Intellectuelle   Bonnie

Add me to the list of people who discovered C. S. Lewis’ writings in college. I also remember listening to an audiotape of Lewis’ radio lectures on the Four Loves, which I think we still have around here somewhere. Lewis, his student Sheldon Vanauken, Francis Schaeffer, and Thomas Merton all helped me find my way out of agnosticism and other misunderstandings, and, along with materials from a phenomenal class that included Roland Bainton’s biography of Martin Luther, Here I Stand, helped me discover myself.

In the time period after college I dabbled in various pursuits of understanding, but the demands of life kept me from doing much of it seriously. I did, however, manage to find a few friends along the way who loved hanging out and discussing ideas about life and faith as much as I did.

Then I had (three spectacular) children, and for several years was overwhelmingly occupied with care for family and home. What little capacity for coherent thought I still had was fully utilized by practicalities. A wonderful Yahoo email group of Christian moms with infants proved a Godsend, however, providing much-needed support and “adult conversation” as well as opportunity to hone written-communication skills.

As my children got older and I began to homeschool, I was obliged to think outside the box of my house again in order to prepare myself as a teacher. I began posting at the online forums for the homeschool curriculum I use, which are wonderful, though nothing really clicked ‘til that fateful day I asked a question in the science forum and a responder referred me to his blog. Blog? What’s that? Well, starting with Rusty Lopez’ New Covenant, I discovered, link by link and blog by blog, a veritable treasure trove of really smart, thoughtful, and interesting people – people discussing all sorts of things related to the living out of Christian faith in a rational way. Eureka!

As the gears in my head oiled up and my mind came back (somewhat), I began leaving comments on the blogs I visited. Eventually I realized I still had a lot to say so I started my own blog. It’s been a great adventure. Blogging definitely has its place as well as its rewards, but it also takes up a lot of time. I asked another blogger whose thinking and integrity I respect and who also knows a ton of people through her blog (that would be Marla :-) ) if she had any recommendations for helping me get a group blog together.

The rest, of course, is history -- not to mention, the future!

Apparently, our schools want to turn our children into namby-pambys so that they will grow up disoriented and spineless, i.e., lacking chests, as per C. S. Lewis.

In Men without chests,* the first chapter of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, Lewis cites an alarming tendency among educators to disenchant naive schoolchildren with the right and proper sentiments they may hold: sentiments of honor toward their fellows and true respect for nature. Such sentiments are pure, developed within an innocent heart and guided by an upbringing which seeks to pass on eternal values rather than dispense with sentiment altogether, or replace the traditional with the newer and supposedly better.

Says Michelle Malkin in her column of June 29, Namby-pamby nation:

The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."

Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of namby-pambies.

chau tau’ qua (sha-to’kwa), n. [from the summer schools inaugurated at Chautauqua, New York, in 1874.] an assembly lasting several days, for educational and recreational purposes: the program includes lectures, concerts, etc.

I have barely had access to a computer lately due to an opportunity to stay on the grounds of Chautauqua Institution, where I play trumpet part-time with the Chautauqua Symphony. Work with the symphony has been especially heavy, but it’s great work.

Chautauqua Institution began 132 years ago as a summer camp for Methodist Sunday-school teachers but has since expanded greatly and spawned many other, smaller chautauquas around the country. The "Chautauqua Ideal” is based on a belief that knowledge and exploration of all kinds should be as available as possible to as many people as possible, for the improvement of humankind. Chautauqua, as it is called for short, gets its name from the lake it is situated upon. No one knows for sure the original meaning of the word, but popular local opinion has it as Indian for “bag tied in the middle.” (That’s because the lake looks like this.)

Name: Bonnie
Birthdate: November 1963
Birthplace: small town in southeastern PA
Current Residence: western NY
Languages: English, ein bischen Deutsch, my kids’
Ethnic heritage: mostly German, some English?
Family stats: one husband; three children ages 9, 6, and 3
Education: public schooled K-12; BA in trumpet performance from the Eastman School of Music, significant coursework in music education, some art history study. Life :-)
Occupation: 98% SAHHWM (stay-at-home homeschooling wife and mother), 2% professional musician, private music lesson teacher
Hobby: blogging...also photography and hiking
Denomination: I attend an Evangelical Covenant Church
Testimony: the Hound of Heaven caught up with me; I met a person who demonstrated agape love
Favorite book: besides the Bible: tie between Sheldon Vanauken’s Severe Mercy and Thomas Merton’s Selected Poems
Favorite author: C. S. Lewis, of course :-). I liked Peter Straub and John Knowles in my younger days
Style of music: anything of quality (except maybe country-western), though I suppose I should say “classical” since that’s what I mostly do
Favorite musicians: Bela Fleck, Gil Shaham
Favorite visual artist: the Dutch masters
Last Good Book Read: A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis
Last Good Movie Seen (in entirety): Monsters, Inc. Would like to see "A Beautiful Mind" sometime
Favorite movie: (of the few that I can actually remember) Princess Bride
Childhood Memory: lying on the grass listening to an airplane & savoring the breeze and outdoor fragrances. Being blown away by the Ice Follies.
First Car: Chevy Luv truck
Inspiration: people of integrity and true faith, staggering skill and accomplishment
Personality type: ISTJ (maybe...the only sure part is the “I”)
Pet Peeve: ineptness combined with hubris
Cuisine: Thai
Favorite color: blue
Favorite flowers: all of them
Favorite time of day: the time I usually post :-) (late night)
Favorite season: summer
Favorite place to be: home; with people I love
Unhealthy obsession: worrying whether I’m saying or doing something really stupid or overlooking the obvious
Weaknesses: tend to assume the worst, am easily overloaded, tend to overload myself, am absent-minded, too inspiration-driven, impatient with my family, etc.
Aversions: (nothing out of the ordinary)
Long term goals and/or dreams:
- know God better
- see my kids grow up and have their own families & all of us remain close as a family
- maintain lifelong, meaningful friendships
- do a cross-country educational trip in an RV
- do overseas missions work
- have time to read every book I want to read (will never happen...)
- improve at everything I do; never stop learning

I promise I will never do this again, but it’s my blogiversary, so I’m going to link to a post at my other blog. I might even cry if I want to.

A short time ago I attended the dress rehearsal of Robert Ward's The Crucible as produced by the Chautauqua Opera Company. Unlike many operas that are merely overdone glorifications of bad behavior, The Crucible is a poignant commentary on the way people respond to things they fear and how far they will go to try to preserve a sense of well-being or get what they want. In many ways it is similar to Susannah, an opera I attended at Chautauqua about a year ago and wrote about in the second post on my other blog. Both operas were written during the McCarthy era. The two productions even shared an actress in common -- Jane Ohmes -- who was excellent in both, though her roles in each were quite different from one another.

I invite you to read my blogiversary post.

Since Marla has clarified blog policy for me, I�m going to break the promise I made in a former post and link to a post at my other blog again. I do so biting my fingernails, though, because I�m not sure what I�m in for. (Maybe if I don�t make a big deal out of it, it won�t be a big deal?)

The post has to do with sex...the kind of sex that doesn�t require another person. The thing that either no one talks about (and probably rightly so), or that people talk about as if to say, what�s the big deal?

I�m writing about it because others have, and I�m concerned about much that�s been said. I�m writing to offer a perspective that I feel is important. I think the subject is a big deal, even though a private one. So I�ve gone out on a limb and added my thoughts to the mix. Have a look.

An interesting comment was left by Stentor at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog, where Hugo discussed my “autoerotism” post. Stentor observed that my post was based upon deontological arguments, whereas “liberal” Christians like Hugo use arguments of the consequentialist variety. Stentor went on to state that it is not effective to use deontological arguments with a consequentialist thinker, and when a deontological thinker attempts to use consequentialist arguments with a consequentialistic thinker, those arguments fail/fall short because the two approaches are fundamentally different. Here is the comment:

Apologies if this is excessively philosophical ...

Your [Hugo’s] rephrasing of the "theology of the body" argument against masturbation is interesting. Reading Bonnie's post, I took her view to be a deontological one -- that God creates things with a certain purpose in mind, and that it is immoral to use them in any way inconsistent with God's purpose. But you present it as a consequentialist argument -- that masturbation will make us less able to have good connecting-with-another-person sex. The two arguments would require much different responses.

The deontological version raises some much deeper disagreements between anti-masturbation Christians and pro-masturbation secularists, such as whether things are designed with purposes, and if so whether that purpose is binding on other people who may encounter the thing. The consequentialist argument is both more plausible to a secularist, as well as being amenable to empirical demonstration of its central claim. But things get tricky if someone whose real commitment is to the deontological argument tries to use the consequentialist one in order to win support. Much frustration results when a consequentialist argument is disproven (and their high empirical content typically makes consequentialist arguments very vulnerable to disproof) but nobody changes their mind because they're really deontologists fighting a consequentialist proxy war.

I would like to briefly explore that idea in this post. I think that Stentor’s observation is quite profound, though I don’t completely agree with him. I don’t think that everyone can be neatly placed into separate camps of completely consequentialist vs. completely deontological thinkers. Actually, the secular person (or, in some cases, the religious “liberal”) has a personal deontology, whether conscious or not, that sees purpose in things as serving his/her pleasure or survival, or that of humankind, as an end. Likewise, there is consequentialism in Christianity, the most fundamental being that if one chooses to accept God’s salvation on His terms, there will be a certain consequence, as there will also be for the one who chooses to reject God and His salvation.

Regarding the empiricism of salvation in the afterlife, none exists in this life, though there is certainly empirical evidence for claims such as the ones I make about sexuality and masturbation. In this case, I would say that the problem lies not within empiricism itself, but in interpretation of empirical evidence, which, by nature of its being a human endeavour, is necessarily subjective. This does not, however, disprove the empirical proof of these claims. It is written, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” (Psalm 34:8) This is not a deontological invitation; it’s a consequentialist one, one that implies that the empirical evidence will assert itself. (Note that I am using the term “empirical” broadly here, to encompass anything within human experience. This would include that which is spiritually apprehended. I don’t mean to open a can of worms regarding distinctions between empiricism and that which can only be apprehended within the spirit, but such a broad understanding of empiricism serves my purpose in this particular discussion.)

In many ways, deontology and consequentialism are combined in the reality of Christian truth. Yes, the Designer has designed creation and all that it entails (including humans and their functions) for various purposes, the greatest of which is to serve and please Him, yet He doesn’t disregard the well-being of His servants in the process. The highest well-being of a person is found in submission to a holy, just, and loving God, which is something He has purposed as well. This well-being will not necessarily be according to “natural” purposes, though, because there is a higher purpose that the natural serves. (This would be something both spiritually and empirically apprehended; the interpretation of the empirical evidence would come via spiritual means.)

Applied to sexuality, this means that both deontology and consequentialism are true; i.e., God has designed sex with a purpose, which, when followed, will provide the most fulfilling, holistic sense of well-being for man (or woman).

I welcome discussion!

iconoclasm, n. [icono-, and Gr. klan, to break.]
1. the act of breaking or destroying images; especially, the destruction of objects of veneration, as pictures and images in churches.
2. the act of attacking or ridiculing traditional and venerated institutions or ideas.

All reality is iconoclastic. - C. S. Lewis in A Grief Observed

I fell right in with this brief, rich chronicle of Lewis' reaction to his wife's untimely death. Comprised of diary entries and originally published under a pseudonym, the book reveals Lewis’ progression from initial anguish to a place of resolution. We see the process by which he regains his equilibrium, mercifully, and comes to terms with both Joy’s death and God Himself. I am grateful for this glimpse into a great mind, heart, and soul which, when taken in, ennobles my own inner convolutions. (Which are hardly so lovely, worthy, or brilliant.)

I had been warned – I had warned myself – not to reckon on worldly happiness. We were even promised sufferings. They were part of the programme. We were even told, ‘Blessed are they that mourn,’ and I accepted it. I’ve got nothing that I hadn’t bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not in imagination....The case is too plain. If my house has collapsed at one blow, that is because it was a house of cards. The faith which ‘took these things into account’ was not faith but imagination. AGO, pp. 36-37, emphasis added

I've posted a follow-up to my original post on autoerotism at my personal blog.

I welcome charitable discussion of specific points made in the post.

Talk to me about the truth of religion and I’ll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.

Reality, looked at steadily, is unbearable.

One of the reasons I like A Grief Observed so much is that Lewis confronts things that I have often confronted myself yet not known quite what to do with. Several months ago, I wrote a post at my own blog about well-being, its definition, and the proper pursuit of it. I also explored related issues in my series on contraception (including the comments sections), links to which can be found in the right sidebar of my blog.

...”Do not mourn like those that have no hope.” It astonishes me, the way we are invited to apply to ourselves words so obviously addressed to our betters. What St. Paul says can comfort only those who love God better than the dead, and the dead better than themselves. If a mother is mourning not for what she has lost but for what her dead child has lost, it is a comfort to believe that the child has not lost the end for which it was created. And it is a comfort to believe that she herself, in losing her chief or only natural happiness, has not lost a greater thing, that she may still hope to “glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” A comfort to the God-aimed, eternal spirit within her. But not to her motherhood. The specifically maternal happiness must be written off. Never, in any place or time, will she have her son on her knee, or bathe him, or tell him a story, or plan for his future, or see her grandchild.

My discovery of some other writings by Christians on the subject of autoerotism has led to another set of installments in what has become a series of sorts at my other blog. The latest posts examine a limited defense of masturbation by a Christian: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

A couple of weeks ago, Martin LaBar posted a response to a comment I left at a post of his concerning the question, “When does life begin?” That original post quoted Norman M. Ford, a Catholic with expertise in embryology. I have another response, and, since it’s longer than a comment, will post it here:

I appreciate that Prof. LaBar has given his time and, as always, careful consideration and thoughtfulness in responding to my comment.

This is a quote from a webpage linked to in his post, in which he says of Ford:

Thus, both because a single human embryo, at very early stages, can become more than one adult, and because two or more genetic individuals can become one, he [Ford] cannot accept that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality.

I also do not believe that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality. Yet, as per my original comment, I still believe that the biological housing, if you will, of human individuality – identity worthy of awe, honor, and protection – is present at conception, if as yet unrealized, or only temporary. (I realize that conception itself is not an absolutely precise term, but it’s adequate for the discussion, I think.)

Or, what serves who?

Does the blog serve the blogger, the reader, or both? Or, does the blogger serve the blog (including the format) and the readers? I realize these aren’t new questions, but I’d like to look at them in light of the blog format itself.

I’ll admit, I’ve got a love-hate relationship with blogging. There’s more than one reason for this, but one of reasons has to do with the format. One the one hand, the blog-post format allows for a piece to be written and published in relatively short time. Someone who doesn’t have time to (or chooses not to) research and write long pieces need not be held back from sharing good information or thoughts. On the other hand, blogging, being a type of journaling (weblogging), brings with it the expectation of fairly regular updating. In order to keep a blog updated, a blogger needs to write often. This, in turn, means that the topics written about need to vary a bit, else the blog will have little chance of holding anyone’s interest (including, probably, the blogger’s).

Yet, for those who like to explore topics thoroughly; i.e., those who like to examine, ponder, expand, mull, develop, and perhaps revise a topic over time, blogging may not be the best format. Perhaps blogging isn’t the best set-up for actually journaling these developments. Or is it? Might not a reader think, sheesh, this guy/gal is really obsessed/neurotic/psychotic and has no life...why doesn’t he/she write about something else for a change? Even if the blogger does write about other things, perhaps all that will stand out is the “main topic.” If a blogger has limited time to blog, it may be a burden to have to blog about other things while he/she is preoccupied – I mean occupied – with the “main topic.”

Tod Bolsinger wrote about what he termed “Blogging ADD” at the GodBlogCon blog:

One of the most challenging parts of trying to maintain an updated blog has been keeping a sense of focus on a subject to do it justice. While some bloggers [Mark D. Roberts, for example] do an exceptional job at it, most of us tend to jump from subject to subject based on what catches our attention, or our current interests.

Three questions this raises for me:

1) Is it necessarily bad to jump from subject to subject (i.e., is it bad for a blogger not to narrow down his/her many writing interests), and, do some/most readers actually expect it?

2) Is it possible for a blogger to have the opposite “problem;” i.e., to belabor one particular topic, if even different aspects of the topic are examined in different posts? Might it depend on the actual topic? Might it work better for a blogger to run a “series update” once per week, or once every two weeks, for example? Are regular, predictable updates better than "random" ones?

3) Does the blog/comments format affect the longevity of a comment-section discussion? Do comment threads reflect real-life discussion, or does the on-going-update nature of blogging necessitate that comment discussions only go on so long? (Do commenters lose interest in a comment discussion because the blog/their blog/life moves on, or because they simply tire of it naturally?)

In other words, does the blog format require certain uses, or can it be adapted to the purposes of those who use it? As with any social phenomenon, is it inevitable that the "major" bloggers will set the trends/standards for the way(s) the blog format is used?

Tim Challies has written a piece on Halloween reminiscent of an article I read a couple years ago by John Fischer called Home for Halloween.

An excerpt from Challies’ post:

Perhaps the greatest fallacy Christians believe about Halloween is that by refusing to participate in the day we are somehow taking a stand against Satan. And second to that, is that participation in the day is an endorsement of Satan and his evil holidays. The truth is that Halloween is not much different from any other day in this world where, at least for the time being, every day is Satan's day and a celebration of him and his power. Another member of the Discussion List wrote the following. "Yeah... I've heard all of the 'pagan' reasons Christians should avoid Halloween. The question is whether we are actually particpating in Samhain when we participate in Halloween? Who or what makes the 'Witch's League of Public Awareness' the definers of what Halloween is, either now or historically? Such a connection between Samhain and my daughter as a ladybug or my son as a Bengals Boy is highly dubious."

I agree that October 31st, in and of itself, is no different than any other day of the year, but it does not follow that the celebration and practice of Halloween traditions and customs are no different from any other traditions or customs. Challies’ article also makes no case for the claim that the connection between Samhain and present-day trick-or-treating is “highly dubious.” If it weren’t for the ancient pagan customs, we clearly would not have our present-day ones.

I posted a response to Fischer’s article last October. I’ve since revised my position a bit, though my original concerns remain. The following is content from last year’s post, including text from a letter I sent to Mr. Fischer that I have gone through and revised.

Fischer claims it is a mistake for Christians to “boycott” Halloween because they cannot engage their neighbors by avoiding them at this time. However, I think there are two ways to look at this. I’m not sure it can definitively be said that participation in trick-or-treating represents being “in but not of the world.” Fischer goes so far as to say that by turning off the lights or going to an “alternative” celebration, one could be “lending credibility to the devil by denouncing Halloween as Satan’s day when most of those around us see it as nothing more than a day to dress up and have fun.” While many may view the day in this way, this does not change the origins of the practice and the obvious questionable associations the holiday has.

Dear Mr. Fischer,

I recently read your column, “Home for Halloween,” on the Breakpoint website. I applaud you for tackling the subject and agree that “what we do October 31st is a microcosm for our positioning in the world as Christians.” But I question your ideas as to how we should position ourselves.

While it is true that “morally neutral” social events, such as wedding parties, can be participated in either for God’s glory or against, I’m not convinced that trick-or-treating, in and of itself, is morally neutral, given its origins. An event’s moral neutrality is not guaranteed by its being “cultural” or “traditional," now or ever.

What, exactly, does modern-day Halloween celebrate? I’m not so sure that the answer is “mere neighborliness and fun.” In my view, Halloween cannot be disassociated from its pagan origins and trappings, and to attempt to do so may be irresponsible. Also irresponsible is the rationalization that it’s OK to participate because “it’s fun and everyone else does.” Halloween customs unfortunately come with a lot of baggage.

Perhaps it is not appropriate to practice a such questionable tradition and indoctrinate our children into it. Can we truly serve God by participating in a ritual (trick-or-treating) that has its origins in superstitious interactions with the dead and the appeasement of spirits that may be evil? Many people are confused or deceived about spirituality and the spiritual realm. Acceptance of a holiday that more or less validates spiritism may represent a capitulation to the occult and does not necessarily serve to educate about spiritual truth, even if it is participated in a way that does not overtly celebrate evil influence. Scripture exhorts us to be wary lest our actions cause another to stumble (Romans 15). This may be one of the most compelling arguments against participation in Halloween.

I’ve considered the view that friendly, hospitable, “good”-costumed participation in trick-or-treating that disregards the origin of the practice actually redeems it, and this view has much to commend it. But I can’t yet get past the fact that the syncretism involved lacks clarity, and is lent tacit endorsement via participation.

I don’t know that it necessarily serves God to have children knock at doors to mock-threaten the inhabitants, even if it IS done all in good fun. The influence of evil inherent in the practice, due to its origins, is not necessarily negated. There are certainly other ways to spread good will and be neighborly that don’t include sending children around the neighborhood to entertain and collect candy. (Kids don’t need the candy either :-) ) Why rely on Halloween as an excuse to interact with the neighbors? Why wait for Halloween to interact with the neighbors?

The custom of wearing costumes for trick-or-treat is rooted in superstition and caprice. While I believe it’s possible and even necessary to redeem pagan customs, I’m not sure that our custom of trick-or-treating redeems this one. Of course it’s fun to dress up, but dress-up should be a natural part of every child’s home play. Why over-emphasize it on all-Hallows-eve, after dark, to the accompaniment of orange holiday lights, symbols of death, hanging sheet ghosts, spider-web drapery, and stick-on witches?

Why inundate impressionable minds with darkly suggestive imagery, or participate in an activity that could lead to spiritual confusion down the road? Why risk taking advantage of innocence? A parent should discuss Halloween with his/her children, no question, but not necessarily while encouraging participation. Might not a parent be sending mixed messages? Even if a child is able to screen out all the “evil” stuff as nonsense, or else as just being “there” but having no power, he or she is still in essence paying tribute to an ancient pagan belief simply by acting it out.

Regarding Fischer’s statement about Satan, why should we not give Satan credit for Halloween's origins? He certainly deserves it. Satan is real and still has plenty of credibility as far as responsibility for spiritual confusion goes. Why else would we need God? Satan is the Great Pretender, the Great Deceiver. If he can fool innocent, unsuspecting people into thinking that scariness and trickiness and superstition and greed and masquerade are “fun,” then he surely is winning the battle. It is not true that if someone just ignores the “bad” stuff, it won’t hurt them or anyone else. Satan makes the bad look good. Or the good look bad. Or tries to convince us that there is no “bad” at all.

Scripture says we should avoid all forms of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22) and guard ourselves from idols (I John 5:21). This does not mean we have to pull the shades and sit, quivering and praying, in the dark recesses of our home on Halloween night...but perhaps it should!

Conscientious objection to Halloween is not necessarily an act of hiding. There may be an element of self-protection (as well as protection of the children entrusted to us) involved, but does not John 17:15 itself address this issue? A refusal to participate in Halloween activities need not be equated with a “removal of oneself from the world” any more than a refusal to participate in any unhealthy activity is. John 17:15 says, “...protect them from the evil one.” Is it always possible to do this while participating in Halloween? Would it be permissible to go to a South Pacific island as a missionary and participate in a ritual head-hunting dance, if only in a token way, yet not do the actual head hunting? I would think it best to sit out the dance as well.

I think it could be wishful thinking to say that we can “redeem” Halloween by trick-or-treating in good will. It may not be expressive of good will toward those who do not understand the truth of spiritual matters. Again, aren’t we endorsing the holiday itself by participating in it? The only alternative to non-participation is to hand out leaflets containing the history of Halloween (with appropriate verses of Scripture, plus a candy bar) or tracts to trick-or-treaters...but whether or not that is neighborly is a debate in itself. Yes, hospitality is a good thing, a requirement, even, yet I don’t think it follows that we must be hospitable to that which we don’t support, or attempt to hijack it. This is why many Christians opt to turn off the porch lights and have a family night instead. Or go to a harvest celebration.

I’m sure plenty of non-believers trick-or-treat in “good will” the same as believers do. What then can a believing trick-or-treater do to distinguish him- or herself from a non-believer? It’s probably not enough to just be friendly and wear a non-threatening costume. A child could dress in an angel costume and offer tracts instead of an empty treat bag, but again, a perhaps confusing way to get the message out.

Why not celebrate the harvest season instead? Why not hold an All Saints Day celebration? These things are certainly far worthier of honor and celebration than ancient pagan superstition. Let’s overcome evil with good in a substantial way!

(If we could remove all the trappings of Halloween from the practice of trick-or-treating and send kids dressed up in “clean” costumes around the neighborhood bearing gifts to give or exchange, and change the name, and choose some other day to celebrate it, then we might have a community service opportunity!)

Note: I have no problem with differences of opinion on this issue. I realize that elements of strong vs. weak faith may enter in as well. The case for hospitality is well-taken, yet I cannot figure out how to separate it from tacit endorsement of a superstitious tradition that may wreak spiritual havoc in the hearts and minds of some, or at least yield confusion or temptation, via the seeds planted.

addendum: I am getting a clearer picture now of what's behind the debate: I was not aware that the pagan roots of Halloween are actually seriously disputed. (Sheesh, where have I been??) I have, however, been aware of the view offered by The Dane, i.e., that the roots are in no way related to present-day celebration of Halloween in America. It is his view that I've been essentially disputing. But the former issue does lend a different twist to the debate, obviously, because it involves truth, or lack thereof, of "facts" behind the decisions we make. This is a matter I will look into.

Now that the honeymoon is over, some who attended the GodBlogCon’05 are examining blogging in a more critical light, which is naturally a good thing. The main theme of the conference (which originated with the Godfather I mean Godblogger Hugh Hewitt himself) was that Christian blogging represents a new reformation in the church insofar as it is a means of getting information/reform/the gospel out in a quicker, more comprehensive way than ever before. This phenomenon was examined during panel discussion at the conference, as was the nature and proper use of that relatively new means of communication called blogging.

The Jollyblogger David Wayne writes, in Some cures for a GodBlogCon hangover,

blogging is just one piece of a much larger pie involving new technologies. blogging is one ingredient in this interactive and personalized pie of the new media and we should expect it to lose some of the pre-eminence it now holds.

At the same time I don't think this necessarily means that blogging will go away. People didn't quit reading newspapers when the radio and tv were invented.
And just as there is still a place for newspapers and books in the age of the television, I think there will still be a place for blogs. It won't be the same place of pre-eminence it enjoys now, but it will still have a place and an important one at that.

We need to make sure that we don't use blogging simply as a way to validate ourselves and our opinions -- we need to interact and engage. I've read a lot of blogs that have tried to change peoples' minds about a lot of things, and none have been very effective. I've read evangelistic blogs, and I've heard nothing good from any nonChristian who went to one. They aren't effective in and of themselves, and that is what I see happening quite often. If blogs are properly used to build relationships, then I can see them being an evangelistic tool. But that seems to be a very big if.

The printing press may have improved the spread of knowledge more than any prior invention in history, and I think we'll soon find that the internet has come closest to offering a similar advance.

Of course just as the printing press brought the common man a Bible, Plato, and Ayn Rand, it would also soon bring Playboy and Hustler.

Personal responsibilty can never be hacked.

Just before reading Bob Smietana’s post on it, I happened to read the interview with Doug Gresham at ChristianityTodayMovies.com to which his post referred. The portion Smietana quoted, however, gave me pause:

Americans have latched on to C. S. Lewis, and yet here's a guy who was a chain smoker, who liked his pints, who told ribald jokes, and in general, wouldn't fit what we think of as the "typical evangelical." And yet we've all wrapped our arms around him. Why is that?

Gresham: One of the reasons is that through the—if you can excuse the expression—the bulls--- that has come to be taken so seriously in American Christianity, through all of that, they can still see the essential truth that Jack represented. The problem with evangelical Christianity in America today, a large majority of you have sacrificed the essential for the sake of the trivial. You concentrate on the trivialities—not smoking, not drinking, not using bad language, not dressing inappropriately in church, and so on. Jesus doesn't give two hoots for that sort of bulls---. If you go out and DO Christianity, you can smoke if you want, you can drink if you want—though not to excess, in either case.

But I think that even past the trivialities, many evangelical Christians can see the ultimate truth to what Jack wrote. I think that's why he's so popular.

Gresham makes a good and interesting point, but I’m not sure that the issue of personal habits ought to be characterized as “trivial.” People no doubt admire Lewis because, despite his stupendous intellectual gifts, he was honest about his humanity and he preached a “real” gospel in his own deep yet conversational way. Yet I don't know that he himself put certain practices in terms of “trivialities,” or excesses. He spoke of temperance:

Temperance referred not specifically to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotalers...Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he wants to give the money to the poor, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. The Joyful Christian, p. 126

Important, here, is to distinguish between those things which may be harmful to one’s physical or mental health (knowledge of which, in some cases, has been gained only recently), and those things which are merely a matter of taste. There is also a difference between wanting to see others enjoy what one enjoys, and allowing that others may enjoy what oneself does not.

Lewis also spoke of how people tend to equate the things that they enjoy with love:

What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, “What does it matter so long as they are contented?” We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven – a senile benevolence who, as they say, “liked to see young people enjoying themselves,” and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, “a good time was had by all.” Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don’t, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs corrections. TJC, p. 38

These are just a couple of brief excerpts from Lewis’ writing, but what of Gresham’s statement that “Jesus doesn’t give two hoots for that sort of bullsh**”? Does He really not care what we do or say as long as we are giving to those in need? It’s true that Jesus addressed character issues rather than specific personal habits in His words in the gospels, and from this I suppose one could say that He doesn’t care about personal habits. However, I don’t think that personal habits and personal character are entirely separate. Looking at the examples Gresham gives, i.e., smoking, drinking, using bad language, and dressing inappropriately in church, these things themselves aren’t the issue as much as why anyone is doing those things, what those things mean to them, how those things affect them, and how others are affected.

Discussion, anyone?

Well, it's time to confess: I've got a problem. Yes, I've finally put years of denial behind me and entered a 12-step program. (The last couple of posts here really put me over the edge...) Here's where I saw the light:

Are you a problem thinker? at Stand to Reason.

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another and soon I was more than just a social thinker...

I’ve been wrestling lately with what I understand to be the Calvinistic proposition that our salvation rests purely upon God’s predestination of our fate, i.e., our being chosen by Him either for glory or destruction, according to Romans chapter 9. Having not studied Calvinism thoroughly, I allow that I may not be understanding (or representing) it properly. But I have understood enough, I think, to raise some questions. Not all of them can be covered in a blog post, but I would like to raise a few aspects of them and get some feedback.

What I cannot reconcile is that being chosen equates with being predestined. A major sticking point for me is that God created (by choice, of course) Adam and Eve with the ability to choose between good and evil, and called that “good.” Or, did He predestine them to choose evil, and call that “good?” I don’t think that this can be gleaned from Genesis 2:17: “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat [says the Lord], for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” God must have made Adam and Eve with the capacity to obey, i.e., to choose to obey or to disobey, as well as to be deceived, as is written in Genesis 3:1-6.

Did mankind lose the ability to choose for himself between good and evil after the Fall? Was this part of the curse? Genesis 3 doesn’t say. In Genesis 6:5, however, the Lord observes that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart [is] only evil continually.” My question here is, does man’s depravity of heart necessarily mean that he lost his ability to choose between good and evil, or merely that he lost all desire (will) to choose good? So that, after God started over with Noah’s family and still their descendants continued man’s prideful legacy, He began showing His goodness to them in various ways so as to restore to their hearts some of that desire to choose good.

Perhaps if God has indeed continued to grant humankind the freedom, since the Fall, to choose good or evil, He also influences this choice to varying degrees as He, in His sovereignty, may. Perhaps it could be compared to the laws of nature – God has created (and sustains) the laws of nature but can (and does) suspend them, “supernaturally,” any time He chooses.

Now I realize that’s an oversimplification and all the serious theologians out there are rolling their eyes. But bear with me: there has to be a way to reconcile Romans 9 with passages that seem to indicate that we have a choice. For example:

Luke 13:3, 5 – Jesus’ words to those who reported to Him that Pilate had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, and asked whether these Galileans had perished because their sin was greater than other Galileans): “I tell you...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus could merely have been speaking a truth, and could have qualified His statement by saying, “Unless God elects to call you so that you therefore repent, you will perish.” But He didn’t. His words seem to indicate that the persons to whom He was speaking had a choice in the matter. This is not to say that anyone can repent without being called by God, but surely someone can be called by God and choose not to repent, can they not? This would not mean that God is not sovereign, because He can change mens’ (and women’s) minds if He so chooses. But what if He chooses, in His sovereignty, to allow people choice in the matter of receiving Him?

John 3:14-18 – Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. [Why didn’t He say here, “...that whoever is elected by God to receive His calling may have eternal life?”] For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Acts 13:39-40 “...through Him (Jesus) everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Take heed, therefore, so that the think spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.’” (emphasis added)

Why would anyone need to be exhorted to take heed, if they had no choice in the matter?

Colossians 1:21-23 "And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach -- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven..."

Hebrews 2:1-3 “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the work spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience receives a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (emphasis added)

Hebrews 3:12-15 “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end; while it is said, ‘Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.’” (emphasis added) (Those who came out of Egypt, led by Moses, hardened their hearts and were disobedient, which provoked the Lord.)

Titus 2:11-12 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age.” (emphasis added)

What need is there to be instructed not to deny ungodliness unless it is indeed an option that we may choose?

Here’s what C. S. Lewis had to say about the fall of man:

According to [the doctrine of the Fall], man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he has made himself so by the use of his free will. To my mind this is the sole function of the doctrine. It exists to guard against two sub-Christian theories of the origin of evil – Monism, according to which God Himself, being “above good and evil,” produces impartially the effects to which we give those two names, and Dualism, according to which God produces good, while some equal and independent Power produces evil.

Against both these views Christianity asserts that God is good; that He made all things good and for the sake of their goodness; that one of the good things He made, namely, the free will of rational creatures, by its very nature included the possibility of evil; and that creatures, availing themselves of this possibility, have become evil. Now this function – which is the only one I allow to the doctrine of the Fall – must be distinguished from two other functions which it is sometimes, perhaps, represented as performing, but which I reject. In the first place, I do not think the doctrine answers the question, “Was it better for God to create than not to create?”...Since I believe God to be good, I am sure that, if the question has a meaning, the answer must be Yes. But I doubt whether the question has any meaning: and even if it has, I am sure that the answer cannot be attained by the sort of value judgments which men can significantly make. In the second place, I do not think the doctrine of the Fall can be used to show that it is “just,” in terms of retributive justice, to punish individuals for the faults of their remote ancestors. Some forms of the doctrine seem to involve this; but I question whether any of them, as understood by its exponents, really meant it.

.....It would, no doubt, have been possible to God to remove by miracle the results of the first sin committed by a human being; but this would not have been much good unless He was prepared to remove the results of the second sin, and of the third, and so on forever. If the miracles ceased, then sooner or later we might have reached our present lamentable situation: if they did not, then a world, thus continually underpropped and corrected by Divine interference, would have been a world in which nothing important ever depended on human choice, and in which choice itself would soon cease from the certainly that one of the apparent alternatives before you would lead to no results and was therefore not really an alternative. (emphasis added) The Joyful Christian, pp. 48-50.

Lewis is indicating here that the whole point of choice is that it bears consequence. That is the whole basis of morality. Here is the other problem I have in my (no doubt deficient) understanding of Calvinistically-understood predestination: if God is controlling the entire board, and man has been given no steam to run with on his own, how can he possibly be held accountable for his choices, the moral compunction for which lies in the result of a choice, i.e., it either promotes life, or death, spiritually-speaking? How can it be possible that the first two humans, Adam and Eve, had this type of choice, but, after making the wrong one, deprived the rest of humankind of the ability to choose for themselves forever?

It seems to me that we can still credit God with mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, and justice, and sovereignty if we allow that He allows us to choose between good and evil, the truth of which He Himself defines, except in some situations in which He may choose to override our choices. We can choose to be open to what He offers or to reject it. Otherwise, obedience has no meaning. If He can make us obey Him, as a general rule, then what point would there be in His demanding of us that which He chooses or denies for us anyway? Making us obey Him is not the same as causing us to obey Him. He can cause us to obey but we’ve still made the choice. If He makes us obey, though, then the choice is His, not ours.

We can choose to fear, or to act on our fear, or we can choose to put our fear aside and trust in God, based on a belief that He is Who He says He is and can do what He has demonstrated throughout history (including Biblical accounts) that He can do...can we not?

addiction, n. 1. the condition of being addicted (to a habit); habitual inclination.

addicted, a. devoted or given up (to a practice or habit, especially a bad habit.) Syn. – devoted, accustomed, prone, attached, habituated, disposed, inclined, abandoned.

Addiction is a difficult thing. It’s something that’s not easy to talk about, especially for those who’ve struggled with it. Which would include me, but I guess I’d like talk about it anyway.

Probably the greatest factor influencing any kind of addiction is discomfort, or pain –- emotional or mental discomfort/pain, most likely, but perhaps physical pain as well. The pain may involve shame, guilt, feelings of insecurity, self-loathing, or depression, in varying degrees. Most of all, the addicted person lacks ability to deal with very strong and perhaps confused feelings, thoughts, and desires, usually of the negative type but sometimes of distorted-positive type as well, which are often exacerbated by the addiction itself.

Persons may have difficulty dealing with pain or managing out-of-control thoughts and feelings because they have been very deeply wounded. They may have suffered at the poor treatment of important persons in their lives, i.e., family members, relatives, friends, teachers, or coaches. Or they may not have had good role models for the proper handling of emotions and thoughts (negative ones especially) nor anyone to help them deal with these things, in their formative years especially. Perhaps they were punished for even having negative feelings or thoughts. How many “normal” people don’t have trouble dealing with these things, let alone someone who hasn’t been “allowed” to have them? It’s that much worse for the truly abused or profoundly hurt person, who may go through all sorts of inner turmoil trying to make sense of negative experiences and the resulting emotions and thoughts. It’s natural to want to try to end the torment, both external and internal, and to go to great (if misguided) lengths to do so.

A person may become addicted to something in order to try to escape pain even though he/she knows it only works temporarily and in the long run actually adds to the pain. Such a person may become addicted to a certain pleasure (not necessarily a “vice,” but anything, even something legitimate, that causes pleasure, indulged in an intemperate way) in order to avoid dealing with some part of his/her reality. Such persons may try hard to find ways to feel adequate, significant, or valuable in various pursuits that are not ultimately healthy. They either do not know how to express their thoughts, desires, and strong emotions properly within their relationships, work habits, and hobbies, or else have no one with whom to safely do so, so they pour their desires and strong emotions into an unhealthy pursuit. (They cannot trust.) Such situations therefore become prisons, trapping persons inside and exacerbating their distress.

Others perhaps punish themselves with habits they otherwise justify, but, in moments of honesty and transparency, are aware of what they are doing. The resulting feelings then cause a downward spiral. Often the escape and the punishment occur within the same activity.

Sometimes it’s hard to draw the line between something merely relied upon and an actual addiction. We all rely on many things every day. Some things we can do without, some we really can’t. Some things we become used to, and if those things change, for whatever reason, we find ourselves grieving or going through a withdrawal of sorts. This is quite normal. But it becomes abnormal if the feelings and thoughts get put into some practice or habit that keeps a person from truly dealing with them to the point of resolution.

As to overcoming addiction, there are treatment centers, books, support/discussion/prayer groups, and counselors for the purpose. But there is another major source that may be under-availed: people willing to befriend those who are troubled, appreciate them for who they are, and get close enough to provide a listening ear and a safe haven. It may take a fairly strong person to do this, but what a ministry. Wouldn’t it be helpful if long-time friends were willing to “go into” areas that are usually avoided because they’re awkward & uncomfortable, or because the friends think they wouldn’t know what to do or say to help, or don’t want to invade unspoken boundaries? Boundary issues are certainly a legitimate and necessary consideration, but perhaps they ought to be reassessed and redrawn in certain situations.

Surely the most fundamental way an addicted person can be helped is in the same way any person who’s dealing with a traumatic situation can be helped: through friends being there for them and listening to them. Through being treated with dignity, as if they are “normal,” and as if their feelings and thoughts matter. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” (Romans 12:15)

Those who are troubled need to step out and risk revealing their insecurities, which can be difficult since they may lack the skills to do so properly and/or they’ve had their vulnerability trampled in the past. Often personal boundary issues are involved because troubled individuals have had their own boundaries violated by those in whom they put their trust.

Obviously, though, if persons in either position cannot put aside their trepidations, then not much healing can take place.

This healing may include “unlearning” the lessons of pain, lessons that have imparted confusion and feelings of worthlessness. Wounded persons may need to learn that in bearing suffering or difficulty without seeking an instant escape, they may truly find their identity in Christ. Christ is the ultimate example of one who took on humiliation and abuse that He did not deserve. By seeing wounded-ness in this light, a person can find value in being made in the imago dei as well as strength from identity in Christ as a person redeemed and called for a purpose. A person can find strength to forgive, and thus gain insight into the pain of the one(s) who have caused pain, by learning to rely on God rather than created things. Empathy and compassion bloom in such a healed heart and mind, leading to restored relationships and healthier social interaction. Increased understanding and cultivation of a tender heart are benefits also reaped by the friend who’s helped salve a wounded heart/mind.

You may have thought that this post was over, but there’s one more thing I’d like to throw in: that of addiction and the unregenerate person. No doubt there are many unregenerate persons who are slaves to all sorts of addictions. But addictions are not limited to the unregenerate; I’m sure we all agree on that. So my statements above are made with the assumption that many a person suffering addiction of some sort can be “evangelized” or otherwise brought closer to Christ via loving fellowship. (And, indeed, some addictions are more severe than others, or more destructive than others...perhaps there is no one completely free...?)

...The allegorical sense of her [Mary Magdalene’s] great action dawned on me the other day. The precious alabaster box which one must break over the Holy Feet is one’s heart. Easier said than done. And the contents become perfume only when it is broken. While they are safe inside they are more like sewage. All very alarming.

Yours
Jack

–from Letters To An American Lady by C. S. Lewis, ed. Clyde S. Kilby

(Reference to Luke 7:37-39)

For anyone who's still interested in review of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," I’ve posted some comments at my personal blog. I include a lengthy excerpt from an equally lengthy but very worthy review by Stephen D. Greydanus.

(The short version: The movie is engaging and beautiful; Lucy and Edmund are excellently played. The main themes from Lewis' book are present. However, the film takes many subtle departures from the book, some for the better but most not. The true moral and spiritual dynamics behind character actions and some of the symbolism/metaphor as described in the book are not portrayed.)

Happy New Year, everyone!

Or, a few questions on daily living.

OK, not much is going on at this blog lately and I have nothing substantial to offer...so how ‘bout a meme?

There aren't enough of them, you know.

Feel free to answer in a comment or on your own blog to pass on. Or not at all:

1) If you could abolish one element of daily life, what would it be?

(my answer -- the clock)

2) If there were more hours in the day, what would you do with them?

(A) sleep (B) straighten up the house (C) try to get more involved with a service/mission project (D) play more games with my kids (E) practice my trumpet (F) read/study (G) keep in touch with more people (H) put more effort into my cooking. I’ll stop there.

3) If there were less hours in the day, what would you cut out?

Some blogging/reading, perhaps some of the kids’ activities, some of the “stuff” I do at church (*gasp!*)

4) If you could add one thing to your daily life, what would it be?

Good, deep, solid discussion, of this type:

In him I found a dialectical sharpness such as I had hitherto known only in Kirk, but coupled with youth and whim and poetry....we had endless arguments on [Theism] and every other topic whenever we were out of the line.

– C. S. Lewis in Surprised by Joy, speaking of his friend and confederate Johnson.

I’ve been reflecting lately on the influences that led to my becoming a Christian as well as on those that have informed my faith. These influences have, I would say, been largely evangelical with an emphasis on the experience of faith. By experience, however, I do not necessarily mean in the sense of “I experienced this wonderful, warm feeling that told me that God is really there.” I mean experience as in experiencing the changed life that results from an authentic belief in salvation through Jesus Christ. Personally, I would count readings in philosophy and theology as influential and as experiential as relationships or anything else I’ve experienced that have illuminated God’s reality and love to me. (I realize that my own conversion experience may or may not be similar to anyone else’s.)

As to just what constitutes experience, though, clearly any thought a person has ever had has been experienced just the same as any feeling that’s been experienced. An experience is something that happens to you.

The denomination of the church I belong to, the Evangelical Covenant Church, had its beginning among Swedes who were seeking an authentic faith as opposed to what was being offered by much of the state Lutheran church at the time. They sought to experience the new life in Christ rather than merely assent to dry doctrine that did not result in new life.

Now, doctrine ultimately should not be “dry,” of course, and ought not be considered doctrine unless it is indeed the truth that, once believed, results in new life. Truth is truth, this cannot be denied. But just what is truth? Is truth limited to that which can only be apprehended intellectually? Is true doctrine found only in thought? If doctrine is to apply to whole persons, as surely it must, then it must be found in affection as well. We are not merely minds, we are also hearts (feeling-entities). The Bible speaks of belief, which is an assent of both the heart and the mind (consent of the will). If one wants something to be true but cannot consent to it, then one doesn’t truly believe. If one thinks that something may be true but cannot sympathize or harmonize with it, then one doesn’t truly believe. Though truth certainly is not dependent upon someone believing it in order to actually be true, and though one can experience truth whether one assents, consents, or sympathizes with it or not, a person cannot experience salvation unless one assents, consents, and sympathizes with the gospel. Regarding Truth-with-a-capital-T (absolute truth), the redemptive and regenerative part of it cannot be and will not be experienced unless one consents and sympathizes. And if one does not consent/sympathize, then, because Truth is Truth, one will experience its damnation.

If proper doctrine is spoken but not lived and demonstrated by those speaking it, can it truly be taught by those speaking it? Can it truly be imparted? Can the Word of God by itself transform? I don’t believe so. Can God cause the Word of God to transform someone (via the Spirit) regardless of the example of the source? Yes, of course, but I wonder how often this actually happens. Persons who accept a teaching “out of context,” so to speak, are probably not as likely to accept Truth as they are a counterfeit or a sham (i.e., whatever is being represented). Or, more likely, they will not accept it at all. There is more that conveys the Truth than mere word. And there is more that prevents a person from accepting the Truth than mere hardness of heart on that person’s part. It may be a truly receptive heart that refuses to accept even a word of Truth that is not conveyed with the Spirit that witnesses to it (or if one has never had an experience that enables one to comprehend the Truth).

Whether or not consent to and sympathy for the gospel is wrought wholly by God is a matter of very serious debate among Christians today. I won’t argue it here. But I think that the debate ought to be viewed holistically.

Here’s my proposition: if doctrine is thought, then it must be feeling as well. If doctrine applies to the whole person, then it must encompass the Truth as it applies to feeling as well as to thought. One cannot have proper thought without proper affection, and vice-versa. What I mean by this is, salvation comes by the love of God that comes by God's love. Love is greater than both thought and feeling though it informs and illuminates both.

The Bible speaks often of “hardness of heart.” This refers to an unyielding will. The will encompasses both the mind and the heart – it must. The will cannot merely involve mind over feeling; if one chooses to do what is right in the eyes of God as far as one believes, then one is choosing an allegiance to God over an allegiance to something else, whether that something else is a feeling or a thought that is at odds with what is right in the eyes of God. Allegiance therefore involves the choosing of one affection over another, or one thought over another. As long as we are in this life and possessed of fallen humanity, we will always live with a conflict between our fallen-ness and the redemptive life that comes only from God through Christ and is given only by God. Anyone who denies this is denying reality. (Romans 7:14-25)

This conflict, therefore, is the experience of the one living by faith in God through Christ. This conflict is truth. Yet, praise God that, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we may also experience the truth of salvation and be delivered from the truth of condemnation and damnation.

There’s a difference between compliance and surrender.

– leader, Celebrate Recovery program (for people dealing with addictions), pointing to his head at the word “compliance” and his heart at the word “surrender.”

These words are in reference to the person who is past the denial stage (which applies to sin in general, not just addiction) and who recognizes and acknowledges his/her sin but has not yet relinquished it in the sense of having overcome it in his/her heart. Such a person may be able to resist the sin for a time, but the sin returns because surrender is not complete.

I believe that the leader chose the word "compliance" to convey the idea that compliance can be accomplished outwardly whether the heart is in total surrender or not. Compliance may be a step past acknowledgment but still a step (or more) short of surrender. How many merely compliant folks are sitting in the pews on Sunday mornings?

My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your sight; Keep them in the in the midst of your heart. For they are life to those who find them, And health to all their whole body. Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:20-23, NASB

Academics often say biblical belief has no place in the social sciences because it keeps people from open-minded analysis of data. Actually, the opposite is true: A biblical worldview often reveals the limitations of conventional approaches and pushes us to ask the right questions so that the data we obtain will not leave us still ignorant.

Biblical social scientists have an advantage because they know truths about human nature. Those who dismiss the Bible and create surveys that don't measure crucial factors are the ones who have closed minds. Sometimes the Bible gives us clear answers and sometimes it doesn't, but it always helps us to ask the right questions.

Olasky's words remind me of a post I wrote last year wondering why columnist Ellen Goodman made astute observations about people and leadership yet didn't seem to understand what the things she observed meant. She couldn't see them for what they were, apparently, because her worldview lacked a biblical perspective (or, more specifically, a saving faith in Jesus Christ.)

Conversion to such faith invariably results in a change of worldview, which is what many evangelicals focus on when seeking to "engage the culture." They've observed differences among the worldviews produced by various beliefs and seek to evangelize by engaging people via these worldviews (I hope I'm getting that right). "Worldview" thinking has received criticism, though, because the focus of such thinking can center upon worldview itself rather than on the beliefs that form it or the gospel that ought to inform it. Besides that, not all "true believers" have fully identical worldviews (obviously), and this is not necessarily because someone is wrong.

When hearing the gospel, a person can't help but filter it through their worldview, or, perhaps more accurate, their personal life-view, and it may not make sense if not explained in that language. This is what Paul means by becoming all things to all (I Corinthians 9:22), and I think it's part of the basis for a "worldview"-type evangelism. We have to remember, though, that much of what we call worldview is culturally informed, and none of us is outside of culture; we are each part of one or many cultures, or an amalgam of many. When we speak of reaching the culture, we are really speaking of cross-cultural dialogue. Being in but not of the world does not (and should not) mean we have a different culture; it means we live in the culture differently.

I think we have to go beyond cultural and "worldview" differences to the real humanity that each and every one of us shares -- the truth of who we really are and of who God is and what He did for us in Jesus. Underneath it all, we are all basically the same. Worldview change has to start here, and a complete transformation (if even possible) takes time to achieve. Indeed, our worldviews are continually changing as we work out our salvation, though perhaps not as drastically as when we first came to saving faith. Therefore, discussion of worldview may actually be more fruitful when taken up with those who have some openness to, or even a burgeoning faith in, God (through Jesus) already.

But we must start with the basics. If we gently speak to that which, underneath it all, we "can't not know" -- that common ground that we all share -- (which ultimately involves matters of the heart as well as the mind) then we may find a fertile place to sow the seed of the gospel. We can worry about cultivation afterwards. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to point out differences in worldviews if we are not addressing the matters of the heart/mind that lead to those worldviews.

(This post is brought to you courtesy of WorldMagBlog)

what wives want

The most thorough study ever undertaken to inquire into what makes wives happy reveals that working outside the home isn’t #1. The study found that

Having an affectionate and understanding husband was by far the most important predictor of a woman’s satisfaction with her marriage.

The happiest wives in their study were the ones who said that housework was divided fairly between them and their husbands. But those same happy wives also did more of the work at home while their husbands did more work outside home.

...A woman wants equity...That’s not necessarily the same as equality.

what relationships need

See Life Differently is singing the same tune I’ve been singing in my blogging, in Getting Naked Relationally. (OK, maybe I haven't sung it quite that way, but the lyrics are basically the same).

There is something about getting naked with someone - once the clothes come off, you see everything, in all its glorious splendor and its embarrassing imperfection. There is something deeply satisfying in being fully seen by someone, warts and all, and to still be loved. I suspect many of us go through our entire lives without ever experiencing that kind of intimacy.

I realized that the most personal and important parts of our lives fly under the radar of our typical relationships in the body of Christ. We live frenetically busy lives with activity-based friendships, punctuated only by brief conversations with each other. Now I was sitting across from a friend I did not know. ...

We tend to have permanently casual relationships that never grow into real intimacy. There are things we know about each other, but they fool us into thinking that we know the human beings who live within the borders of those details.

what theology needs:

Removal of The stumbling block of the average systematic theology. At Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength:

Logic is a good thing, but the logical process does not necessarily lead to truth. If you do not start with the right premises, you do not get the right conclusion, logically enough. "Garbage in, garbage out" as they say in my line of work. If you want your logical results to be true, your starting point must be true.

Jesus challenges us to understand God through him, to begin our systematic theologies with him, to start with him as our premise and end with him as our aim. Our natural thinking hardly knows where to begin with a venture like that. So we take an easier road -- but that road is not the way we were meant to travel.

I am not against systematic theology. But if we assume that Christ is the truth, then the best theology would begin and end with Christ; the best theology would center around Christ. The best "systematic theology" might very well be a biography. In the Bible, God has given us the right kind of book. Our systematic theologies are like a child's notebook, where we copy down pieces we do not yet fully understand. The more fully we understand, the more closely our systematic theologies resemble the Bible.

Are we relational to one another merely because it’s a creature-thing? Or is it part of the imago dei? God speaks to us; this is relational. We are to love Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Sounds pretty relational to me.

Not that our relationship to God is completely analogous to our relationship with persons; God is not human. Many crave to find in other persons things that can be found only in God, but this the error of sin in general -- putting "god", or looking for “God,” in all the wrong places. It’s not creature-relationships vs. some sort of position or ranking in a spiritual hierarchy (although that aspect is present in a relationship with God as well); it’s relationship with “other” (Satan, the “flesh”) vs. relationship with God.

HT: Mark Olson at WorldMag Blog Blogwatch

(This entry is cross-posted at my blog.)

The inestimably jolly blogger, Pastor David Wayne, is also consistently thoughtful, knowledgeable, and challenging in his writing.

Pastor Wayne recently expressed concern that his traffic might diminish while he is out of town, but he’s got nothing to worry about with his scheduled repostings of lots, and I mean lots, of good stuff. One post in particular, The Essence of the American Religion, hit on something I’ve been thinking about for awhile: the nature of the “God-love” that is preached throughout a large portion of American Evangelical Christianity.

Pastor Wayne uses a quote from Harold Bloom's book, The American Religion:

The essence of the American (religion) is the belief that God loves her or him, a conviction shared by nearly nine out of ten of us, according to a Gallup poll.

the core creed of American religion (American Christianity?) is "God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life.”

Truly, God's love is wonderful beyond imagination, but that is not the essence of Christianity, although many must think it is.

...in saying that the essence of American religion is the belief that God loves me, this would go a long way to explaining the state of American Christianity. In a country where so many claim to be Christians, maybe its the case that most of those believe in a God who is only half a god, or one quarter, or one tenth of a God. To believe in a God of love, without believing a God who is also holy, righteous, omnipotent, merciful, wrathful, omnicient, etc., is to believe in a dimunitive god. Thus we have a diminutive Christianity - a Christianity adhered to by millions yet which is grows more and more irrelevant in our day...

I responded to Pastor Wayne's post with this comment:

"God's love is seen on the cross, but it is His holiness and justice that come into the most vivid focus on the cross."

It is because of God’s love that He sent Jesus to minister and to die on the cross. Because of His love for us, He set up a way that His holiness and justice could be honored and satisfied without us having to pay the penalty required. What does love mean if not what God demonstrated in Jesus’ sacrificial death on our behalf?

I think what’s important isn’t that we de-emphasize God’s love but that we make sure we understand and teach what that love really is. Many no doubt do misunderstand it but I don't think that means we shouldn't teach it.

While the facts of our degeneracy and sin are absolutely true, we also have been created (and are commanded) to love God completely and our neighbors as ourselves. Why would He command something of us that He didn't also create us to need to be "complete," or "whole"? (part of the imago dei) I think everyone deep-down wants to have a truly loving relationship with God* (though some Calvinists may disagree) and the only thing that makes this possible is Jesus' death and resurrection.

I think we'd be hard-pressed to make a case that people do not have a very deep desire to be loved by other people. I believe this is part of the way we were created. I likewise think we are hard-pressed to make a case that a person's greatest desire is not to be loved by and to love God (whether they realize it or not). However, a person is not capable of it without God's regeneration. God’s love, which we find by accepting His terms and obeying them, i.e., accepting His love, is that ultimate love.

He created us and saw that it was good. Does He love His creation? He must; He provides for and sustains it, etc. And then there’s John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world...”

*not just a “feel-good” relationship with Him

****

I’m wondering what others might have to say. </