davies and Elanor H. Haney, eds. Redefining Sexual Ethics (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991).
16 This conclusion heading is chosen under the influence of Søren Kierkegaard and his influence on H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951), 230-256.
17 Paul Griffin Jones, III, "My Ethics Journal" (Fort Worth: n.p., 1994).
18 TRUTH, So Far, So Good, excerpts read by the author, cassette C02091, Benson, 1992.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Critical Issues: A Case for Abstinence. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1991.
Critical Issues: Euthanasia. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994.
Critical Issues: What the Bible Teaches About Abortion. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1994.
Davies, Susan E. and Elanor H. Haney, eds. Redefining Sexual Ethics. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991.
Egner, David C. ed. Morals for Mortals. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, n.d.
Holmes, Beth. "For Your Information." Salt & Light. 7 September/October 1994, 2-4.
Issues & Answers: Biomedical Ethics. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Issues & Answers: Business Ethics. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Issues & Answers: Gambling. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1993.
Issues & Answers: Human Rights. Nashville: The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, n.d.
Jones, Paul Griffin, II. "The Christian and the Casino." Salt & Light. 7 September/October 1994, 1.
Jones, Paul Griffin, III. "My Ethics Journal." Fort Worth: n.p., 1994.
Life. 2 October 1979, 144.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper and Row, 1951. Penner, Clifford and Joyce. The Gift of Sex. Waco: Word Books, 1981.
Tillman, William M., ed. Understanding Christian Ethics: An Interpretive Approach. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988.
Tillman, William M. and Timothy D. Gilbert. Christian Ethics: A Primer. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986.
TRUTH. So Far, So Good. Excerpts read by the author. Cassette C02091. Benson, 1992.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
An autographical ethical reflection after completing a course on Christian Decision-Making...
PERCEPTION OF STYLES OF DECISION MAKING
FORMATIVE INFLUENCES
The question of formative influences quickly leads me back to my earliest childhood memories. Learning about fairness, playing by the rules, and consequences of disobeying the rules, while playing with my brother and sisters in the backyard. Remembering how my Royal Ambassadors teachers would discipline me for talking when I should not have or goofing of too much during the missionary story. My father spent years time with me in the front yard teaching me how to catch a football, which even to this day we do whenever I visit home. I would spend hours in the kitchen with my mother asking questions about food, medicine, and why girls act the way they do sometimes on the playground. Growing up in Baptist Student Ministry exposed me early to the realities of pain and joy, frustration and excitement, sin and forgiveness, and grace and rejection of grace. I wish I could continue the list, for my life is not my own, it is partially the product of all the people in my life from now and before.
LECTURES
The combination of lectures and open class forum has assisted in being able to perceive my style(s) of decision making. I was shocked at how easily emotions affect my ability to respond in the manner which I know is right. The frustration of not being able to dialogue without making unfair and unfounded value judgements revealed my own prejudices and biases. The lectures continued to reinforce the theme of becoming an ethical person; however, I struggle with my own dissatisfaction and frailty in becoming an ethical person.
TEXTBOOK
The Higgins text accomplished a positive change in my decision making process by reminding of several truths. There is no guarantee that I will ever make THE correct choices in life; however, through a conscious effort and deliberate trust I can increase the odds that I will turn right and make better decisions. I am, and always will be, learning to make good decisions. By growing in relationship with Jesus, by overcoming and adapting my own presuppositions, by interpreting the Bible as correctly as possible, by asking the right questions, and by building a framework around my heritage and community, I begin the life-long journey to make the right decisions.
AREAS OF DECISION MAKING DEVELOPED
PERSONAL
I am growing in the realization that I do not use just one model of decision making, but I do tend to gravitate toward one in particular. The perimeter models include weighing the consequences (teleological) and the categorical imperative of Kant (deontological). At the heart of my decision making process lies the importance of relationship, as asserted by Neibuhr and interpreted by Fletcher, in combination with Biblical norms and principles as asserted by T. B. Maston and Henlee Barnett. The model which arises from such a potpourri bears similarity to the way I understand to decision making patterns of Jesus Christ.
SPECIFIC
The application of such a decision making plan as mentioned above is perhaps another story. My ethical system needs to be reminded of the reality of sin in the world. The way in which I approach an ethical dilemma reveals as much of my personality as does the response to the dilemma. Through the deliberate use of multiple questions, I hope to be able to confront any issue and make response without compromising the people and Biblical principles involved.
CORPORATE
The corporate decision making aspect of my personal ethic needs more development. However, I have seen growth in my ability to recognize that I am not making decisions in a vacuum. I belong to the body of Christ and should not exclude the body from any decision I make. This does not mean that I bring to attention every decision I make, however, I have to be cognizant of the effect which every decision I make will have upon my spiritual family. The logic follows that I also consider input from and the effect on the larger civil community of the world in which I live.
GENERAL
A major area of general decision making involves my treatment of the world around me. I am only recently considering the impact that I have on the ecology of the globe. Through the study of Systematic Theology I was led to understand that Christology and ecology cannot be treated independently in the Kingdom of God.
ISSUES ADDRESSED
INDIVIDUAL-PERSONAL
The way in which I express my sexuality in with my wife is still under the authority of ethical instruction. The marriage relationship was established by God from the beginning to provide companionship, accountability, sexual pleasure, and procreation. The Biblical context of sexual intercourse lies within the relationship of husband and wife to be shared equally. Total freedom within these guidelines allows, and even promotes, healthy use of such taboo acts as masturbation, oral sex, bondage, and anal sex in the marriage expression of sexuality. An argument may be made that the Biblical principle of submission to one another out of reverence for Christ actually places sexuality in its most fulfilling context. Biblical and ethical guidelines serve not as unreasonable restraints, but as a reminder that the other is to be held in higher regard than self.
SOCIAL-GLOBAL
The area of human rights continues to grow in importance in my ethical consciousness. I feel helpless as I see the war-time, methodological rape of women and children in Bosnia, the mass-killing of men by Serbia in Hercegovina and by Russia in Chechnya, the starvation of millions in Africa because of petty dictators, the constant abuse of children by there own parents, and the sexist treatment of women in my own country. I want to close my eyes, tap my heals three times, and hide from this evil. The love of Christ compels me to do the opposite, I must admit the reality of these evils and challenge them. Even if I am only one who cares, Jesus said that those who follow him are the light of world. One small candle in darkest of rooms chases away midnight and gloom.
AREAS CALLING FOR DEVELOPMENT
FIRST THREE CATEGORIES AND NEW AREAS
I need to continue to discover the ways in which my decision making style is affected both positively and negatively. The areas of corporate and general decision making need to be clarified in my own mind before I am to make personal and specific decisions. The decision making process is a continuum in which all four of the ares of decision making are affected whether I intend to act in all four or not. The issues which I attempt to confront with the ethic of the Kingdom need to continue to grow in number and in complexity. However, the most important area calling for further development is in continuing to grow in becoming as ethical person.
PLANS OF ACTION
SPECIFICITY
In order to understand the issues affecting my decision making process I will begin a Journal of Feelings by the end of January in which I can record the issues affecting me. I will not make this a daily project until I can trust myself with the information which I record. The keeping of a feelings journal demands that I trust myself to be honest and open in any and all areas. Until I can do that I will make at least monthly entries. To foster continued growth in the areas of personal, specific, corporate, and general decision making, I will begin at this moment to place myself in broader context. When the ethical dilemmas of life confront me as I read the newspaper, watch television, or see them taking place in life, I will ask myself to consider the personal, specific, corporate, and general implications. In order to make sure that I do this, I will involve my wife in the journey and covenant to grow together as ethical people. The task of becoming an ethical person is the task of working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in me. I commit now to read on a daily basis from all of the Biblical text, not just the portions with which I am already familiar. I commit now to live a life of prayer by being mindful of God in all that I do, being reminded through regular prayer times every day. I commit now to be the ethical person God requires me to be by acting justly, by loving mercy, and by walking humbly with Him.
ADDENDUM
WHAT BILL TILLMAN HAS TAUGHT ME
In my desire to be moral and free, if I do not evaluate my own decision making method critically, I compromise my own moral freedom and personhood.
PERCEPTION OF STYLES OF DECISION MAKING
FORMATIVE INFLUENCES
The question of formative influences quickly leads me back to my earliest childhood memories. Learning about fairness, playing by the rules, and consequences of disobeying the rules, while playing with my brother and sisters in the backyard. Remembering how my Royal Ambassadors teachers would discipline me for talking when I should not have or goofing of too much during the missionary story. My father spent years time with me in the front yard teaching me how to catch a football, which even to this day we do whenever I visit home. I would spend hours in the kitchen with my mother asking questions about food, medicine, and why girls act the way they do sometimes on the playground. Growing up in Baptist Student Ministry exposed me early to the realities of pain and joy, frustration and excitement, sin and forgiveness, and grace and rejection of grace. I wish I could continue the list, for my life is not my own, it is partially the product of all the people in my life from now and before.
LECTURES
The combination of lectures and open class forum has assisted in being able to perceive my style(s) of decision making. I was shocked at how easily emotions affect my ability to respond in the manner which I know is right. The frustration of not being able to dialogue without making unfair and unfounded value judgements revealed my own prejudices and biases. The lectures continued to reinforce the theme of becoming an ethical person; however, I struggle with my own dissatisfaction and frailty in becoming an ethical person.
TEXTBOOK
The Higgins text accomplished a positive change in my decision making process by reminding of several truths. There is no guarantee that I will ever make THE correct choices in life; however, through a conscious effort and deliberate trust I can increase the odds that I will turn right and make better decisions. I am, and always will be, learning to make good decisions. By growing in relationship with Jesus, by overcoming and adapting my own presuppositions, by interpreting the Bible as correctly as possible, by asking the right questions, and by building a framework around my heritage and community, I begin the life-long journey to make the right decisions.
AREAS OF DECISION MAKING DEVELOPED
PERSONAL
I am growing in the realization that I do not use just one model of decision making, but I do tend to gravitate toward one in particular. The perimeter models include weighing the consequences (teleological) and the categorical imperative of Kant (deontological). At the heart of my decision making process lies the importance of relationship, as asserted by Neibuhr and interpreted by Fletcher, in combination with Biblical norms and principles as asserted by T. B. Maston and Henlee Barnett. The model which arises from such a potpourri bears similarity to the way I understand to decision making patterns of Jesus Christ.
SPECIFIC
The application of such a decision making plan as mentioned above is perhaps another story. My ethical system needs to be reminded of the reality of sin in the world. The way in which I approach an ethical dilemma reveals as much of my personality as does the response to the dilemma. Through the deliberate use of multiple questions, I hope to be able to confront any issue and make response without compromising the people and Biblical principles involved.
CORPORATE
The corporate decision making aspect of my personal ethic needs more development. However, I have seen growth in my ability to recognize that I am not making decisions in a vacuum. I belong to the body of Christ and should not exclude the body from any decision I make. This does not mean that I bring to attention every decision I make, however, I have to be cognizant of the effect which every decision I make will have upon my spiritual family. The logic follows that I also consider input from and the effect on the larger civil community of the world in which I live.
GENERAL
A major area of general decision making involves my treatment of the world around me. I am only recently considering the impact that I have on the ecology of the globe. Through the study of Systematic Theology I was led to understand that Christology and ecology cannot be treated independently in the Kingdom of God.
ISSUES ADDRESSED
INDIVIDUAL-PERSONAL
The way in which I express my sexuality in with my wife is still under the authority of ethical instruction. The marriage relationship was established by God from the beginning to provide companionship, accountability, sexual pleasure, and procreation. The Biblical context of sexual intercourse lies within the relationship of husband and wife to be shared equally. Total freedom within these guidelines allows, and even promotes, healthy use of such taboo acts as masturbation, oral sex, bondage, and anal sex in the marriage expression of sexuality. An argument may be made that the Biblical principle of submission to one another out of reverence for Christ actually places sexuality in its most fulfilling context. Biblical and ethical guidelines serve not as unreasonable restraints, but as a reminder that the other is to be held in higher regard than self.
SOCIAL-GLOBAL
The area of human rights continues to grow in importance in my ethical consciousness. I feel helpless as I see the war-time, methodological rape of women and children in Bosnia, the mass-killing of men by Serbia in Hercegovina and by Russia in Chechnya, the starvation of millions in Africa because of petty dictators, the constant abuse of children by there own parents, and the sexist treatment of women in my own country. I want to close my eyes, tap my heals three times, and hide from this evil. The love of Christ compels me to do the opposite, I must admit the reality of these evils and challenge them. Even if I am only one who cares, Jesus said that those who follow him are the light of world. One small candle in darkest of rooms chases away midnight and gloom.
AREAS CALLING FOR DEVELOPMENT
FIRST THREE CATEGORIES AND NEW AREAS
I need to continue to discover the ways in which my decision making style is affected both positively and negatively. The areas of corporate and general decision making need to be clarified in my own mind before I am to make personal and specific decisions. The decision making process is a continuum in which all four of the ares of decision making are affected whether I intend to act in all four or not. The issues which I attempt to confront with the ethic of the Kingdom need to continue to grow in number and in complexity. However, the most important area calling for further development is in continuing to grow in becoming as ethical person.
PLANS OF ACTION
SPECIFICITY
In order to understand the issues affecting my decision making process I will begin a Journal of Feelings by the end of January in which I can record the issues affecting me. I will not make this a daily project until I can trust myself with the information which I record. The keeping of a feelings journal demands that I trust myself to be honest and open in any and all areas. Until I can do that I will make at least monthly entries. To foster continued growth in the areas of personal, specific, corporate, and general decision making, I will begin at this moment to place myself in broader context. When the ethical dilemmas of life confront me as I read the newspaper, watch television, or see them taking place in life, I will ask myself to consider the personal, specific, corporate, and general implications. In order to make sure that I do this, I will involve my wife in the journey and covenant to grow together as ethical people. The task of becoming an ethical person is the task of working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in me. I commit now to read on a daily basis from all of the Biblical text, not just the portions with which I am already familiar. I commit now to live a life of prayer by being mindful of God in all that I do, being reminded through regular prayer times every day. I commit now to be the ethical person God requires me to be by acting justly, by loving mercy, and by walking humbly with Him.
ADDENDUM
WHAT BILL TILLMAN HAS TAUGHT ME
In my desire to be moral and free, if I do not evaluate my own decision making method critically, I compromise my own moral freedom and personhood.
Monday, August 13, 2007
INTERVIEW OF A RESPECTED CHURCH LEADER
Person: Kevin Lucas Shull
Position: Music Assistant
Church: University Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas
Date: March 13, 1995 (interview arranged March 9, 1995)
Time: 1:00 P.M. to 3:30 P.M.
INTRODUCTION:
The interview with Kevin Shull was chosen for many reasons. I have learned from classroom discussion that all of the staff needs to work together in a ministry team. However, in the real world the higher the paid position usually denotes more authority and power. I wanted to discover how those on the "bottom of the totem pole" viewed the ministry and their position in the ministry team. Moreover, I have been able to develop a close friendship with Kevin and this interview allowed me to see another side of which I was not fully aware. Overall, the interview allowed me to see how the information discussed in the classroom is fully applied in the ministry of the Church.
QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE INTERVIEW:
I. "What is your background and training?"
Kevin was raised in a strong musical family. His mother is an organist and handbell teacher. His father is a choir director in the Episcopal Church. Kevin's training in music began in secular interests for since he was a child he wanted to be a band director. The majority of his musical training occurred at Kansas State University and Kansas University. In 1987 he was awarded a Bachelor of Science in Music Education from Kansas University. While he was in college, Kevin began directing youth and bell choirs in the Methodist Church. From the age of twenty Kevin began directing choirs in church even though he had no particular focus for the ministry. In 1987 God began to move in Kevin's life and lead him into the music ministry. In 1991 the calling of God took a unique and refreshing turn as Kevin came to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and began to pursue a M.Div. with Church Music and a Master of Music degree.
II. "What personal experiences helped to mold your approach to leadership?"
Kevin felt strongly that every experience in some way molded his approach to ministry. The influence of his father seemed to have the greatest impact on his leadership style. Kevin seeks to employ the use of small groups wherever possible. The personalities which influence him are diverse ranging from biblical characters to television personalities. The influences upon his leadership style are still growing and changing as he learns and is discipled by Joel Mikel, Music Minister of University Baptist Church, and Dr. Bruce Leafblad, Professor of Church Music at Southwestern.
III. "What is your philosophy of leadership?"
Kevin described his philosophy of leadership as servant leadership but qualified it as active rather than passive. He considered this to be the biblical model of Christlikeness. Each situation that Kevin encounters causes him to seek what the response of Jesus would have been. Because he is so action based, Kevin considered himself to be a "commander" type personality. However, after some reflection, he decided that he was more of an entrepreneur. Kevin is strong willed and opinionated; yet, he is concerned about the opinions of others and easy going.
IV. "How has your understanding of Christian ministry changed across the years, and why?"
Kevin said that he is hopefully waiting and trying to understand what direction to take in leadership. He tries to learn from his mistakes but sometimes his ego gets in the way. He is convinced that it is God who is working and leading but self often times gets in the way.
V. "How do you prioritize time in scheduling activities?"
Kevin feels that he is doing too much now and describes his life as one giant juggling act. The majority of his struggle in ministry involves the budgeting of time. He attempts to remain faithful to relationships over and above specific events or requirements. Kevin struggles to continually seek God in all things. Second, he remembers the importance of his wife and daughter. Third, Kevin makes an effort to spend quality time with close friends. Fourth, he spends time working at the office and at the school. Fifth, Kevin gives time to his ministry groups in the church. Overall, Kevin finds a way to keep the main thing . . . the main thing!
VI. "How do you care for personal needs and for those of your family?"
Kevin is very willing to leave school and work for necessary personal time and family time. In light of constant wear and tear, he makes time to just relax occasionally. Kevin has made it a priority to meet this need because of some past mistakes. He seeks to "de-compartmentalize" his life and allow all the aspects of his life to influence the others.
VII. "If you were to change leadership style at this time, what changes would be made?"
Kevin desires to remain situational based in leadership style. However, he desires to be more assertive in more areas and more bending in others. He wants to be able to step back and let others lead. Kevin has a desire to make disciples and then be able to let them be able to lead. Finally, he wishes that his actual leadership style was more identifiable with his particular philosophy of leadership -- Christlikeness.
VIII. "How do you meet personal spiritual needs?"
Kevin answered this question by listing several activities: prayer, time with God, meditation, thinking on the word of God, listening to God, contemplation, making time for no activities, reading the word of God, talking with wife and friends about spiritual matters, continually reading books about God and spiritual matters, and remaining active in the Body of Christ.
IX. "What do you see as your strengths and weaknesses of your leadership functioning?"
Kevin did not fully understand the question, but was able to discern the strengths and weaknesses of his leadership style. He saw as his strengths: able to command, willing to take a risk, idealistic, willing to voice opinion, strong opinions, and willing to make a change in tradition. His weaknesses seemed to be his strengths taken to an extreme: overly commanding sometimes, often tries to impose desires on others, wants to lead but not in the position, and forgets that tradition is important to many people.
X. "What are your views concerning relationships and leadership of a church staff?"
Kevin contends that the staff must be intimately related to each other in Christ. He feels that the ultimate authority is God; therefore, all submission to authority must be voluntary. Authority must be given and the person leading must prove oneself worthy of such authority. Kevin feels strongly that the pastor should lead the church staff with the other staff yielding voluntary authority for leadership needs. Ultimately, Kevin contends that all in church should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
XI. "What are your views about authority and power in the church?"
Kevin responded to this question by mentioning the biblical models of marriage and freedom. He believes that all authority and power in the church belongs to God. The Church then receives its power and authority in ministry from God. The church then gives some power and authority to the pastor and/or staff, depending upon each individual church and circumstances. Instead of employing a triangular model, Kevin used the biblical model of a body in which ministry is a matter of function rather than office.
XII. "What do you consider to be your greatest accomplishment in leadership and your greatest blunder?"
Kevin mentioned as his accomplishments: being involved in friendship which resulted in the friend entering the ministry because of his ministry leadership and leading others in unity and love in his ministry groups. Kevin listed as his blunders: leading blindly because he was unprepared and unwise, tried to go emotionally and spiritually where he was not prepared, did not follow where God had prepared, and leading others away from unity and love and possibly even Christ because sinful pride.
INSIGHTS GAINED:
From this interview, I received insight into real the world of Christian ministry. The Church body and the staff that guides must be united to each other in Christ. The resultant character will then include faithfulness, hopefulness, and loving-kindness, all of which are included in the biblical model of fellowship and unity.
Though the circumstances differ from church to church, the staff must be submissive to one another while at the same time follow the leadership of the pastor who leads by the authority of the church which was granted by God. The resultant team spirit will then develop mutual respect, trust, mutual support, open communication, and forgiveness. Kevin Shull has reminded me that ministry is not a matter of style; ministry is a matter of being redemptive and acting redemptively.
Person: Kevin Lucas Shull
Position: Music Assistant
Church: University Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas
Date: March 13, 1995 (interview arranged March 9, 1995)
Time: 1:00 P.M. to 3:30 P.M.
INTRODUCTION:
The interview with Kevin Shull was chosen for many reasons. I have learned from classroom discussion that all of the staff needs to work together in a ministry team. However, in the real world the higher the paid position usually denotes more authority and power. I wanted to discover how those on the "bottom of the totem pole" viewed the ministry and their position in the ministry team. Moreover, I have been able to develop a close friendship with Kevin and this interview allowed me to see another side of which I was not fully aware. Overall, the interview allowed me to see how the information discussed in the classroom is fully applied in the ministry of the Church.
QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE INTERVIEW:
I. "What is your background and training?"
Kevin was raised in a strong musical family. His mother is an organist and handbell teacher. His father is a choir director in the Episcopal Church. Kevin's training in music began in secular interests for since he was a child he wanted to be a band director. The majority of his musical training occurred at Kansas State University and Kansas University. In 1987 he was awarded a Bachelor of Science in Music Education from Kansas University. While he was in college, Kevin began directing youth and bell choirs in the Methodist Church. From the age of twenty Kevin began directing choirs in church even though he had no particular focus for the ministry. In 1987 God began to move in Kevin's life and lead him into the music ministry. In 1991 the calling of God took a unique and refreshing turn as Kevin came to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and began to pursue a M.Div. with Church Music and a Master of Music degree.
II. "What personal experiences helped to mold your approach to leadership?"
Kevin felt strongly that every experience in some way molded his approach to ministry. The influence of his father seemed to have the greatest impact on his leadership style. Kevin seeks to employ the use of small groups wherever possible. The personalities which influence him are diverse ranging from biblical characters to television personalities. The influences upon his leadership style are still growing and changing as he learns and is discipled by Joel Mikel, Music Minister of University Baptist Church, and Dr. Bruce Leafblad, Professor of Church Music at Southwestern.
III. "What is your philosophy of leadership?"
Kevin described his philosophy of leadership as servant leadership but qualified it as active rather than passive. He considered this to be the biblical model of Christlikeness. Each situation that Kevin encounters causes him to seek what the response of Jesus would have been. Because he is so action based, Kevin considered himself to be a "commander" type personality. However, after some reflection, he decided that he was more of an entrepreneur. Kevin is strong willed and opinionated; yet, he is concerned about the opinions of others and easy going.
IV. "How has your understanding of Christian ministry changed across the years, and why?"
Kevin said that he is hopefully waiting and trying to understand what direction to take in leadership. He tries to learn from his mistakes but sometimes his ego gets in the way. He is convinced that it is God who is working and leading but self often times gets in the way.
V. "How do you prioritize time in scheduling activities?"
Kevin feels that he is doing too much now and describes his life as one giant juggling act. The majority of his struggle in ministry involves the budgeting of time. He attempts to remain faithful to relationships over and above specific events or requirements. Kevin struggles to continually seek God in all things. Second, he remembers the importance of his wife and daughter. Third, Kevin makes an effort to spend quality time with close friends. Fourth, he spends time working at the office and at the school. Fifth, Kevin gives time to his ministry groups in the church. Overall, Kevin finds a way to keep the main thing . . . the main thing!
VI. "How do you care for personal needs and for those of your family?"
Kevin is very willing to leave school and work for necessary personal time and family time. In light of constant wear and tear, he makes time to just relax occasionally. Kevin has made it a priority to meet this need because of some past mistakes. He seeks to "de-compartmentalize" his life and allow all the aspects of his life to influence the others.
VII. "If you were to change leadership style at this time, what changes would be made?"
Kevin desires to remain situational based in leadership style. However, he desires to be more assertive in more areas and more bending in others. He wants to be able to step back and let others lead. Kevin has a desire to make disciples and then be able to let them be able to lead. Finally, he wishes that his actual leadership style was more identifiable with his particular philosophy of leadership -- Christlikeness.
VIII. "How do you meet personal spiritual needs?"
Kevin answered this question by listing several activities: prayer, time with God, meditation, thinking on the word of God, listening to God, contemplation, making time for no activities, reading the word of God, talking with wife and friends about spiritual matters, continually reading books about God and spiritual matters, and remaining active in the Body of Christ.
IX. "What do you see as your strengths and weaknesses of your leadership functioning?"
Kevin did not fully understand the question, but was able to discern the strengths and weaknesses of his leadership style. He saw as his strengths: able to command, willing to take a risk, idealistic, willing to voice opinion, strong opinions, and willing to make a change in tradition. His weaknesses seemed to be his strengths taken to an extreme: overly commanding sometimes, often tries to impose desires on others, wants to lead but not in the position, and forgets that tradition is important to many people.
X. "What are your views concerning relationships and leadership of a church staff?"
Kevin contends that the staff must be intimately related to each other in Christ. He feels that the ultimate authority is God; therefore, all submission to authority must be voluntary. Authority must be given and the person leading must prove oneself worthy of such authority. Kevin feels strongly that the pastor should lead the church staff with the other staff yielding voluntary authority for leadership needs. Ultimately, Kevin contends that all in church should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
XI. "What are your views about authority and power in the church?"
Kevin responded to this question by mentioning the biblical models of marriage and freedom. He believes that all authority and power in the church belongs to God. The Church then receives its power and authority in ministry from God. The church then gives some power and authority to the pastor and/or staff, depending upon each individual church and circumstances. Instead of employing a triangular model, Kevin used the biblical model of a body in which ministry is a matter of function rather than office.
XII. "What do you consider to be your greatest accomplishment in leadership and your greatest blunder?"
Kevin mentioned as his accomplishments: being involved in friendship which resulted in the friend entering the ministry because of his ministry leadership and leading others in unity and love in his ministry groups. Kevin listed as his blunders: leading blindly because he was unprepared and unwise, tried to go emotionally and spiritually where he was not prepared, did not follow where God had prepared, and leading others away from unity and love and possibly even Christ because sinful pride.
INSIGHTS GAINED:
From this interview, I received insight into real the world of Christian ministry. The Church body and the staff that guides must be united to each other in Christ. The resultant character will then include faithfulness, hopefulness, and loving-kindness, all of which are included in the biblical model of fellowship and unity.
Though the circumstances differ from church to church, the staff must be submissive to one another while at the same time follow the leadership of the pastor who leads by the authority of the church which was granted by God. The resultant team spirit will then develop mutual respect, trust, mutual support, open communication, and forgiveness. Kevin Shull has reminded me that ministry is not a matter of style; ministry is a matter of being redemptive and acting redemptively.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Baptist Change--Then and Now
Have Baptists cut their roots? Have Baptists forsaken themselves and become part of the problem against which they have long fought? Out of the Great Awakening Baptists began to strongly doubt the validity of the union of the church and state. Yet, today it appears that many Baptists are seeking a mandate within the Constitution in order to establish prayer in school. Furthermore, others wish to "Reconstruct" America around the Old Testament Law, even though our Baptist forefathers strongly opposed this movement in Puritan America. Baptists were at one time the champions of religious liberty, wanting all to have the right of free expression on religion. Ironically, within the Southern Baptist Convention this is no longer true. Sadly, the more powerful group in the S.B.C. feels that it has the authority to determine doctrinal correctness and true commitment to Christ, without any toleration of different interpretations.
Traditionally, Baptists have made their strongest in-roads with the lower class often in direct conflict with the wealthy, upper class. Now that the S.B.C. has gained notoriety and prosperity, it appears that our strongest in-roads have shifted to the wealthy, upper class. I wish to make it clear that I believe all people need the Lord, but at the same time we cannot single out one class of people. Summarily, we must not cut our roots, but instead acknowledge the strength of our roots and move forward into a changing world.
Have Baptists cut their roots? Have Baptists forsaken themselves and become part of the problem against which they have long fought? Out of the Great Awakening Baptists began to strongly doubt the validity of the union of the church and state. Yet, today it appears that many Baptists are seeking a mandate within the Constitution in order to establish prayer in school. Furthermore, others wish to "Reconstruct" America around the Old Testament Law, even though our Baptist forefathers strongly opposed this movement in Puritan America. Baptists were at one time the champions of religious liberty, wanting all to have the right of free expression on religion. Ironically, within the Southern Baptist Convention this is no longer true. Sadly, the more powerful group in the S.B.C. feels that it has the authority to determine doctrinal correctness and true commitment to Christ, without any toleration of different interpretations.
Traditionally, Baptists have made their strongest in-roads with the lower class often in direct conflict with the wealthy, upper class. Now that the S.B.C. has gained notoriety and prosperity, it appears that our strongest in-roads have shifted to the wealthy, upper class. I wish to make it clear that I believe all people need the Lord, but at the same time we cannot single out one class of people. Summarily, we must not cut our roots, but instead acknowledge the strength of our roots and move forward into a changing world.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Tasteless Salt?
Jesus says, "You are the salt of the earth. But, if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." In recent decades, government has become larger and involved itself more and more in everyday life. Spheres of society which were once controlled by Christianity are now under the influence of the state. But as I see it, discontent with government intrusion in matters once controlled by the Church is the direct result of the Church neglecting its responsibility to be the salt of the earth. It has become easy to blame big government, rather than to accept responsibility and make a change to help cure the ills of society.
It must be remembered that at best it was individual Christians who led the call for abolition of slavery, not the established Churches. Again, it was the government which moved to protect women and children from the "robber-barons" of big business. And even today, as racism threatens to tear apart whole communities, the Church remains sinfully silent. It is no wonder that government had to step into the picture. It has been the government and not the Churches which has brought about the needed changes. We are to blame, the body of Christ, for not working for better solutions in this imperfect world. If we loose our saltiness or even worse give up our saltiness, then we must expect to be cast out and trampled on by mankind.
Jesus says, "You are the salt of the earth. But, if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." In recent decades, government has become larger and involved itself more and more in everyday life. Spheres of society which were once controlled by Christianity are now under the influence of the state. But as I see it, discontent with government intrusion in matters once controlled by the Church is the direct result of the Church neglecting its responsibility to be the salt of the earth. It has become easy to blame big government, rather than to accept responsibility and make a change to help cure the ills of society.
It must be remembered that at best it was individual Christians who led the call for abolition of slavery, not the established Churches. Again, it was the government which moved to protect women and children from the "robber-barons" of big business. And even today, as racism threatens to tear apart whole communities, the Church remains sinfully silent. It is no wonder that government had to step into the picture. It has been the government and not the Churches which has brought about the needed changes. We are to blame, the body of Christ, for not working for better solutions in this imperfect world. If we loose our saltiness or even worse give up our saltiness, then we must expect to be cast out and trampled on by mankind.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Was Prohibition a Good Idea?
". . . the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." On January 17, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution became effective, many Christians viewed it as the dawning of a new era. Yet, this new "era" was destined to last only thirteen years.
Armed with the noble goal of making America a better place, Francis Willard and the Women's Christian Temperance Union set out to outlaw alcohol and to preserve Victorian values for the good of America. In combination with a myriad of other groups, their goal was fulfilled but to what effect? Alcohol was still readily consumed and even popularized by the "speak-easies." Furthermore, governmental corruption blocked any true enforcement of the Amendment. The essential failure as I see it was the attempt to legislate "protestant" values on the nation as a whole; the difficulty is deciding whose morality to legislate. It is my belief that in order to make America a moral nation, the change must come on a personal level. The only way positive social change will occur is when Christians spread the gospel to more Americans and these Americans involve themselves in the culture and government. This change must occur in the hearts of Americans and not in the legislatures or the courts.
". . . the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." On January 17, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution became effective, many Christians viewed it as the dawning of a new era. Yet, this new "era" was destined to last only thirteen years.
Armed with the noble goal of making America a better place, Francis Willard and the Women's Christian Temperance Union set out to outlaw alcohol and to preserve Victorian values for the good of America. In combination with a myriad of other groups, their goal was fulfilled but to what effect? Alcohol was still readily consumed and even popularized by the "speak-easies." Furthermore, governmental corruption blocked any true enforcement of the Amendment. The essential failure as I see it was the attempt to legislate "protestant" values on the nation as a whole; the difficulty is deciding whose morality to legislate. It is my belief that in order to make America a moral nation, the change must come on a personal level. The only way positive social change will occur is when Christians spread the gospel to more Americans and these Americans involve themselves in the culture and government. This change must occur in the hearts of Americans and not in the legislatures or the courts.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
LIKE LUTHERAN, LIKE SOUTHERN BAPTIST
The Lutherans who emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 bear a striking resemblance to modern Southern Baptists in how they responded to internal and external crisis. Lutheran doctrinal controversy arose when Georg Calixtus, who had opened himself up to other Christian groups through travel and study, began to minimize the unique Lutheran doctrines and call for a union of all Christians. The reaction to Calixtus was led by Abraham Calovius, a temperamental yet well educated leader. His strategy was to require all "good" Lutherans to adhere to a form of legalism and creedalism. I am amazed at the speedily return to a Neo-Scholasticism after the death of Martin Luther, rather than a continued emphasis upon biblical study and the grace of God received by faith.
It is also startling to me that, like the Lutherans, Southern Baptists have drifted down the road of legalism and creedalism and developed an attitude of separatism and non-toleration. In early Baptist history, when we were somewhat unpopular, there were men and women who led the call of toleration and cooperation. However, with prestige and popularity came an abuse of power and a movement toward separatism. Men and women, like Calixtus, are called heretics or "liberals" and thrown out. Ironically, men like Calovius are revered. We must not allow history to repeat itself; we must hold firm to love and toleration -- for we are ALL one in Christ.
The Lutherans who emerged from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 bear a striking resemblance to modern Southern Baptists in how they responded to internal and external crisis. Lutheran doctrinal controversy arose when Georg Calixtus, who had opened himself up to other Christian groups through travel and study, began to minimize the unique Lutheran doctrines and call for a union of all Christians. The reaction to Calixtus was led by Abraham Calovius, a temperamental yet well educated leader. His strategy was to require all "good" Lutherans to adhere to a form of legalism and creedalism. I am amazed at the speedily return to a Neo-Scholasticism after the death of Martin Luther, rather than a continued emphasis upon biblical study and the grace of God received by faith.
It is also startling to me that, like the Lutherans, Southern Baptists have drifted down the road of legalism and creedalism and developed an attitude of separatism and non-toleration. In early Baptist history, when we were somewhat unpopular, there were men and women who led the call of toleration and cooperation. However, with prestige and popularity came an abuse of power and a movement toward separatism. Men and women, like Calixtus, are called heretics or "liberals" and thrown out. Ironically, men like Calovius are revered. We must not allow history to repeat itself; we must hold firm to love and toleration -- for we are ALL one in Christ.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Learning from Pentecostalism
While the Baptists and Presbyterians were embattled in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, the fire of modern Pentecostalism began to burn wildly on the west coast. In 1906 at an abandoned Methodist Church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles a birth took place, the birth of a new movement. The Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission on Azusa Street, led by black pastor William J. Seymour, grew from a local sensation into a world wide phenomenon. Among the various emphases of the new movement were the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, the special sign of tongues, and a strong emphasis upon the gift of healing. Eventually, in 1914, the Assemblies of God denomination emerged.
In a time when main line denominations avoided Black and Women's issues, this new church granted full participation of women, and blacks joined equally with whites in the meetings. Today, many Baptists are quick to condemn this movement as total emotionalism. Yet, Baptists could learn from this group in many areas. Women deserve an important place in the ministry of the church, not just in the W.M.U. And indeed, the color of skin has no bearing upon the freedom in Christ granted to all believers. Finally, we could every once and a while loosen up and celebrate our faith. These may be trivial, but they have helped make Pentecostalism the fastest growing movement in the Christian world. Maybe it could help to observe and learn, rather than blindly condemn.
While the Baptists and Presbyterians were embattled in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, the fire of modern Pentecostalism began to burn wildly on the west coast. In 1906 at an abandoned Methodist Church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles a birth took place, the birth of a new movement. The Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission on Azusa Street, led by black pastor William J. Seymour, grew from a local sensation into a world wide phenomenon. Among the various emphases of the new movement were the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, the special sign of tongues, and a strong emphasis upon the gift of healing. Eventually, in 1914, the Assemblies of God denomination emerged.
In a time when main line denominations avoided Black and Women's issues, this new church granted full participation of women, and blacks joined equally with whites in the meetings. Today, many Baptists are quick to condemn this movement as total emotionalism. Yet, Baptists could learn from this group in many areas. Women deserve an important place in the ministry of the church, not just in the W.M.U. And indeed, the color of skin has no bearing upon the freedom in Christ granted to all believers. Finally, we could every once and a while loosen up and celebrate our faith. These may be trivial, but they have helped make Pentecostalism the fastest growing movement in the Christian world. Maybe it could help to observe and learn, rather than blindly condemn.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Francis Asbury was born into a family of followers of John Wesley in 1745 in England. At the age of sixteen, he had already begun to lay preach. In 1771, Asbury volunteered to go to America where he soon became the leader of the Methodists. He was responsible for getting the "settled" clergy to go into the frontier where the people most needed the gospel. By his example, the well-known methodist style of itinerant ministries began. For the Methodists, Asbury, more than any other, embodied the thrust of the revivalist impulse in America. His message was simple: God's free grace, the liberty of humanity to accept or reject God's grace, and an end to willful sinning after conversion. By his death in 1816, Asbury had traveled over 300,000 miles to preach the gospel in America.
The Church today could learn so much from the early Methodists and the work of Francis Asbury. These ministers served by going to the people rather than building buildings and expecting the people to come to them. They also kept their message simple and true rather than embellishing it with long words and theological axioms. I am convinced that this is the best way to reach the lost and minister to those in need - go to the people! This is just a practical out-working of Jesus' words, "As you go into the world, make disciples of all nations . . . ."
The Church today could learn so much from the early Methodists and the work of Francis Asbury. These ministers served by going to the people rather than building buildings and expecting the people to come to them. They also kept their message simple and true rather than embellishing it with long words and theological axioms. I am convinced that this is the best way to reach the lost and minister to those in need - go to the people! This is just a practical out-working of Jesus' words, "As you go into the world, make disciples of all nations . . . ."
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Dwight L. Moody was probably the best known evangelist of the latter half of the nineteenth century, and his name is still well known even today. The achievements of his life have inspired many to carry on in the revivalist tradition. His life as a businessman-evangelist also carried over into his support for the Y.M.C.A, his efforts to start Sunday Schools and his contributions to the distribution of Christian literature. His life is a prime example of an ordinary man whose life was totally transformed by the indwelling of God.
In light of modern problems, which were also prevalent in Moody's time, people of God must step out and lead the call to salvation. Social and political turmoil can be faced by Christians with the simple yet true Gospel of Jesus. Moody's simple message, the "Three R's," helped to bring revival to the stagnant big cities. Moody used sense to convince the audience about God and the need for Jesus. He spoke of the loss of traditional family and community values. Above all, Moody classified himself as primarily a "winner of souls." Today, we must remember that God has entrusted to us the Gospel message to take it into the world. This message can be conveyed by simple and sensible methods. Our message must have practical application to today's societal ills. But above all we, like Dwight Lyman Moody, must be first and foremost "winners of souls."
In light of modern problems, which were also prevalent in Moody's time, people of God must step out and lead the call to salvation. Social and political turmoil can be faced by Christians with the simple yet true Gospel of Jesus. Moody's simple message, the "Three R's," helped to bring revival to the stagnant big cities. Moody used sense to convince the audience about God and the need for Jesus. He spoke of the loss of traditional family and community values. Above all, Moody classified himself as primarily a "winner of souls." Today, we must remember that God has entrusted to us the Gospel message to take it into the world. This message can be conveyed by simple and sensible methods. Our message must have practical application to today's societal ills. But above all we, like Dwight Lyman Moody, must be first and foremost "winners of souls."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
