More on the Abolition of Man

A few weeks ago in the wake of the hellish events at Virginia Tech I was drawn back to another old book, The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. It's tiny, only three chapters and an appendix.

The first chapter, Men Without Chests, identified a trend already present in the 1940's toward the privatization of values. Things are not "good" or "beautiful" in themselves, but only felt to be so as they stir corollary sentiments in the minds of individuals. This idea, as it finds its way through common education into the cultural mainstream, has consequences. If I get to define what is Valuable apart from any common standard, I also get to create my own set of ethics. Ethics are the standards of behavior based on some set of ultimate values. If life is universally and inherently valuable, then taking it arbitrarily is inherently unethical. If the value of life is personally determined, I might just assign it a lower importance in certain cases and then feel justified in taking it arbitrarily. Culturally speaking, personally defined values become no values at all.

The future of an essentially value-less culture, says Lewis, is ominous. That and more can be encountered in just the 1st chapter, but he goes on to develop his case, responding again to the authors of The Green Book, a literature study intended for the upper elementary grades. The last part of Lewis's argument (chapter 3, to be addressed later) will imagine in detail the contours of a future adrift from universal ethical moorings.

Chapter 2, The Way follows the trajectory of the Green Book authors' view from its apparent origins through its inconsistent and self-contradictory application. Lewis's provocative opening line:

The practical result of education in the spirit of The Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it.

A great part of Lewis's brilliance, as his fans know, is his ability to bring high philosophical debate down into the language of people like us. In the second chapter he explores the origin of values and the modern trend away from what theologians and philosophers might call foundationalism, the assertion that there are such things as self-evident truths: irreducible, non-debateable assumptions necessary to the process of arriving at our viewpoints.

His concern is not so much the abstract foundations of reason, but what for convenience he calls the "Tao," that set of moral assumptions providing a basis for judgments of value and right behavior; values employed, though not admitted to, even by the moral innovators. Those who deny ultimate values of one kind always end up making their appeal on the basis of assumed values of another kind. It's the usual roundabout. Use what you deny in order to deny it; establish as a fundamental value that there are no fundamental values. Those who tell us there are no ultimate ought-to's are ever insisting that we ought to be as broadminded as they are.

However subjective they may be about some traditional value, [the authors] have shown by the very real act of writing The Green Book that there must be some other values about which they are not subjective at all.

And then:

Their skepticism about values is on the surface: it is for use on other people's values; about the values current in their own set they are not nearly skeptical enough.

Next comes Lewis's analysis of what motivates the modern debunker of the Tao, that foundation of values common to civilized man:

They claim to be cutting away the parasitic growth of emotion, religious sanction, and inherited taboos, in order that 'real' or 'basic' values may emerge.

And from what ground might such real values emerge? Modernism's first answer has always been utilitarian, "good" is what is "good for the community." This of course only begs the question, for we still have to decide what good is for a community and who is obligated to participate in what action that might lead to it.

The second basis usually offered is "instinct." Pare away layers of imposed socialized belief and get down to a "natural" ethic. Man's impulse to preserve himself and his society is all that is needed. But this too is an inadequate and even disingenuous foundation. Inevitably it includes an "ought." We ought to reject certain instinctive impulses and embrace others, once again assuming some part of that higher set of values the debunker is trying so hard to pare away. And what to do when the desire for self-preservation comes into conflict with the obligation to preserve society? Instinctive impulses frequently contradict one another and must be judged according to their comparative dignity—a process not instinctual but again pointing to the Tao, to an external measure of what is worthy of man and what is not. (Lewis develops this further in his more popular Mere Christianity.)

Therefore, lying behind every natural explanation of the development of man's ethics is a more ultimate, assumed set of standards by which ethical propositions and "ethical development" itself must be evaluated. Lewis summarizes:

I draw the following conclusion. This thing I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or The First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the source of all value judgment. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.

And then:

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing the Tao or anything else.

What Lewis sees as universal elements of the Tao, those fundamental values common to and assumed by people everywhere, he includes in a wonderful appendix, a shorthand anthropological summary worth the price of the book.

Modern reasoning moves inexorably to a new and more precarious level. Maybe our task is this: even as modern science has swept away superstition and supernatural explanations for natural events, so too modern psychology will address outmoded assumptions about sexual morality (always the first on modern and post-modern lists to be jettisoned!) and other creaky, constrictive ideas about value and virtue. Most will demand modernization and even replacement. In fact—maybe we should just start over!

Let us regard all ideas of what we ought to do simply as an interesting psychological survival: let us step right out of all that and start doing what we like. Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.

This is a very possible position: and those who hold it cannot be accused of self-contradiction like the half-hearted skeptics who still hope to find 'real' values when they have debunked the traditional ones. This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether. I shall need another lecture to consider it.

And he does. Chapter 3, The Abolition of Man imagines the darkness sure to accompany that rejection, some of which is already evident.

To be continued.

"Thank You, Mr. DUGG-an"

When you decide to change the name of sole-proprietor business to one that does not include both first and last name (John Doe Widgets to Doe Widgets Unlimited), there are more than a few legal and logistical hoops to jump through. One just cleared this morning was at the bank where, Secretary of State documentation in hand, I successfully made a business checking account name change.

My case was unusual and it took some extra time and phone consultation to determine just what needed to be done. It seems that my account had been opened some time before the bank officer was born and the details of it (and for all I know, I myself) appeared to her quaint, mysterious and as inscrutable as something from the Arthurian legend. The account had been opened in 1983, just after the battle of Agincourt. To her credit, she navigated through the process of updating the ancient records, periodically reminding us both of just how old and odd they were, with the help of a consultant at the other end of the phone line—while repeatedly mispronouncing my name. "Will Mr. DUGG-an remain as a signer if...so where do I indicate DUGG-an Design Group on the form...yes, Mr. DUGG-an will continue to...." And so on.

Now I know that the name Dugan, even with the correct long vowel sound, isn't exactly musical as it rolls off the Irish tongue, and the problem for us is nothing new. But consider this: It was originally spelled with two g's and in a more grammatically rules-conscious age was ever and forgiveably being rendered "DUGG-an," short vowel before double consonant. My father, it is said, took offense and then took action excising the extra letter. In this age his work is to no avail. So at the bank and on the phone it continues. "Hello, this is Kevin at Acme Siding...how are you this evening Mr. DUGG-an?..."

I think the long-vowel-before-single-hard-consonant rule still applies, doesn't it?

If not, I'll just say that my new business name is now LEGG-al, I've signed the forms in DUPP-licate as was my DUTT-y.

You're welcome Ms. JONN-es.

Amnesia Helmet Award Goes to 2nd Ex-Soviet

From the land of the gulag and the home of the pogrom, speaking from a dais positioned at the tomb of another Vladimir (Lenin, champion of human life), his voice echoing throughout that timeless symbol of human liberty, Red Square, comes this Putin speech likening American foreign policy to that of the Third Reich.

"Moreover, in our time, these threats are not diminishing," he said as he delved into what one expert said was clearly an allusion to U.S. foreign policy. "They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats - as during the time of the Third Reich - are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat[sic.] in the world."

Congratulations, Vladimir! No need to dwell on the past, or remember that while the contemptible Reich was in its ascendancy, the Stalin/Soviet genocide machine (20 million?40 million??) was quietly and efficiently doing its work—as the Communist Chinese used to say, "depriving of existence" those who opposed them. Or that when Naziism was at last disposed of, it was Moscow orchestrating a network of the most repressive dictatorships in modern history, extending it's iron grip throughout Europe and beyond.

My complaint here is not the preposterous nature of the comparison, but the selective amnesia exercised and expected regarding modern European history. Let him level any criticism against U.S. involvement in continental affairs he wishes, but he should have at least said:

"...as during the time of the Third Reich and our own 70 years of brutal tyranny and jack-boot diplomacy..."

A Tale of Two Fridges

I'm not sure what sort of musing this is or why it matters, but every week day I interact with at least two refrigerators and for some reason am reflective on the subject today.

There is the big one at home in the kitchen, and the little one in my office. They both do their jobs, the big Amana more or less as it keeps our beverages almost cold while faithfully freezing the lettuce. I am an American and a patriot but must point out that the Amana is (sadly) American/Union-made, that it required an A.R.M to purchase and that it insolently flings a decorative aluminum molding at my chest every time I slide a gallon of milk off the top shelf.

The little dorm-size Sanyo on the other hand performs with heroic consistency and has done so for (hold on to your chairs) 32 years of almost continuous operation (it was in storage for a very short time). It cost me about a hundred bucks, has humbly served in a dorm, a basement or two and now in my office for nearly 23 years. What a product.

The End Is Near

It's been fun, this Western Civilization thing, but the the signs are everywhere. Here's another.

"Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

Do you think you get more than three squares of recycled tissue (call the desk if you need more)?

From First Things

Thanks to sharp eyes on the Bayly Blog, I was reminded of the good stuff to be found in First Things, now linked here. These excerpts come from a recent speech transcribed there, given by Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver.

But Americans now face the same growing spiritual illness that J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, Christopher Dawson, Romano Guardini, and C.S. Lewis all wrote about in the last century. It’s a loss of hope and purpose that comes from the loss of an interior life and a living faith. It’s a loss that we can only make bearable by creating a culture of material comfort that feeds—and feeds off of—personal selfishness.

Humility is the beginning of sanity. We can’t love anyone else until we can see past ourselves. And man can’t even be man without God. The humility to recognize who we are as creatures, who God is as our Father, what God asks from each of us, and the reality of God’s love for other human persons as well as ourselves—this is the necessary foundation that religion brings to every discussion of free will, justice, and truth, and to every conversation about “the common good.”

And quoting from Frank Sheed:

It’s incredible how long science has succeeded in keeping men’s minds off their fundamental unhappiness and its own very limited power to remedy their fundamental unhappiness. One marvel follows another—electric light, phonograph, motor car, telephone, radio, airplane, television. It’s a curious list, and very pathetic. The soul of man is crying for hope of purpose or meaning; and the scientist says, “Here is a telephone” or “Look, television!”—exactly as one tries to distract a baby crying for its mother by offering it sugar-sticks and making funny faces.

New from the Baldwin Moments Line

Men Without Chests

In the wake of the Virginia carnage, theories and cultural analyses abound. For me it's time to revisit a C.S. Lewis classic The Abolition of Man, 1947 McMillan.

A handful of Christian writers demonstrate that remarkable prescience which makes their decades-old identification of trends more useful than most contemporary analysis. Among them are A.W. Tozer on the church, Francis Schaeffer on culture, and C.S. Lewis on both.

Abolition is a small book beginning with a chapter entititled Men Without Chests. His premise: that in modern culture, a shift was taking place in the education and moral development of children. Rejected as outmoded sentimentality, shared values (common understandings of what is good and beautiful) give way to a subjectivism that leaves all definitions and judgments in the mind of the beholder. While seeming to inoculate students against emotional manipulation by others, the product of this new humanism is inhumanity, a kind of soul-lessness, the abolition of man.

People become merely intellectual and visceral, imagination and appetite, with no "chest," no heart in between to mediate between the two and train the impulses of either. The result in culture is cognitive dissonance. We want (desperately need) people to be good, restrained and controlled in their behavior, understanding and tolerant in their views of others, respectful—in a word, civilized—and yet deny any common, binding definition of what it means to be civilized. In one of his better-known quotes:

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible....We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

More later as I make my way through this one more time, but when shocking and horrific soul-lessness shows up again as it has in Virginia this week, this is one of the books worth re-reading.

And the Award Goes to...

Mikhael Gorbachev. For the sincerity, strength and brilliance of this statement regarding the U.S. plan to develop a missile shield to protect Europe from imminent rogue state threats:

"It is all about influence and domination in Europe," Mikhail Gorbachev said. "I believe it is wrong that America did not even bother to consult its NATO allies."

The second Amnesia Helmet [see my 3/14/07 post] is hereby awarded to the former Soviet President who seems to have forgotten that NATO was in fact created to resist the influence and domination of Russia in Europe—and further that untold American time, effort and treasure were and continue to be poured into Europe in order to protect it first from his nation and now from others with similar designs. And of course we all know how much influence we enjoy in Europe today.

Whether all European members were adequately consulted, I don't know. I just find it amusing when deep concerns about the finer points of henhouse security come from a representative of the fox.

He will add this prestigious award to his 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, the Orders of Lenin, and the Red Banner of Labour. You can read all about him at mikhaelgorbachev.org, a site which like all grand socialist experiments promises much but doesn't actually work (at least in my browser).

An Inconvenient View of Global Warming

This piece in Newsweek by an MIT climatologist introduces a note of sanity to the discussion in the mainstream media. Money quote:

The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

C.S. Lewis: Dreamer of Narnia

At long last my daughters and I sat down with this 75 minute documentary feature included with the Chronicles of Narnia DVD. What a delight! It's the story of Lewis's life interwoven with themes and excerpts from all the Narnia books and punctuated with commentary from all sorts of people—literary names to former Oxford students to Douglas Gresham, Lewis's step-son. The visuals include clever animations of the Pauline Baynes original illustrations.

His conversion to Christianity is clearly presented, and much of the "first-person" narration seems to come from his autobiography, Surprised by Joy. Included were a couple of my favorite quotes from that book:

[on Atheism]
I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.

[on Atheism and books]
A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere—"Bibles laid open, millions of surprises," as Herbert says, "fine nets and stratagems." God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.

[on his conversion]
You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him who I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not see then what is now the most shining and obvious thing: the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms.

Highly recommended.

The Religion and its Prophet

Here is an interesting perspective offered by the Czech president on the religion of global warming (divine services being held today in the Capitol hearing rooms).

On Pork and Spinach

CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste) has long been identifying the biggest pork-barrel spenders in Washington and has announced it's Porker of the Month.

"It's easy to make fun of spinach, but if we had eaten more of it, we'd be a stronger society," mused this month's honoree Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) as he added $25,000,000.00 for spinach growers in his district to the U.S. Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

The Amnesia Helmet Award

This blog will hereafter occasionally bestow the Amnesia Helmet award to worthy nominees. It is a dubious honor just to be nominated, but only a select few will receive the coveted virtual Helmet for their virtual mantels.

A little history of the concept—explained in an Amazon review of the Buck Rogers 1939 serial: "...Buck Rogers is here to fight Kane's evil domination of mankind, which involves making obedient robots out of folks by strapping an "amnesia helmet" on their heads."

The criteria: The award will be given to those who, like the diabolical Kane, deliberately attempt to strap the helmet on our heads and thus manipulate us, or to those who in selective forgetfulness don it themselves.

My vast readership (members of the Amnesia Academy) is invited to submit nominees at any time. (I know my audience is growing because my profile hits increased from 571 to 585 within a month and only 13 of those new hits were me checking my profile hits.)

The first award goes to Hillary Rodham Clinton for her principled condemnation of the Bush administration firing of 9 U.S. attorneys. It seems that in 1993 the Clintons fired all 93 U.S. attorneys...

In Any Language

My dear friend and college room-mate Paul Sunde, with his wife Reiko has been living and working in Japan for many years. He now has a website with a few pictures, a lot of Japanese and a little English, introducing his church. I'm struck by the simplicity, profundity and universality of this line in his message:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

These are the first words of the Bible. Believing just this one sentence will change your life.

More Smart Guys

The criteria for inclusion in my list of "smart guys" at right are quite uncomplicated.

A candidate must:
1. Agree with me on some important issue.
2. Say it better than I can.
3. On positions that I don't agree with, articulate his or her position (females can be smart guys) clearly.
4. Amuse or intrigue me.
5. Demonstrate the capability of maintaining proper agreement of subject and verb even in difficult cases like "criteria...are quite uncomplicated."

A candidate is disqualified if:
1. He or she embarrasses me by saying something really stupid more than once. Just like eighth grade Phys. Ed. softball, two strikes you're out. We just don't have time for any more, and everybody gets a chance to bat.
2. The word "journey" is anywhere used outside it's clear literal meaning. "My faith journey" would disqualify, for example.
3. I don't like them any more.

I have added a new smart guy, and this post on NAE and global warming meets all the qualifications. Check it out...

The News is Out!

And I could not be more thrilled! And I expect all honor and deferential treatment due my new title and position. Thank You.

Obamarama!

Ann Coulter's piece on the man whose candidacy has captivated and energized a broad range of Americans—all up and down the Malibu beachfront—is worth the time.

Favorite quote: "Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters."

More Gems from J. Gresham Machen

On the weakened, more culturally attractive view of God and man offered by liberal theology then (1923) and it's current incarnation, the "emergent conversation" today—contrasted with the terrible and joyous purity of the Bible's teaching:

"Religion cannot be made joyful simply by looking on the bright side of God. For a one-sided God is not a real God, and it is the real God alone who can satisfy the longing of our soul...."

"...God's own Son delivered up for us all, freedom from the world, sought by philosophers of all the ages, offered now freely to every simple soul, things hidden from the wise and prudent revealed unto babes, the long striving over, the impossible accomplished, sin conquered by mysterious grace, communion at length with the holy God, our Father which art in heaven."

Surely this and this alone is joy. But it is a joy that is akin to fear. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Were we not safer with a God of our own devising—love and only love, a Father and nothing else, one before whom we could stand in our own merit without fear? He who will may be satisfied with such a God. But we, God help us—sinful as we are, we would see Jehovah. Despairing, hoping, trembling, half-doubting and half-believing, trusting all to Jesus, we venture into the presence of the very God. And in His presence we live."
—Christianity and Liberalism p.134-135

Go Machen!

Recent and Current Reading
If anybody has read any of this, I'd love to hear your impressions or objections.

Recently read:
Above All Earthly Pow'rs by David Wells
Powerful (and readable) analysis of Evangelicalism's drift away from Truth into post-modern fog.
The Dangerous Duty of Delight by John Piper
A little book with a huge chapter on worship that (rightly) contradicts much of what you hear on that subject.
Becoming Conversant with Emergent by D.A. Carson
Makes our emergent friends twitch. Money quote: "Damn all false antitheses to hell." (refuting the notion that for Christians the only alternative to cultural irrelevance is to sail off into the fog of subjectivism with the rest of the culture)
A Series of Unfortunate Events, A Bad Beginning by Lemony Snicket
Trying to figure out why these were so popular with my daughter and others. Sort of figured it out.
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Must read every few years for me. I heard again recently how some anal-retentive self-appointed societal minders managed to get this removed from yet another school reading list on the charge of racist language. On the contrary, anybody who has encountered HF and does not emerge from every reading with increased sympathy and respect for American blacks, and with exponentially increased contempt for Southern white arrogance and the evil stupidity of racism is dull indeed.
Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen 1923
Deja Vu. Mainline protestantism in the early years of the last century introduced the same subjectivism and the same deadly errors for essentially the same reasons as the left wing of Evangelicalism (including but not limited to our emergent friends) finds those disastrous compromises attractive today. A perfect 84 year old counterpoint to last weeks theological news. In the process, Machen sets forth a crystal clear explanation of the Gospel that could be a Doctrine I textbook. Wonderful quote:

"Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoiced in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from 'controversial' matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."

Currently reading:

Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher
I like a lot of it, jury is still out. He's big on home-schooling...for the right reasons...so I give him credit there. Not sure on his economics.
The Pilgrim's Regress by C.S. Lewis
Every few years on this one. It's making more sense this time around. He really nails Freud and the Spirit of the Age in the 1900s. He's about to have fun with some theologians up on the dry, barren plateau they inhabit.
Aristotle the Barnes and Noble edition
I'm told you have to understand Aristotle to understand Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and early Catholic theology. I don't understand any of them, but I'm going to give this one a go. Just barely started.
Life as a Vapor by John Piper
A series of sweet, succinct meditations that always leave you with something to ponder and/or obey.

Thanks Be to God for the Local Church

There is a dried soup mix from Great Harvest Bakery sitting on our kitchen counter that reminds me daily what a wonderful thing the local church is.

Ever since Mrs. D, our personal Food Network at the D house, began her painful odyssey from a skating accident through wrist surgery and recovery, it looked like meal generation was largely going to fall into the less-than-capable hands of the resident curmudgeon. A week and a half ago on our school group field trip to Great Harvest Bakery, I picked up that soup mix with the complimentary bag of dinner rolls, thinking it was something I could handle for that evening's meal.

It's still on the counter. Why? Because of the local church. Which one? The one comprised of a whole group of dear Christian family and friends who keep showing up (unsolicited, coordinated "only" by love and the Holy Spirit) with generous (and better) meals. And, I should add, the hard work and burgeoning skills of the resident D kids.

It's now a running joke. "OK dad, when are we gonna make that soup?" We will sooner or later. Maybe Mrs. D will do it. She could one-hand it into shape better than I can with two.

But thanks to all of you (you know who you are) who have been so unbelievably kind.

The Joy of Skating

At last it's cold enough for the rinks to open, and last Friday night at Centennial Lakes it was perfect. Acres of clean ice, the kids in their Christmas ice skates.... For the rest of the story, check out Mrs. D's blog. You also might want to wear some of those rollerblading wrist guards next time out.

Amnesia Helmet in Place?

From an Amazon review of the Buck Rogers 1939 serial:
"...Buck Rogers is here to fight Kane's evil domination of mankind, which involves making obedient robots out of folks by strapping an "amnesia helmet" on their heads."

I just thought this was cool. Make up your own biting political or ecclesiological commentary, apply it to anything you like, but whatever you do, resist the evil Kane in 2007.

Old Guy Former Wannabe Musician Hog Heaven

I found this in my stocking on Christmas morning, thank you S.C. and Mrs. D. It's the Eagles Live in Melbourne DVD. My son Chris brought his big screen video projector over to our house this week and connected up to the surround sound. So a couple of nights ago I collapse on the couch in the middle of everything, a front row seat and a "peaceful, easy feeling." I have the second half of the concert yet to look forward to.

Approaching Christmas

Christmas is half a week away and here in my office I've just lunched on the leftovers from a Lund's Christmas Breads platter. A salad would have been preferable. This morning we had our annual TDDesign Wednesday Morning Christmas Muffin open house for the people in our building. Lots of folks showed up and we had a great time.

This afternoon, I'm reflecting on several real-life stories from there and elsewhere that have converged in the last couple of days.

One of the guys down the hall, a doctor, held back tears as he told me about his approaching Christmas. Tomorrow he will bring his wife home for the first time since hospitalization and institutional care began last June. She's finally just able to try making it at home. I had picked up from casual "how's business?" conversations earlier that there were some unique stresses in his life, but I had no idea what he's been going through.

From another office party guest came the story of a recent trip to a Liberian orphanage. Letters now arrive from little survivors of that country's chaos. "Dear Daddy Tim, Please pray that somebody will adopt me...."

Yesterday an email entitled "Sad News" arrived from a client of ours in Louisiana. The funeral would be this morning for the 27 year old son of one of the people we work with regularly. Suicide. Can you imagine what Christmas will be like for them this year and in the years to come?

Gosh, my issues don't look like any big deal do they? Should I not approach Christmas with a lot more thankfulness and a lot more compassion than I usually do?

But if you really want to be touched and then be uplifted, read this blogger's December 18th post.

Merry Christmas!

Lewis on Chronological Snobbery...

The tendency to assume that an idea or practice represents progress just because it's more recent, and a reading person's remedy:

It’s a good rule after reading a new book never to
allow yourself another new one till you have read an
old one in between. If that is too much for you, you
should at least read one old one to three new ones....
Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good
at seeing certain truths and especially liable to make
certain mistakes. We all therefore need the books that
will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own
period.... None of us can fully escape this blindness,
but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our
guard against it, if we read only modern books....The
only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the
centuries blowing through our minds and this can
only be done by reading old books."

Check out the C.S. Lewis Institute, a new addition to Really Smart Guys, for lots of good stuff.

From the Sacred Sandwich
YOUTH PASTOR OVERSEES NEW MINISTRY FOR "XTREME" ELDERLY

January 2006 --- Hot on the heels of leading a wildly successful, culturally relevant youth group at Keystone Community Church, Youth Pastor Tad Grunholtz has recently created a similar ministry for the elderly in hopes of luring disaffected old people back into church. He calls the group Xtreme Seniors. “A lot of churches today just focus on the younger generation and ignore the elder members of the church,” explained Grunholtz. “But at Keystone, we came to the sudden realization during our last building campaign that old people have all the money. Sure, the youth are the future of the church, but we need a new gymnasium now.”

Using his thriving youth program as a template, Grunholtz has done away with the boring “Golden-Agers” Bible study group that was such a turn-off to many seniors...

Thinking More About Church: Part III
You Are Brothers

This leads me naturally to the second text (see Part II) and metaphor that I am drawn to. Seldom quoted, at least in my hearing, a text that answers with real authority the most basic church question. If bridegroom and bride picture the great mystery of what our relationship to Christ is, what is to characterize our relationship to one another?

The New Paradigm

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” –Matthew 23:8-10 ESV

This is the Lord’s clear and utterly revolutionary statement. In context it represents a defining moment. The veil of the temple will remain intact for only a little while longer, and the priesthood of the old covenant will be no more. There will be one priest and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5). This is a shocking new thought for a sacerdotal, priesthood-based religion, and for those sitting “on Moses’s seat” (23:2).

The implications are clear for authority structures as well as for personal salvation. At the very moment when through Christ the relationship between God and man enters a new era, so also changes the role of man to man within the household of God. The change-over will begin at the cross, be completed at the resurrection and experienced fully at the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit on the church at Pentecost.

Practically speaking, Jesus prescribes what it means for human interaction. He begins by showing what that human interaction is not to be like, and the scribes and Pharisees are his exhibit A. They put burdens on others, they do their good deeds to be seen by others, they love the place of honor, the insider greetings in the marketplace, and being called rabbi by others. They are preoccupied with position, with authority, and they lord it over their followers.

“But you are not to be called rabbi...father...instructor...you have one rabbi...one Father...one instructor, the Christ.” The Logos of God, expressed in the word of God, the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit speaks straight to the heart of the believer.

The Mis-Use of Authority

Many in the church down through the centuries never lost this precious truth. The story of the “Pilgrim Church” in E.H. Broadbent’s classic by that name is a wonderful chronicle of the genuine church’s quiet, humble and faithful history.

But in Europe things had sadly deteriorated by the close of the middle ages. So from this and other texts the Reformers thundered. They called the western church back from what Luther described as its “Babylonian Captivity,” it’s regression into Pharisaical usurpation of spiritual authority. The church, its pope, its bishops and its councils had arrogated to themselves the authority of Holy Spirit and scripture. Their abuses were evident. They had driven a wedge between Christ and his people and the harm to the people of God was serious.

But it’s important to remember what the pretext was for Rome’s exercise of that false authority. The pretext was “purity.” It was their task to protect the church and the gospel from the corruption and the twisting of the faith certain to result if the ignorant masses were permitted to read and interpret the scripture for themselves. In the process they came to see themselves as the exclusive master and teacher of the people and the institution as the "vicar of Christ."

The church’s pastors and leaders had become tyrannical masters, even of the dissemination and interpretation of God’s word. Loyalty to the church became synonymous with loyalty to God. In some of the darkest days in church history that followed, men and women paid with their own blood for suggesting that it should be otherwise.

The Protestant Reformation

A friend of mine said the other day, "We're Protestants? What was it we were protesting? Nothing less than abuse of authority...." I think he's right. Reformers protested vigorously and in the Westminster Confession we have a concise summary of the heart of their message, what came to be known as Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of the final authority of scripture in the life of the believer:

“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” —Chapter 1, Article 10

Consistent with Jesus’ teaching, this approach to spiritual authority stands in bold contrast to any interpretation that brings a man or a group of men into the position of rabbi, master, master teacher or guru in a local or national or worldwide context.

So What Is the Role of Church Leadership?

Again as in the discussion of the church as bride, questions arise: What about texts that speak of offices of authority within the church? Teachers, shepherds, overseers? What about Paul’s references to being like a father and mother to the Thessalonians, and to Timothy his “son” in the faith? How do these square with Matthew 23? There are hermeneutical starting points that bring things into balance. One is included in the Westminster Confession (1.9) and reminds us to “interpret scripture with scripture.” Read each in the light of the others. Another principle is the interpretation of narrative (story, personal expression, account) in the light of the didactic (clear statement of truth, general instruction, command).

On that basis we might draw the following conclusions. Every relational role or gifted office must be measured by and in the light of Jesus’ clear command. Every administrative function also. Consider Jesus’ categories and the questions to ask of ourselves and our churches:

A gifted teacher is never a rabbi. The term rabbi, sometimes translated “my master,” is pretty close to our idea of “guru” or “spiritual guide” in new age parlance. Though he preaches the Word with “all authority,” his authority for directing the spiritual life of his students goes only as far as scripture speaks and no farther. In their celebrity status or claimed “anointing,” do our teachers assume the posture of something more than a conveyor of what God says in scripture?

Making disciples is a good thing and is our calling, but a discipler is never a master. If a relationship between disciple and mentor is more like servant to master, it is in violation of the New Testament relationship standard. Does the mentoring relationship I’m in require submission and conformity that goes beyond scripture into matters of personal preference and freedom? Even a little bit?

Leadership is necessary for order and ministry to continue, but leaders are not parents. Paul speaks affectionately of Timothy as his son in the faith, but measured against Mt. 23, the Bible never allows for a condescending, patronizing relationship between leaders and congregation, individually or collectively. Any church setting where leadership effectively gives its members a glass of water and sends them off to bed while they (the leaders) have the really important conversations and make the important decisions needs to be re-evaluated.

Of course leaders will meet together and work together uniquely to accomplish their tasks, but they do so with the authority of and in the service of the whole body. There are highly practical implications. Any scenario where the money and property of a church is managed exclusively by the leaders and those they deputize should be watched carefully. All of this flows from a Matthew 23-violating condescension, a parent/child, master/servant assumption unacceptable in the spirit of the new covenant. In my church is there a practice or any tone of parental condescension?

“You are brothers” is the key phrase. Matthew 23 does not deny leadership, eldership, order and discipline within the church. It does, however, establish inviolable boundaries and limits on human authority and reminds us that there are finally to be no real divisions in Christ. The newest believer and the oldest saint are brothers. That’s the starting point of biblical fellowship.

Why Belabor the Obvious?

I’d like to think most of this is pretty clearly understood around Protestantism, but I’m not sure. In the evangelical world we’re clear on the idea of singular papal authority (we don’t accept it), but we do seem inclined to enshrine a thousand little popes and councils and lords and feifdoms instead and allow them similar excesses–again driving an unnecessary wedge between Christ and his bride and between brothers.

No offense intended to faithful men and their ministries, but in some corners the children and step-children of the Pharisees are alive and well. The division between clergy and laity is sometimes too great. The power and anointing assumed borders on presumption. The structure is too Old Testament. Some in the name of reaching the world become cults of celebrity, some in the name of aggressive disciple making become controlling and even cultic. In the spirit of Ephesians 4 and Matthew 23, the church can and will do better. There are fresh and encouraging winds blowing that some have referred to as a “new reformation,” a new discovery of what God can do “through all” the church, the people of God.

“There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
–Ephesians 4:4-6 ESV

New from Another Old Book

Just got my used copy of "Christianity and Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen (1923) in the mail today. This is a man who drew a line in the sand with his generation's version of Emergent doctrinal ambiquity and outright abandonment of the Gospel in the mainline churches. Have to work so can't read 'til later, but cheated and read the last paragraph first:

"Is there no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus' name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation from nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world."

Congratulations to New Life Church!

Leaving behind my grinchy curmudgeonliness (spell-check that) on the subject of evangelicalism in America, I genuinely applaud New Life Church in Colorado Springs for this new development.

Quoting from the pdf entitled Selection Committee Results under Latest Information on the Senior Pastoral Transition:

Dear New Life family and friends,
This Monday night, November 20, New Life Church held its first-ever membership meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to elect the senior pastoral selection committee...

First-ever membership meeting...wow! After the tragedy/embarrassment/misery associated with the Haggard scandal, it sounds like a fresh new breeze is blowing through their church and the body of Christ will begin to function in new freedom.

It seems to me this church and even the deposed pastor have been handling things pretty much the way they should. God bless them, better days are ahead.

Thinking More About Church: Part II
The Great Marriage

Two biblical concepts and texts have lately been much on my mind. One is more common but perhaps under-appreciated for it’s stunning cosmic implications. The other is rarely quoted—at least in discussions of church formation—but strikes me as nothing short of revolutionary if it were to be truly embraced—but more about that on a later post.

The first, alluded to in Part I on this blog, is the familiar image of the church as the Bride of Christ: “And of course, finally she is Jesus' own bride. Our primary motive and holy fear should be to do no harm, to be terrified lest we insert ourselves between the Groom and his Bride. There is a wedding underway and this is a dance where no sane man dares ‘cut in.’"

The essential picture of God’s people as his bride appears throughout scripture but is probably the most focused and clear in Ephesians 5.

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:25-32 ESV

This is a familiar text used in almost every wedding homily and applied to marriage, the parallels are usually rightly drawn. On further reflection this amazing passage deserves so much more attention as it applies to the church. It takes me to a place where almost immediately words begin to fail, to the utter uniqueness and sacredness of marriage and what marriage pictures. There is sobriety and humility called for when thinking about the church and particularly the leadership of it.There is serious danger in presuming too much while attempting to shape and manage what Jesus calls his own Bride, His own flesh. We had better walk carefully.

It is in that last phrase, “I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” where the metaphor is most stunning. When we speak of the marriage of a man and a woman, we’re quite literally dealing with something of cosmic significance, a great mystery going to the very heart of God’s relationship with redeemed humanity. His quotation of Genesis and appeal to creation supports the implied claim of a universal truth.

Like so much of God’s word, Paul’s metaphor cuts with more than one edge. Marriage is significant and love is what it ought to be when modeled after Christ and his church. But well beyond this, marriage is significant because it is our most available picture of the Great Marriage, the coming together of the eternal Bridegroom and his chosen bride, the church. This elevates marriage to a place of so much greater importance than that of any natural or sociological explanation. Far beyond providing social stability, remedying loneliness and producing children, marriage is preaching the Gospel, for all time and for all to see.

This is why marital fidelity and sexual purity are treated with such careful and strict guidelines in scripture. Much is at stake here, even more than the possibility of harm to partners, children or society. To compromise or damage marriage is to cloud and distort an eternal picture, and so the word of God cuts to the heart of my marriage. I am to love my wife as Christ loves the church—for her sake and for the sake of God’s glory before a watching world .

The Bible cuts another direction with equal precision. If the relationship between a man and his wife is a picture of Christ and His church, and if the church is His bride, what does that tell us about the Church universal and about church local—the gathering of those who are individually members of Christ’s body, together someplace in his name?

The church is His bride, and no man should dare to tamper with that exclusivity: Not in the name of apostleship “I planted this church, she is mine,” or in the name of pastoring, teaching or leadership. The bride communes intimately with the groom and needs no human interloper, no go-between, no intercessor. “...there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 2:5 ESV This is indeed a dance where no wise man would want to cut in.

What then about human leadership? Order? Discipline? What about the authoritative and shepherding and teaching roles in the church described in Romans 12, Ephesians 4 and other places? They are vital and necessary to God’s plan for the growth and equipping of His church. But it is leadership walking very softly and humbly, using gifts for the benefit of others in ways always tempered and limited and sobered by the reminder of the bride’s identity. She belongs to Jesus.

So leading is by example. Not daring to call any of the bride’s attention to himself or direct any of her loyalty and love to himself or to his organization and away from Christ, the teacher employs great humility and care. The possibility of such an impertinence, however unintentional, strikes fear in him. Discipline, maintaining the purity of the church (who’s in and who’s not) is finally left in the hands of the whole church in Matthew 18, not invested in any individual, subgroup, leadership or otherwise. All this speaks of an understanding of the headship of Christ alone over his church, and her protection from presumptuous human authority.

John the Baptist, who Jesus called “a burning and shining lamp”(John 5:35) and a prophet like no other, understood his leadership role perfectly. “The one [Jesus] who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” John 3:29,30

So mature church leadership steps back, terrified lest it insert itself into the precious, intimate relationship between the bridegroom and his bride, recognizing that they themselves and every person in Christ are equally a part of that bride.

What does this mean for church leadership? It means that every ministry, every discipling and mentoring strategy, every counseling relationship, every leadership model, every governing system, every constitutional clause and bylaw must be measured in the light of this mystery, and therefore this question: Does anything we do interfere with, distract from, demean, diminish, or lessen the gathered members’ unique and elevated position in Christ? Have leaders presumed to speak for Christ? Has any condescension crept in? Any usurping of the role of the Holy Spirit who through the Word speaks directly to the believer? Even a little?

More about the authority of the Word later, but on that topic recently our pastor did an interesting thing. In the middle of an exposition of I Thessalonians 2. He paused, asked us to open our Bibles and raise them up in front of us, between our eyes and the platform, so that we could no longer see him. This, he said, was the goal and the point, the power and the role of the scripture. He was right.

In one sense, we should worry when the church demands too little of itself and of its audience—too little repentance, too little faith, too little faithfulness to the word of God. That may well be the larger problem in American Christianity. But we also should worry when the church demands too much—too much conformity, too much loyalty, too much attention for itself and its leaders, and too much authority for itself. That too is a kind of idolatry.

It could be added that in opposition to what some in their motivational zeal suggest, a Christian’s loyalty, love for and obedience and lifelong commitment to Christ cannot, indeed dare not, be measured by his loyalty, love for and obedience or lifetime commitment to any person or human organization.This is reserved for Christ alone, and historically, post-Reformation Christians have all understood this.

So when we think about marriage we should be thinking about how Christ relates to his church. And when we think about how Christ relates to the church, we ought to be thinking about a marriage. And we ought to esteem both highly.

Why It’s Difficult to be an Orthodox/Biblical Christian and a Political Liberal

In and around the political seasons, this question comes up on blogs and elsewhere all the time, so I thought I would weigh in. Beginning as one must with certain caveats.

What Biblically conservative Christians should clarify:

1. Political conservatism and Biblical orthodoxy are not the same thing. That suggestion at the very least elevates politics too much in importance, and there’s plenty of evidence that parts of political conservatism are at odds with biblical teaching. Some conservatives are guilty of confusing the two.

2. Not everything in political liberalism is at odds with traditional Christianity. There are points where we agree.

3. It is quite possible for politically conservative religious groups to be in error in significant ways, particularly in doctrine or in legalistic, authoritarian practice. A general conservatism is no guarantee of ideological safety.

What Biblically conservative Christians must keep in mind when approaching politics and everything else:

1. That a biblically informed world view affects all of life, including politics. Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Christian politician 100+ years ago said it this way:

“No political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception.” Quoting in Tabletalk magazine 10/02, the writer added “Politics are not neutral but always wedded to ultimate issues. Thus, political ideas should be judged by their religious roots as well as their practical effects.”

2. The question for a Christian to ask of both (all) political camps is “what sort of view of the world does this approach flow from?” and not stop at the Christian-sounding use of rhetoric regarding compassion, grace, tolerance and other ostensible Christian virtues coming from politicians.

3. A world view is usually defined by at least these categories:

a) Epistemology--Is there such a thing as absolute truth or is all truth relative and sociologically defined with no fixed point of reference? Can what is true be understood rationally?

b) Theology--Is there a God? What sort of God is He? Does He intervene in the world of humans? How does He reveal Himself?

c) Anthropology--Who are we? Are we essentially good or bad? Are we “fallen?” What is our purpose and role in the world?

d) Morality/Ethics--What is the fundamental standard for human behavior? Where do we find a basis for what is good and what is evil? Are definitions of right and wrong behavior fixed or flexible and situational?

4. Which (if any) political camp tends to build it’s ideals and therefore it’s policies on the world view presented to me in scripture? None perfectly, but some are closer than others.

Modern American liberalism in my view flows from a) a relativistic, flexible view of truth, b) a minimizing of God in the public square, c) a counter-biblical overly optimistic view of human nature, and d) a weak, drifting, compromised ethical system where the only remaining standards are vague notions of “tolerance” and “diversity.” It’s ethic has permitted unthinkable contempt for human life. It’s only answer to the human dilemma and the reality of evil seems to be more government. I could go on and on.

On the surface, the goals of the left seem more biblical than mine: compassion, concern for the poor, peace, equality and so on. But embracing a political philosophy without examining it’s roots, and only it’s stated ends can put you in some dubious company. The end does not justify the means. In the last century it was God-less, human-centered, utopia-promising, morally ambiguous social experimentation that gave us the bloodiest, most brutal century in human history. Fascism and communism were built on a consciously anti-Judeo/Christian view of the world. The end result of these efforts was to produce the opposite of what was promised. This is always the case when God is subtracted from the justice equation.

The thoughtful Christian attracted to the humanitarian language of the left does not believe he’s aligning himself with all that. But if he examines both the roots and historical results of god-less political thought, the evangelical Christian will keep his distance from the Left even as he keeps a careful eye on the Right.

This is a rather broad-brushed summary that demands some chapter and verse debate, I realize, but it’s a start.

When elections come along, sometimes it’s far from a perfectly clear-cut choice. But based upon the above analysis, and sometimes holding my nose a little, I have to support the candidate whose root ideas are closest to, or least offensive to, my world view.

In any case, I do think Kuyper is right and that if we Christians with a high view of the Bible were to analyze our politics this way we would speak more clearly and prophetically to the politics of either party. We would be less intimidated by those who tell us to keep our religious views out of the public square.

Everybody’s religious views are in the public square whether they like it or not. While it’s true that religious conservatives sometimes put too much hope in politics, for many liberals politics has replaced religion, and that’s probably where I differ with them the most.

I've Always Suspected This

Here's a taste of a new book that will annoy my dear liberal friends...

Why Ramstad Will Not Get My Vote...Again

Because I am a single issue voter. Provided that single issue matters enough. Read this for a cogent, brief defense of single-issue voting.

I don't vote for Rammer's MN 3rd District opponents either. They're always worse.

If and when the Congressman can be shown to have mended his views, he will get my vote.

This Is Not My Next Post...

...the one with Part II of my last post. But take a look, if you haven't already, at The Sacred Sandwich and give me your reactions. I've explored only a little of it but it looks pretty interesting. I enjoyed the Twin Theologians.

Thinking More About Church: Part I
Micro and Macro, Over Space and Time

My family and I for the last couple of years have been necessarily somewhat preoccupied with questions regarding the church: how to understand it biblically, how to engage it locally, what constitutes proper human authority within it, what's healthy and unhealthy (as much as I despise therapeutic language) and so on. Why this has been so is well-documented here and on other related blogs. Fortunately, the study is challenging and enriching and a wealth of resources are available over space—via media and the internet, and time—via 2000 years of writing. I continue to discover good thinking and good writing that open the Bible in new ways on this topic.

Which leads me to my first thought: In all the analysis and questioning about church, I don't want to forget to first appreciate it.

Biblically, job one is to engage it and be part of it "...not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near." Hebrews 10:25 (ESV) The church is an amazing thing even in it's most basic and rudimentary micro form, gathered simply around the Word.

Luther said in that regard:

"The only mark of the Christian Church is following and obeying the Word. When that is gone, let men boast as much as they please: 'Church! Church!' There is nothing to their boasting anyway. Therefore you should say, "Do the people have the Word of God there? And do they accept it too?...wherever one hears the Word of God, there is the church of God, though it be in a cow stable, the place where Christ was born."

WHAT LUTHER SAYS: VOL I, Selection 780, Concordia

But over the last year the amazing treasure of the Church in the macro sense has come home to me in a new way too. We live in a privileged time when the insight and ministry of gifted teachers around the globe and back through the centuries all the way to New Testament times are at our fingertips. This is amazing when you think about it.

The writer of Hebrews calls those that went before him (listed in chapter 11) a "great cloud of witnesses" 12:1, and in a sense that cloud extends throughout the centuries A.D. I've just read a series of simple and moving prayers from The Didache, a collection of Christian teaching and liturgy dating back to the early 2nd century, and one from Clement of Alexandria around the same period. We would be at home with those forgotten saints. Their words could be ours, there is no disconnect between their Christianity and genuine faith in the 21st century. And of course from the apostolic fathers through the mystics to the reformers and beyond comes so much that most of us have never explored. I suppose we could think of it as the Church over time. Finding our place in the meta-story of the church is a humbling and correcting exercise. There is, by the way, an enormous amount of even the ancient stuff available to us amateurs. I just saw advertised at CBD a 38 volume hardcover set of the writings of The Early Church Fathers. I may wait for the CD!

The story of the church over time is not all rosey, to say the least. Yet from the reality of all the error, the incursions of human arrogance and apostasy repeated throughout the years, we learn what not to do, and how truth is strengthened when error is challenged. Or at least we should. Even with as little command of church history as I have, I'm struck by the repetitious nature of error—particularly with regard to the church. There is not much new out there in the field of heresy. But then there is not much interest in history either. As David Wells so masterfully points out in his Above All Earthly Pow'rs, our Emergent friends, for example, seem to have no idea that their "new discovery" of subjective, man-centric incarnational gospel is virtually identical to that which eviscerated mainline churches in the mid-1900s.

But they are not the only ones who put at risk this wonderful thing called the church. And here it is not even quite correct to say "put at risk" because what is truly amazing about the church after all is that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt. 16:18 (ESV) Consequently she persists and endures and thrives and triumphs through good times, and most remarkably, even more so through bad times. Jesus declared this so we know the story ends well. Still it is important to identify her enemies and the recurring mistakes from within that damage the church's unique position. And of course, finally she is Jesus' own bride. Our primary motive and holy fear should be to do no harm, to be terrified lest we insert ourselves between the Groom and his Bride. There is a wedding underway and this is a dance where no sane man dares "cut in."

Which brings me to my next set of musings based on Matthew 23:8, the relationship between believers, and I Timothy 2:5, the priesthood of the believer. The reformers and the post-reformers thundered on these points, I will squeak about them in my next post.

Help Me Out Here, George Barna

I just came across this, the You Say You Want a Revolution conference slated for next month in Seattle. Nothing too unfamiliar here, the usual Emergent topics and lingo, and some of the usual suspects at the front. But the presence of the renowned pollster surprises me. I know his book Revolution certainly shares some common ground with postmodern/emergent in it's prediction of new, alternative, non-institutional and usually smaller expressions of church in the coming years. I can imagine that Emergents would find his analysis and forecasts encouraging on that level, but would not care much for some of his "affirmations of a Revolutionary" pp. 128-130 Revolution:

Absolute moral and spiritual truth exists, is knowable, and is intended for my life; it is accessible through the Bible.

This sort of black and white statement is usually the answer to "the wrong question" in the world of McClaren and Co. and makes post-modern folks very uncomfortable. I wonder why Barna would be invited, and why he would accept. Any thoughts?

A Closet Arminian's Top 10 Observations at the 2006 Desiring God Conference.

1. These Reformed people are passionate.
In my Wesleyan, break-off charismatic Lutheran background, I was always given the impression that Calvinists were were pretty stiff and unemotional, all about correct doctrine and not much about Life and Spirit.

2. Ph.D. Divs can be incredibly passionate about the glory of God.
Education is not the enemy of a passion for the Gospel or commitment to the authority of Scripture. And you can learn a thing or two from these guys.

3. These people are stuck on the idea that it's all about the Supremacy of Christ and the glory of God.
They can't seem to talk about much else.

4. These people really like books.
By the end of day 2, the tables in the huge bookstore which had been piled high with theology, devotion and scripture (not much fluff here) looked like a plague of locusts had been through. I don't know when I'll read all this stuff.

5. There are no vending machines near the auditorium itself.
If you miss the concessions and don't have time to dash downtown, you will starve. Unless Aaron C. gives you a giant Pearson's Salted Nut Roll.

6. Mark Driscoll didn't worry me as much as I thought he might.
He made some excellent points.

7. I had never heard of Dr. Voddie Baucham, but I'm still looking for the socks I was wearing Saturday morning.
I want all my kids to see the video of his message "The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Post-Modern World."

8. We're all in this together.
Calvinists, Arminians and in-betweens, in confronting this assault on propositional truth and the heart of the Gospel lead by Emergent and others. (I would challenge people to download the 40 year old "Ten Shekels and a Shirt" by Paris Reidhead, a strong Wesleyan, and note the same theme of Christ-centered Gospel echoing across theological space and time.)

9. We're all in this together.
Imagine 3,149 Calvinists (and me) raising the auditorium roof with all 4 (or was it 5?) verses of Charles Wesley's "And Can It Be."

10. I think it's all about the supremacy of Christ and the glory of God.

All the messages will soon be available free at desiringgod.org, linked at right. I will need to revisit several of them.

Mars Hill Audio
Another great resource for Inklings types is one I had sort of forgotten about in the digital age. In the early '90s I used to subscribe and had a cassette tape (remember those?) of NPR radio style interviews and analyses delivered every other month. In their own words:

---

MARS HILL AUDIO is committed to assisting Christians who desire to move from thoughtless consumption of contemporary culture to a vantage point of thoughtful engagement.

The programs are now available on-line by subscription via mp3 for 30.00 a year. However, some selections are available here for no charge. I just listened to host Ken Myers interview Alan Jacobs of Wheaton on "The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis" and I learned a couple of new things. Enjoy, and recommend anything else you find there.

Groothuis Says It Better Again

On a long-ago post, and again sandwiched between a couple of quotes from Dorothy Sayers on my 8/17/06 post, I was trying to express in many words what the Constructive Curmudgeon took care of in a few:

"American Christianity depresses him [Brother Yun]. There is so little seeking after God and so much self-congratulation and hype."

He is, in his 9/16/06 post, reviewing a couple of books dealing with the contemporary church. One of them, The Heavenly Man by Brother Yun sounds like a good read. The Church in China apparently continues to prosper and grow without the luxury of "self-congratulation and hype."

"He writes that the Chinese house-church Christians do not pray for lighter loads, but for stronger backs. His testimony convicts and inspires."

That's what I need to pray for these days...

An Under-Rated Coffee Beverage

The Cafe Americano, from Starbucks or anywhere else, is now my selection more often than not in the local shops. It's very simple. Just espresso with hot water, it features a rich, mellower than dark-roast flavor with a sort of thin foam on the top.

I've read that the name "Americano" may have been attached condescendingly by European barristas because we tourists couldn't take our coffee quite so strong, so they invented a watered down version just for us. Sounds plausible. But then we're used to the routine. In the peaceful periods between the great, tumultous conflagrations where Americans expend untold treasure and human life to save Europeans from their folly and are welcomed with flowers in the streets, we have come to expect to be despised. And so I lift my Americano to my lips with quiet resignation and a little pride.

Jeepers, you can turn anything into biting political commentary if you work at it.

Being a Lightning Rod

This is one of those posts that make no sense to those of you outside the "loop" of people familiar with GCM and Evergreen, so I apologize for its esoteric nature, and would recommend that you click on REALLY SMART GUYS for today's enlightenment and entertainment. Or go somewhere like engrish.com and have some fun.

A friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor at Evergreen, has asked that I remove the portion of my series of posts on The Church that had to do specifically with our reasons for leaving that organization. The content he was already aware of. All of the facts of our journey out of the group and my analysis had been expressed to him before we left. He found it "divisive" and "damaging" I think, by the very fact of its existence in a public space such as a blog.

And so, I suppose I'm torn between two reactions.

On one hand, that post says exactly what I think, and what has needed to be said. I've had lots of corroborating, encouraging responses to it, mostly via email. Several people have thanked me for posting it, some with great passion. I am no longer a part of the group and obviously have no obligation to edit the content of my blog based on their leaders' wishes. I think they know that the message of it still needs to be engaged—hoping to silence the messenger will not be enough. I don't believe members need to be protected from difficult questions about their church. They ought to be free to read, question, debate and discuss ideas and teaching that come from within or without the local congregation—with the Word of God as their final authority. I would encourage Evergreen members to boldly question anything you need to. Hold the organization's feet to the fire on what they think about the nature of human authority in a church, the nature of the Body of Christ, their own history and practices as an organization. Don't settle for pat answers or question-avoidance techniques, or ad hominem dismissal of critics. That is not slander or divisiveness, that is the freedom and duty of the believer in action.

On the other hand, I'm sensitive to the need to "as much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" and I have no stomach for becoming either a prosecutor of that organization or a perpetual lightning rod for controversy regarding them. It could be argued that ECC leaders know—and most others who know me, probably now know what I think. (The post in question was made in mid-June '06.) And of course I have a number of Evergreen friends (including the afore-mentioned pastor) who feel, understandably I guess, implicated and embarrassed by what I had to say about the group to which they belong. Some of us still see each other and work together in non-church contexts, and those relationships are important.

So what to do? I'm asking God...I'm asking people I trust...I'm asking my readers...what do you think?

My temporary solution is this:

In the interest of peace, and in deference to my friend, I have taken down the ECC/GCM portion of my "Church" posts from this public space while I think, pray and consult more.

In the interest of truth and open debate, anybody who wants to hear or read my perspective can contact me directly.

And thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion thus far for supporting this blog. Some of you are amazingly unafraid of the lightning rod role.

The U. S. Is A Democracy

Technically it's a republic or a representative democracy, of course, but in support of those who help keep it that way, this blog recommends the political wit and wisdom—and candidate advocacy—of our next Really Smart Guys link Kennedy v. The Machine.

Now With Links to Really Smart Guys!

This blog will now be your entree into the world of people who think and speak more clearly than any of us. Please note the new category on the right.

I'm taking nominations for additions to this list. Who do you think should be there? I of course wield absolute Mosaic authority when it comes to what is finally included. The Blog is not a democracy you know...and remember, there is no Perfect Blog. But do please give me suggestions!

My first choice is Douglas Groothuis, a professor and author from Denver, who in this post regarding 911 and the war on terror demonstrates his qualifications for this important list.

If We Fail to Learn from History...

Here's a little piece of history, described by E.H. Broadbent in his book (oft-quoted on this blog) The Pilgrim Church, Marshall-Pickering 1931, related to the question of what might constitute excessive emphasis on human authority among believers.

"The quest of the Mystics [devout medieval Christians who sought to live personally in authentic New Testament faith, having given up, in a sense, on the Church being reformed—TD] for immediate communion with God, without priestly or other intervention, constantly brought them into conflict with the priests. Suspected of being of this mind, Loyola [Ignatius Loyola b. 1491] was more than once imprisoned by the Inquisition and by the Dominicans, but was always able to show them that he was not what they thought, and to obtain release.

Indeed, though at first so strongly affected by the writings of the Mystics, Loyola evolved a system which was the very contrary of their teaching. Instead of seeking experiences of direct communion with Christ, he placed each member of his Society under the guidance of a man, his confessor, to whom he was pledged to make known the most intimate secrets of his life and to yield implicit obedience. The plan was that of a soldier, each one was subject to the will of one above him, and even the highest was controlled by those appointed to observe evey act and judge every motive.

In the course of years of study and travel, of teaching and charitable activities, during which there were unavailing efforts to get to Jerusalem, and also interviews with the Pope, that company gradually gathered round Loyola, which was organised by him as the 'Company of Jesus' in Paris in 1534. He and six others, including Francis Xavier, took vows of poverty and chastity and of missionary activity, and in 1540 the Pope recognized the 'Society of Jesus', to which the name of 'Jesuit' was first given by Calvin and others, its opponents.

The careful choice and the long and special training of its members, during which they were taught entire submission of their own will to that of their superiors, made of them a weapon by which not only was the Reformation checked, but a 'Counter Reformation' was organized which regained for Rome much that she had lost."

Keen Observers Will Notice...

...that the descriptive header on this blog now includes the name Dorothy Sayers [1893-1957]. She was a British author and playwright known best for her Lord Peter Wimsey detective stories, and also was for a time a member of the Inklings with Lewis, Tolkien and others.

I've read very little of her work, but chanced upon a re-issue of her book of essays called Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine at the public library. I'm just into it, and I like her style and especially her economy of words. She is another voice from the past who can cut through the dense post-modern fog and especially Christian fog.

A couple of samples:

"Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is quite the opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama."—from Chapter 1

[I think she's right. But my sense is that a lot of people are tired of what has been offered in place of the "boring" stuff in church and ready for something different. What if you went to church and heard almost nothing about Our Story, Our Experiences, Our Distinctives, Our Building, Our Programs, Our Feelings, Our Journey, Our History, Our Movement, Our Leadership, Our Vision, Our Favorite Topics, Our Authority, and heard almost nothing but dogma—God Revealed in Scripture? Was it Tozer who said "It's very difficult to get people to come to a church where the only attraction is God," or something like that? I think some of us are willing to give it a try.]

"'Any stigma," said a witty tongue, "will do to beat a dogma.'"; and the flails of ridicule have been brandished with such energy of late on the threshing floor of controversy that the true seed of the Word has become well-nigh lost amid the whirling of the chaff. Christ, in His divine innocence, said to the woman of Samaria, 'ye worship ye know not what'—being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshipping. He thus showed himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: 'Away with the tedious complexities of dogma—let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!' The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular."—from Chapter 3