Sunday, March 21, 2004
Traveling again
Well I'm off again, this time to Lincoln, Nebraska. It's our Classis meeting for my denomination, the RCUS. I am going to be examined for licensure at that meeting. I've been working hard preparing for that for a long time now, so it'll be a big weight off when it's done. I'll be back Thursday or so, and I'll let you know how it went.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Dick Cheney on the war, Bush and Kerry
I think one of the best things about Bush is the great men with which he has surrounded himself. Cheney's got a great speech here. An excerpt:
I like that- If Kerry's so pro-diplomacy, why does he go around insulting our best allies?
Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain--coerced, or bribed? Or Italy--which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf--was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Sen. Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom.
I like that- If Kerry's so pro-diplomacy, why does he go around insulting our best allies?
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Bill Whittle is a Genius
Richard Brookhiser on Terrorism in Europe
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Hugh Hewitt on Kerry's foreign leaders
Hugh Hewitt has a good analysis on the situation with Kerry's claim to have the support of foreign leaders, whom he will not name, and whom he apparently could only have met via astral projection or something.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
The Spanish Election
The news is in- Spain has overwhelmingly voted against Jose Marie Aznar, one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror, in favor of a socialist government. The reports say that they did this over anger at Aznar for getting them involved in the Iraq war, and thus making them the targets of this recent attack that killed nearly 200 of their citizens. If this is true, it means that the terrorists have succeeded in influencing an election, which is a very bad thing. Instapundit has lots of different reactions from the blogosphere- take a look.
The polls said that Aznar's party was running a little bit behind even before the attacks, but after the attacks, he lost huge, by a wide margin. Some say this was a backlash against Aznar's apparent attempt to bolster his political position by blaming the attack on the ETA, the Basque terrorist group, rather than Al-Qaeda, even after evidence started to come in blaming Al-Qaeda. But it's hard to think that such a thing could have swung the electorate so much against him.
It appears very much as if the Spanish population, that was against Spain's involvement in the war, has responded to the attack against them in a cowardly fashion- running away from the fight. It also appears very much, that as Volokh is saying, this is all the more reason that we shouldn't allow other countries to determine our foreign policy. The terrorists could then stop us just by cowing a weak link like Spain has turned out to be.
If Spain thinks that their bargain with the devil will save them, they are mistaken. If the terrorists actually succeed in destroying America, which they never will, they will come for all the weaklings and cowards next. The Islamists and fascists will not rest until the world is theirs, or they are dead. There were many who thought that enough of them could be persuaded by force that their fight was futile, that they would never win. The Spanish people just made that case even harder to make. They made it harder for us to win this war any other way than the unilateral use of overwhelming force.
The polls said that Aznar's party was running a little bit behind even before the attacks, but after the attacks, he lost huge, by a wide margin. Some say this was a backlash against Aznar's apparent attempt to bolster his political position by blaming the attack on the ETA, the Basque terrorist group, rather than Al-Qaeda, even after evidence started to come in blaming Al-Qaeda. But it's hard to think that such a thing could have swung the electorate so much against him.
It appears very much as if the Spanish population, that was against Spain's involvement in the war, has responded to the attack against them in a cowardly fashion- running away from the fight. It also appears very much, that as Volokh is saying, this is all the more reason that we shouldn't allow other countries to determine our foreign policy. The terrorists could then stop us just by cowing a weak link like Spain has turned out to be.
If Spain thinks that their bargain with the devil will save them, they are mistaken. If the terrorists actually succeed in destroying America, which they never will, they will come for all the weaklings and cowards next. The Islamists and fascists will not rest until the world is theirs, or they are dead. There were many who thought that enough of them could be persuaded by force that their fight was futile, that they would never win. The Spanish people just made that case even harder to make. They made it harder for us to win this war any other way than the unilateral use of overwhelming force.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Saddleback Church
So, as I said, I went to Saddleback Church over the weekend. I'll probably make some people mad right now, like the 25,000 people that go there. Yes, all those zeros are there on purpose. Twenty five thousand. Like I said, I'll probably make a lot of people mad. But oh well, it's never stopped me before.
Saddleback Church is located in Irvine, CA. It is pastored by Rick Warren, the author of Purpose Driven Life, which I reviewed here. The campus on which it is located is gorgeous. There are probably 15 or 20 buildings on the campus, some of which are quite large and none of which resemble a church. The landscaping is immaculate and the parking is well laid out. The buildings are tasteful, mostly in a kind of modern Spanish architecture, I suppose. I don't know much about architecture, though, so I could be wrong. There was also a cafe at which I was charged a dollar for a smallish cup of average-tasting coffee.
Saddleback Church is a seeker-sensitive church. One of the things that this means is that the church service should be as unintimidating as possible. Saddleback accomplishes this by making the church service bear little resemblance to a church service. As such, there is no benediction, no salutation, no liturgy. There is, in fact, no prayer. That's right, no prayer. In an hour and a half, Pastor Rick never once addressed the Lord. He said "let's pray" at the end of his message, but he then addressed us, telling us things we should remember and telling us to pray a certain prayer, but he himself never actually led us in prayer. Perhaps people find corporate prayer intimidating?
Likewise, in the hour-long message, there was no mention of sin, forgiveness of sin, the holiness of God, the law of God or any such thing. There was Scripture reading, and a text for the sermon, but I'm afraid the text was rather badly abused. Rick ignored elements of the text that would be inconvenient for the point he was trying to make, and I'm sure nobody noticed because I didn't see a Bible in the place. The Bible verses were all on the handout we got, and were also flashed on one of the five humongous screens at the front of the worship center. There wasn't much attempt to actually help us understand what the text said; rather, the text was used as a prop for Rick to make the points he wanted to make- rather like the Purpose Driven Life. Rick was dressed comfortably in slacks and a Hawaiian shirt, not drawing attention to his office as pastor at all.
What he did draw attention to, on the other hand, was himself and his spirituality. There were three references in the sermon to his personal high level of spirituality. There was also a few references to Saddleback's ongoing programs and its size. One of the assistant pastors (I think that's who it was), said "Saddleback is the best church in America!" So, quite a lot of self-promotion. Apparently people don't find that intimidating.
It was thoroughly Arminian, as well. All about us, our choice, we have to do it, God's not in control, just REALLY REALLY hoping that we'll listen. He took one of the best texts for understanding God's sovereignty in salvation, the parable of the sower and the soils (Luke 8), and said that it taught about different attitudes that we could have that would prevent us from hearing the voice of God. You might think that the part where Jesus says that the parable teaches that some are able to hear his teachings because it is given to them, but to some it is not given (Luke 8:10) might be awkward for his message, but no matter- he just skipped that verse. Never read it. You might wonder how bad soil is supposed to change itself to good soil, when the result of being bad soil is an inability to respond meaningfully to the message of truth, but don't worry. Rick's got the answer. Bad soil turns itself into good soil by turning off the cell phone, scheduling a date with God, and getting involved in programs at Saddleback.
Scheduling a date with God, huh? Actually, my big takeaway from the message was that Rick thinks God's like a woman. If you don't talk to God, God won't talk to you. And it's no good just giving God the scraps of your time. If God's not important enough to you to really make time forher him, then he just won't think that he's important to you, and he'll just clam up. Make time for God. Show him you care. During the service, I could just envision God stamping his foot, and saying, "you don't really care!" You could have replaced God with Your Significant Other, and it would have been pretty decent relationship advice.
But Rick might want to read Amos 4, just to name the first one that popped into my head. He might discover that God will indeed talk to you even if you don't listen, though you might not much like what He's got to say.
I'm sure Rick would tell me that all of the serious teaching goes on in small groups. That's the typical seeker-sensitive church growth kind of model. But Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and they follow me." We shouldn't be afraid of scaring people away from church with the truth. The truth of the gospel will not scare away God's sheep. Anyone looking for Jesus' voice in that particular service wouldn't have heard much of Jesus (though they would have seen him, or James Caviezel anyway, on the big screen). Mostly, the voice I heard there was that of Rick Warren.
Saddleback Church is located in Irvine, CA. It is pastored by Rick Warren, the author of Purpose Driven Life, which I reviewed here. The campus on which it is located is gorgeous. There are probably 15 or 20 buildings on the campus, some of which are quite large and none of which resemble a church. The landscaping is immaculate and the parking is well laid out. The buildings are tasteful, mostly in a kind of modern Spanish architecture, I suppose. I don't know much about architecture, though, so I could be wrong. There was also a cafe at which I was charged a dollar for a smallish cup of average-tasting coffee.
Saddleback Church is a seeker-sensitive church. One of the things that this means is that the church service should be as unintimidating as possible. Saddleback accomplishes this by making the church service bear little resemblance to a church service. As such, there is no benediction, no salutation, no liturgy. There is, in fact, no prayer. That's right, no prayer. In an hour and a half, Pastor Rick never once addressed the Lord. He said "let's pray" at the end of his message, but he then addressed us, telling us things we should remember and telling us to pray a certain prayer, but he himself never actually led us in prayer. Perhaps people find corporate prayer intimidating?
Likewise, in the hour-long message, there was no mention of sin, forgiveness of sin, the holiness of God, the law of God or any such thing. There was Scripture reading, and a text for the sermon, but I'm afraid the text was rather badly abused. Rick ignored elements of the text that would be inconvenient for the point he was trying to make, and I'm sure nobody noticed because I didn't see a Bible in the place. The Bible verses were all on the handout we got, and were also flashed on one of the five humongous screens at the front of the worship center. There wasn't much attempt to actually help us understand what the text said; rather, the text was used as a prop for Rick to make the points he wanted to make- rather like the Purpose Driven Life. Rick was dressed comfortably in slacks and a Hawaiian shirt, not drawing attention to his office as pastor at all.
What he did draw attention to, on the other hand, was himself and his spirituality. There were three references in the sermon to his personal high level of spirituality. There was also a few references to Saddleback's ongoing programs and its size. One of the assistant pastors (I think that's who it was), said "Saddleback is the best church in America!" So, quite a lot of self-promotion. Apparently people don't find that intimidating.
It was thoroughly Arminian, as well. All about us, our choice, we have to do it, God's not in control, just REALLY REALLY hoping that we'll listen. He took one of the best texts for understanding God's sovereignty in salvation, the parable of the sower and the soils (Luke 8), and said that it taught about different attitudes that we could have that would prevent us from hearing the voice of God. You might think that the part where Jesus says that the parable teaches that some are able to hear his teachings because it is given to them, but to some it is not given (Luke 8:10) might be awkward for his message, but no matter- he just skipped that verse. Never read it. You might wonder how bad soil is supposed to change itself to good soil, when the result of being bad soil is an inability to respond meaningfully to the message of truth, but don't worry. Rick's got the answer. Bad soil turns itself into good soil by turning off the cell phone, scheduling a date with God, and getting involved in programs at Saddleback.
Scheduling a date with God, huh? Actually, my big takeaway from the message was that Rick thinks God's like a woman. If you don't talk to God, God won't talk to you. And it's no good just giving God the scraps of your time. If God's not important enough to you to really make time for
But Rick might want to read Amos 4, just to name the first one that popped into my head. He might discover that God will indeed talk to you even if you don't listen, though you might not much like what He's got to say.
I'm sure Rick would tell me that all of the serious teaching goes on in small groups. That's the typical seeker-sensitive church growth kind of model. But Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and they follow me." We shouldn't be afraid of scaring people away from church with the truth. The truth of the gospel will not scare away God's sheep. Anyone looking for Jesus' voice in that particular service wouldn't have heard much of Jesus (though they would have seen him, or James Caviezel anyway, on the big screen). Mostly, the voice I heard there was that of Rick Warren.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Los Angeles
LA is huge. Way too big.
It just goes on and on. Traffic is terrible. I don't know how people live there. Unless it's the great beaches, mountains, weather and all the many activities there are there. And great shopping. I understand that's really important to some people.
But the smog, crime, traffic, and America-hating socialist government more than cancel all of that out to me. I could only see enjoying LA if I was really rich. They actually have a freeway called the "Santa Ana Freeway". Is that actually named after the Mexican general who attacked the Alamo? Amazing.
Also they have barbed wire around their freeway signs, to discourage graffiti. That was kind of surreal.
But the MacArthur conference was great. It was really encouraging to be in the presence of three thousand or so Baptist pastors, all committed to the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture and the sovereignty of God. Yes, they're wrong about Baptism (IMHO), but I came to understand their position a good deal better. I also came to understand that the basic issue between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Reformed is the issue of continuity- that is, how much continuity do you see between the Old and New Testaments? We see more continuity, though not absolute continuity. They have a presumption of discontinuity, though not absolute discontinuity. That explains pretty much all of the differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians- Baptism, church government and eschatology.
But like I said, it was great. I got a lot of great counseling resources, they gave away a lot of books and I met a lot of peope. Also, RC Sproul was there, and he's always a hoot. He's recently had a sort of stroke, so he wasn't quite as animated as he used to be. But he was great.
Update:
It's not named after the Mexican general. The town that the freeway goes through is called Santa Ana, named after Saint Anne, according to Kevin in the comments.
It just goes on and on. Traffic is terrible. I don't know how people live there. Unless it's the great beaches, mountains, weather and all the many activities there are there. And great shopping. I understand that's really important to some people.
But the smog, crime, traffic, and America-hating socialist government more than cancel all of that out to me. I could only see enjoying LA if I was really rich. They actually have a freeway called the "Santa Ana Freeway". Is that actually named after the Mexican general who attacked the Alamo? Amazing.
Also they have barbed wire around their freeway signs, to discourage graffiti. That was kind of surreal.
But the MacArthur conference was great. It was really encouraging to be in the presence of three thousand or so Baptist pastors, all committed to the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture and the sovereignty of God. Yes, they're wrong about Baptism (IMHO), but I came to understand their position a good deal better. I also came to understand that the basic issue between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Reformed is the issue of continuity- that is, how much continuity do you see between the Old and New Testaments? We see more continuity, though not absolute continuity. They have a presumption of discontinuity, though not absolute discontinuity. That explains pretty much all of the differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians- Baptism, church government and eschatology.
But like I said, it was great. I got a lot of great counseling resources, they gave away a lot of books and I met a lot of peope. Also, RC Sproul was there, and he's always a hoot. He's recently had a sort of stroke, so he wasn't quite as animated as he used to be. But he was great.
Update:
It's not named after the Mexican general. The town that the freeway goes through is called Santa Ana, named after Saint Anne, according to Kevin in the comments.
This Is Very Telling
Check out this story- apparently some leftists think that the American flag and eagle are linked with President Bush. Patriotism in their minds is a feature of the Right, and not the Left?
I agree.
I agree.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Kerry's foreign support
I guess Kerry's been saying that foreign leaders want him to beat Bush in the election. He won't name names.
You know, I'd think that the meaning of that statement depends rather heavily on which foreign leaders. If it were Kim Jong Il or the Iranian Mullahs, or even Jacques Chirac, then I don't think it's something Kerry would be bragging about. If America's enemies want Kerry to win (oops, did I just say France was our enemy?), what should America want?
You know, I'd think that the meaning of that statement depends rather heavily on which foreign leaders. If it were Kim Jong Il or the Iranian Mullahs, or even Jacques Chirac, then I don't think it's something Kerry would be bragging about. If America's enemies want Kerry to win (oops, did I just say France was our enemy?), what should America want?
Back from Sodom and Gommorah
Hi all!
I'm back from LA. I am still decompressing (decomposing?) from my trip, but soon I'll be coming back at you with lots of bloggy goodness. I have all sorts of devastatingly perceptive insights on John MacArthur (+), Saddleback Church (-), LA traffic (---) and beaches (+++). So check back soon!
I'm back from LA. I am still decompressing (decomposing?) from my trip, but soon I'll be coming back at you with lots of bloggy goodness. I have all sorts of devastatingly perceptive insights on John MacArthur (+), Saddleback Church (-), LA traffic (---) and beaches (+++). So check back soon!
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
New sermon
The first sermon on Acts 2 and Pentecost is uploaded. It's on the subject of the Spirit working unity. Link is on the sidebar. Enjoy!
Dirty Car II
So now I don't wash my car as often as I used to.
Someone said to Andrea the other day, "you can really tell Matt lives in Limon now. His car used to always be sparkly and clean, and now it's dirty all the time like everyone else's."
Sigh.
Someone said to Andrea the other day, "you can really tell Matt lives in Limon now. His car used to always be sparkly and clean, and now it's dirty all the time like everyone else's."
Sigh.
From devotions this morning
Psalm 78:66, in the King James- "And He smote His enemies in the hinder parts: He put them to a perpetual reproach."
Wow. "Hinder parts".
All the other versions translate that "beat them back", instead of "beat them in their backside".
That's why I use the King James.
Wow. "Hinder parts".
All the other versions translate that "beat them back", instead of "beat them in their backside".
That's why I use the King James.
Well Then
I will not be around for a bit. Off to California for a conference. So, you'll just have to make your way without me. Who knows, though. Perhaps I'll get an internet connection somewhere and do a little bit. I keep hearing about these things called "hot-spots".
I bought the big Evanescence CD tonight. I forget what it's called, but you know the one, that sounds like Enya doing Metallica covers. If that's your thing, go for it. It's really cool, but kind of exhausting- the emotional range goes from quiet despair to melancholic despair all the way through raging despair. So, you know, after that for awhile, maybe you need to break out Wham or something. I'm not saying me, but maybe you.
Well, have a fun time of it, anyway.
I bought the big Evanescence CD tonight. I forget what it's called, but you know the one, that sounds like Enya doing Metallica covers. If that's your thing, go for it. It's really cool, but kind of exhausting- the emotional range goes from quiet despair to melancholic despair all the way through raging despair. So, you know, after that for awhile, maybe you need to break out Wham or something. I'm not saying me, but maybe you.
Well, have a fun time of it, anyway.
Friday, February 27, 2004
U2
I was recently asked whether or not I think U2 is Christian, and why or why not. The response got a little long for the comments section, so here it is:
Lyrics from here.
From the song "Peace on Earth", from "All that you can't leave behind":
The message is clear- the peace that Jesus claimed to bring is worthless.
from "If God will send his angels" from Pop-
From Wake Up Dead Man:
And the clincher, I think, from The First Time, Zooropa:
I could go on. But these are the lyrics of someone who has no confidence in God to solve the world's problems or to show real love for people. If they're Christians, this is some new definition of the term. In contrast to these, I couldn't find much evidence of actual trust and faith in God. I found trust and faith in some of the concepts of Christianity like grace and forgiveness, but never actually connected with God.
Hope this helps.
Update: I just read this on the subject, and that makes me wonder if the lyrics quoted above are meant to be ironic, or representing struggles with faith, or something of the like. But it seems to me, if a band's going to publish lyrics like the ones I've quoted above, then he's taking a pretty definite stand. It is, to my mind, up to him to counter that with something. He can't just be coy about his faith. "If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my father in heaven. But if you deny me before men..."
Update 2John has convinced me. Not that they are Christian, but the discussion with him has convinced me that it's not really appropriate for me to make statements about whether they are Christians personally or not. If he claims to be, then absent serious moral failings or major doctrinal problems, I would accept that. But I would have some major questions to ask- why do they claim faith in Jesus Christ, and then express the opposite in their music generally speaking? Some might view that as a sufficient moral failing to merit questioning true faith.
The original discussion was over whether or not it's appropriate to include their music in a worship service. Given the very ambiguous nature of the message of their work corporately, I'll stick by my guns. They do not express a robust faith in God in their music, but doubt, skepticism and criticism, with no converse trust and faith. Again, I'm talking about their music, nor their lives.
Lyrics from here.
From the song "Peace on Earth", from "All that you can't leave behind":
Jesus can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line
Peace on Earth
To tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on Earth
Jesus in this song you wrote
The words are sticking in my throat
Peace on Earth
Hear it every Christmas time
But hope and history won't rhyme
So what's it worth
This peace on Earth
The message is clear- the peace that Jesus claimed to bring is worthless.
from "If God will send his angels" from Pop-
Hey if God will send his angels
And if God will send a sign
And if God will send his angels
Would everything be alright
God has got his phone off the hook, babe
Would he even pick up if he could
It's been a while since we saw that child
Hanging 'round this neighborhood
You see his mother dealing in a doorway
See Father Christmas with a begging bowl
Jesus sister's eyes are a blister
The High Street never looked so low
From Wake Up Dead Man:
Jesus, Jesus help me
I'm alone in this world
And a f***ed up world it is too
Tell me, tell me the story
The one about eternity
And the way it's all gonna be
Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man
And the clincher, I think, from The First Time, Zooropa:
My father is a rich man
He wears a rich man's cloak
Gave me the keys to his kingdom coming
Gave me a cup of gold
He said I have many mansions
And there are many rooms to see
But I left by the back door
And I threw away the key
And I threw away the key
Yeah, I threw away the key
Yeah, I threw away the key
For the first time
For the first time
For the first time
I feel love
I could go on. But these are the lyrics of someone who has no confidence in God to solve the world's problems or to show real love for people. If they're Christians, this is some new definition of the term. In contrast to these, I couldn't find much evidence of actual trust and faith in God. I found trust and faith in some of the concepts of Christianity like grace and forgiveness, but never actually connected with God.
Hope this helps.
Update: I just read this on the subject, and that makes me wonder if the lyrics quoted above are meant to be ironic, or representing struggles with faith, or something of the like. But it seems to me, if a band's going to publish lyrics like the ones I've quoted above, then he's taking a pretty definite stand. It is, to my mind, up to him to counter that with something. He can't just be coy about his faith. "If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my father in heaven. But if you deny me before men..."
Update 2John has convinced me. Not that they are Christian, but the discussion with him has convinced me that it's not really appropriate for me to make statements about whether they are Christians personally or not. If he claims to be, then absent serious moral failings or major doctrinal problems, I would accept that. But I would have some major questions to ask- why do they claim faith in Jesus Christ, and then express the opposite in their music generally speaking? Some might view that as a sufficient moral failing to merit questioning true faith.
The original discussion was over whether or not it's appropriate to include their music in a worship service. Given the very ambiguous nature of the message of their work corporately, I'll stick by my guns. They do not express a robust faith in God in their music, but doubt, skepticism and criticism, with no converse trust and faith. Again, I'm talking about their music, nor their lives.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Truth and Systems
I believe in truth.
I don't believe that I know all of the truth, but I do believe that God knows all of the truth. And since God can't lie, according to Scriptures, none of that truth can contradict itself. All truth is God's truth, and so if God says that He never changes, then if He changes, then God's a liar. We'll just focus on the truth about God here for a while, since that's the most important truth there is. But these principles really apply to truth about everything- to the truth about the picture on my wall, the CD in my stereo, the guy down the street at the liquor store. But let's just talk about God.
If truth exists, and God cannot lie, then for every question you can ask about God there is one correct answer. This is true if the question is phrased properly, and is not ambiguous of itself. But if you ask, Is there a God? There is only one correct answer to that question. If you ask, is God good? Again, there is only one correct answer. If you say that God is good, and that God is not good, then you've contradicted yourself, and you've accused God of lying. Therefore, there must be a whole collection of interrelated truths about God. All of these truths together are a system of truth.
I haven't received an answer yet to this. Steve's a busy guy, so maybe he hasn't gotten around to it. But he did post something else referring to my article, and referring to the ongoing debate between us. So I'm going to continue the discussion.
In Steve's most recent post, and in Nate's comments to my previous article, both express disdain or reluctance to use a systematic approach to truth. This seems to be a common thread among postmodernists. Steve says,
What Postmodern Christians do is to assume that their system is superior to ours, or anyone else's. They do this by denying that they have a system, and criticizing us for having one. But everyone has a system, a way that they read Scripture and interpret everything that they see and hear. Everyone does; it's impossible to function without one. I see an animal that has four legs and barks; I call it a dog. I do this because of my system of truth, which has taken a set of attributes and given it the label "dog". It is impossible for a dog to not be a dog. So Postmodernist Christians have categories of thought which they identify as "modern", and others that are "postmodern", and the one is assumed to be better than the other. Further, they have ways of reading Scripture that supports their views. The parts which most obviously appear to promote their views, they talk about a lot. Nate, for example (read the comments under this post), views the Scriptures through the lens of the Sermon on the Mount. Steve talks about Jesus being revealed to the disciples through talking and breaking bread with them. This proves that God is revealed in community, Steve says. This passage becomes normative for Steve, foundational to Steve's theology, despite this being one brief event in a pretty long book. Why this passage, and not, say, Romans 5? Matthew 23? Amos 4? This is a system, an interpretive framework. Some might say that God creating community on earth, community very separate from the community of the world that the people lived in, and Steve's idea of God being revealed in community, are two very different interpretations of the text he chooses. Why one and not the other?
The parts which might be read to teach something unacceptable are interpreted through a certain framework so that they don't challenge the system (see this exegesis of 1 Peter 3, for example). In this case, a "sacramental" or "communal" interpretive framework is to be preferred, because it gives results that are in conformity with the views of the interpreter. You see, 1 Peter 3 cannot be accepted to be teaching what it appears to be teaching on the face of it, which is that wives are to live under the rule of their husbands. This is because this teaching violates the system from which the Postmoderns are operating.
I'm not criticizing them for having a system. We all have systems. I am criticizing them for claiming that they don't have a system, and that they are superior to us (that is, anyone with a system, a "modern" in their vocabulary) because we are bound to a system and they are not. The fact is, I recognize that I have a system, and because of that I am able to critically evaluate the system, to see if it is truly in accord with God's word, and if not, to adjust the system. When you deny that you have a system, you are unable to critically evaluate that system, and are thus far more bound to it than you might be otherwise. I don't have the option of just believing the stuff that fits my cultural bias. Because I make a self-conscious decision to accept all of Scripture as best I can, I have to conform my system to fit Scripture. By denying that he has a system, the Postmodernist Christian becomes free to just believe the stuff that's easy for them to believe.
The Postmodernist has a system for everything. Look at this, for example, and read the comments. Here, a postmodern gets skewered by his fellow postmoderns for using the word "girls", even though he was referring to teenagers and saying very positive things about them. It was viewed as oppressive and condescending. He groveled for it later on his blog. See, the postmoderns viewed the word through the eyes of a particular system. Andrew violated that system, and was made to pay dearly for it. Whether the system comes from experience or conscious reasoning is entirely beside the point- we all get our systems from a combination of the two.
What about the passages that says "Friendship with the world is enmity with God"? Does that impact your choice to use U2 in your worship service? Why or why not? What about the passage that says "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Does this impact your decision to make use of pagan symbology (the four elements or Maori rituals or Celtic stone circles)? Why or why not? Your answer to those questions reveal some things about your system. When you take these passages, and say, "No, they don't apply to those kinds of situations" or "it's OK because Paul or Jesus did something similar" or "those things aren't really pagan", you use your system to make that judgment. For that matter, what was it that led you to choose those particular elements for use in worship, rather than, say, Amorite blood rituals or the temple prostitution of Baal? What makes one unacceptable and the other acceptable? What makes one suitable for postmodernist 'sampling' and the other not? The answer, of course, is your system.
So again, I believe in truth. I believe that there's truth about everything, and that it all hangs together, in a system. I believe that all human systems are faulty, but that they can be more or less true to the degree that they correspond to the truth which exists in God's mind, much of which He has revealed to us in His Word. Postmodernist Christianity, for example, is truer than Postmodernist Atheism. I believe that we therefore have a duty to work very hard at our systems of theology, to make sure that they conform as closely as we can manage to the truth of Scripture. This is not a culturally determined perspective unless I, Charles Hodge, Frances Turretin, Charles Finney, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, Athanasius and Tertullian all share the same culture, which I doubt.
How worried should I be about the fact that the last time I had almost this exact conversation about truth, it was with an atheist?
I don't believe that I know all of the truth, but I do believe that God knows all of the truth. And since God can't lie, according to Scriptures, none of that truth can contradict itself. All truth is God's truth, and so if God says that He never changes, then if He changes, then God's a liar. We'll just focus on the truth about God here for a while, since that's the most important truth there is. But these principles really apply to truth about everything- to the truth about the picture on my wall, the CD in my stereo, the guy down the street at the liquor store. But let's just talk about God.
If truth exists, and God cannot lie, then for every question you can ask about God there is one correct answer. This is true if the question is phrased properly, and is not ambiguous of itself. But if you ask, Is there a God? There is only one correct answer to that question. If you ask, is God good? Again, there is only one correct answer. If you say that God is good, and that God is not good, then you've contradicted yourself, and you've accused God of lying. Therefore, there must be a whole collection of interrelated truths about God. All of these truths together are a system of truth.
I haven't received an answer yet to this. Steve's a busy guy, so maybe he hasn't gotten around to it. But he did post something else referring to my article, and referring to the ongoing debate between us. So I'm going to continue the discussion.
In Steve's most recent post, and in Nate's comments to my previous article, both express disdain or reluctance to use a systematic approach to truth. This seems to be a common thread among postmodernists. Steve says,
When moderns encounter postmoderns they sniff for a watering down of truth. What they fail to smell is the decaying odor, the rotting carcase, of their modern, all-encompassing, systematic cultural approach to truth. (Note what I said, the cultural approach is rotting, not the truth.)Now, this is assuming a lot of things. In fact, I can accuse Steve of doing exactly what he criticizes me for. He's labeled me something (a modern) which I am not. He's assumed that moderns do something (wrap truth in cultural clothes) which I do not. I get my views on this subject from hundreds of years ago; my denomination has been in existence virtually since the Reformation began. And the Reformers self-consciously attempted to build their theology on the theology of Scripture, not their culture. They thought their culture was wicked and apostate, and in need of transformation.
What Postmodern Christians do is to assume that their system is superior to ours, or anyone else's. They do this by denying that they have a system, and criticizing us for having one. But everyone has a system, a way that they read Scripture and interpret everything that they see and hear. Everyone does; it's impossible to function without one. I see an animal that has four legs and barks; I call it a dog. I do this because of my system of truth, which has taken a set of attributes and given it the label "dog". It is impossible for a dog to not be a dog. So Postmodernist Christians have categories of thought which they identify as "modern", and others that are "postmodern", and the one is assumed to be better than the other. Further, they have ways of reading Scripture that supports their views. The parts which most obviously appear to promote their views, they talk about a lot. Nate, for example (read the comments under this post), views the Scriptures through the lens of the Sermon on the Mount. Steve talks about Jesus being revealed to the disciples through talking and breaking bread with them. This proves that God is revealed in community, Steve says. This passage becomes normative for Steve, foundational to Steve's theology, despite this being one brief event in a pretty long book. Why this passage, and not, say, Romans 5? Matthew 23? Amos 4? This is a system, an interpretive framework. Some might say that God creating community on earth, community very separate from the community of the world that the people lived in, and Steve's idea of God being revealed in community, are two very different interpretations of the text he chooses. Why one and not the other?
The parts which might be read to teach something unacceptable are interpreted through a certain framework so that they don't challenge the system (see this exegesis of 1 Peter 3, for example). In this case, a "sacramental" or "communal" interpretive framework is to be preferred, because it gives results that are in conformity with the views of the interpreter. You see, 1 Peter 3 cannot be accepted to be teaching what it appears to be teaching on the face of it, which is that wives are to live under the rule of their husbands. This is because this teaching violates the system from which the Postmoderns are operating.
I'm not criticizing them for having a system. We all have systems. I am criticizing them for claiming that they don't have a system, and that they are superior to us (that is, anyone with a system, a "modern" in their vocabulary) because we are bound to a system and they are not. The fact is, I recognize that I have a system, and because of that I am able to critically evaluate the system, to see if it is truly in accord with God's word, and if not, to adjust the system. When you deny that you have a system, you are unable to critically evaluate that system, and are thus far more bound to it than you might be otherwise. I don't have the option of just believing the stuff that fits my cultural bias. Because I make a self-conscious decision to accept all of Scripture as best I can, I have to conform my system to fit Scripture. By denying that he has a system, the Postmodernist Christian becomes free to just believe the stuff that's easy for them to believe.
The Postmodernist has a system for everything. Look at this, for example, and read the comments. Here, a postmodern gets skewered by his fellow postmoderns for using the word "girls", even though he was referring to teenagers and saying very positive things about them. It was viewed as oppressive and condescending. He groveled for it later on his blog. See, the postmoderns viewed the word through the eyes of a particular system. Andrew violated that system, and was made to pay dearly for it. Whether the system comes from experience or conscious reasoning is entirely beside the point- we all get our systems from a combination of the two.
What about the passages that says "Friendship with the world is enmity with God"? Does that impact your choice to use U2 in your worship service? Why or why not? What about the passage that says "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Does this impact your decision to make use of pagan symbology (the four elements or Maori rituals or Celtic stone circles)? Why or why not? Your answer to those questions reveal some things about your system. When you take these passages, and say, "No, they don't apply to those kinds of situations" or "it's OK because Paul or Jesus did something similar" or "those things aren't really pagan", you use your system to make that judgment. For that matter, what was it that led you to choose those particular elements for use in worship, rather than, say, Amorite blood rituals or the temple prostitution of Baal? What makes one unacceptable and the other acceptable? What makes one suitable for postmodernist 'sampling' and the other not? The answer, of course, is your system.
So again, I believe in truth. I believe that there's truth about everything, and that it all hangs together, in a system. I believe that all human systems are faulty, but that they can be more or less true to the degree that they correspond to the truth which exists in God's mind, much of which He has revealed to us in His Word. Postmodernist Christianity, for example, is truer than Postmodernist Atheism. I believe that we therefore have a duty to work very hard at our systems of theology, to make sure that they conform as closely as we can manage to the truth of Scripture. This is not a culturally determined perspective unless I, Charles Hodge, Frances Turretin, Charles Finney, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, Athanasius and Tertullian all share the same culture, which I doubt.
How worried should I be about the fact that the last time I had almost this exact conversation about truth, it was with an atheist?
More on the Passion
Here's a really good article on The Passion by Mel Gibson, from a former Catholic. He makes it pretty clear that Mel's intention is not just to turn people to Christ, but to turn them to Catholicism. I wrote on this subject some here, but in retrospect I may have been a little naive in my judgment of Gibson's motives. Good stuff.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Family worship
When I moved out to Limon, I talked to the previous pastor here to find out some things about the new community I was coming to. I knew that on the one hand, people are people, and there is nothing new under the sun. And in many ways that has proved exactly right. There are people getting divorced; with drug problems; with rebellious teenagers, etc etc.
But I also knew that different environments and cultures provided different problems to deal with, or perhaps the same problems in different clothes. And the previous pastor (rest his soul) did not disabuse me of my suspicion. He told me something interesting- people in agricultural communities worship family. So the title of this refers not to worshiping together with your family (which I'm in favor of) but actually worshiping your family (which I'm opposed to).
I've been exploring this subject with people in my church and have been hearing story after story of people who do just this. This often takes the form of the patriarch; the man who came out here and carved a living out of nothing. His wife and kids view him as the center of the universe, as God himself. If he goes to church, so do they, and they go where he goes. If he doesn't, they don't either. When he lives, he dictates everything, and when he dies, he often tries to rule beyond the grave through the will and inheritance. I also often hear about people going to particular churches because it's where their family goes. I'm talking about adults here- grown children go where their parents or their brother or sister or whoever goes, even if there are other churches that have better teaching.
From Matthew 19:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Anything can be an idol. Love of your family is a good thing, but your family can't become your God. In the city where I come from, people worship their money, their SUV, their vacations, their career. Here in Limon, in agricultural communities, it's their family, their community, their ranch. Even church can be your idol. What do you trust for your happiness in life? What do you trust for your security in the future? What do you look to for your definition of right and wrong?
There's your God. If you answered anything other than God to any of those questions, then you need to take a look at the possibility that you're an idol-worshiper.
We're all idol-worshipers. It's the basic problem. Becoming conformed to the image of the Son means putting away the idols. And you know what? When you tell people they shouldn't worship their SUV, they'll readily agree with you. But try telling someone they shouldn't love their family as much as they do... That they need to love God more than their family. That's really hard for some people to hear.
What always ends up happening is that the Lord gets involved. Somebody dies, somebody gets divorced, somebody is molesting someone. Something happens. And then people realize that their idol is blind, deaf, and lame. Their family can't help them. In fact, their family is the problem. And then, those that are God's turn to Him.
But I also knew that different environments and cultures provided different problems to deal with, or perhaps the same problems in different clothes. And the previous pastor (rest his soul) did not disabuse me of my suspicion. He told me something interesting- people in agricultural communities worship family. So the title of this refers not to worshiping together with your family (which I'm in favor of) but actually worshiping your family (which I'm opposed to).
I've been exploring this subject with people in my church and have been hearing story after story of people who do just this. This often takes the form of the patriarch; the man who came out here and carved a living out of nothing. His wife and kids view him as the center of the universe, as God himself. If he goes to church, so do they, and they go where he goes. If he doesn't, they don't either. When he lives, he dictates everything, and when he dies, he often tries to rule beyond the grave through the will and inheritance. I also often hear about people going to particular churches because it's where their family goes. I'm talking about adults here- grown children go where their parents or their brother or sister or whoever goes, even if there are other churches that have better teaching.
From Matthew 19:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Anything can be an idol. Love of your family is a good thing, but your family can't become your God. In the city where I come from, people worship their money, their SUV, their vacations, their career. Here in Limon, in agricultural communities, it's their family, their community, their ranch. Even church can be your idol. What do you trust for your happiness in life? What do you trust for your security in the future? What do you look to for your definition of right and wrong?
There's your God. If you answered anything other than God to any of those questions, then you need to take a look at the possibility that you're an idol-worshiper.
We're all idol-worshipers. It's the basic problem. Becoming conformed to the image of the Son means putting away the idols. And you know what? When you tell people they shouldn't worship their SUV, they'll readily agree with you. But try telling someone they shouldn't love their family as much as they do... That they need to love God more than their family. That's really hard for some people to hear.
What always ends up happening is that the Lord gets involved. Somebody dies, somebody gets divorced, somebody is molesting someone. Something happens. And then people realize that their idol is blind, deaf, and lame. Their family can't help them. In fact, their family is the problem. And then, those that are God's turn to Him.
