"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
BANNED BOOKS:
Bold what you've read completely, italicize what you've read partially.
#1 The Bible
#2 Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
#3 Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
#4 The Koran
#5 Arabian Nights
#6 Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
#7 Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
#8 Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
#9 Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
#10 Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
#11 The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
#12 Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
#13 Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank
#14 Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
#15 Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
#16 Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
#17 Dracula by Bram Stoker
#18 Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin
#19 Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
#20 Essays by Michel de Montaigne
#21 Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
#22 History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
#23 Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy
#24 Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
#25 Ulysses by James Joyce
#26 Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
#27 Animal Farm by George Orwell
#28 Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
#29 Candide by Voltaire
#30 To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
#31 Analects by Confucius
#32 Dubliners by James Joyce
#33 Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
#34 Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
#35 Red and the Black by Stendhal
#36 Das Capital by Karl Marx
#37 Flowers of Evil by Charles Baudelaire
#38 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#39 Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence
#40 Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
#41 Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser
#42 Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
#43 The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
#44 All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque
#45 Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
#46 Lord of the Flies by William Golding
#47 Diary by Samuel Pepys
#48 The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
#49 Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy
#50 Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
#51 Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
#52 Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
#53 One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
#54 Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus
#55 Catch-22 by Joseph Heller:
#56 Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X
#57 The Color Purple by Alice Walker
#58 Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger
#59 Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke
#60 Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
#61 Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe
#62 One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#63 East of Eden by John Steinbeck
#64 Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
#65 I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
#66 Confessions by Jean Jacques Rousseau
#67 Gargantua and Pantagruel by François Rabelais
#68 Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
#69 The Talmud
#70 Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau
#71 Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
#72 Women in Love by D. H. Lawrence
#73 American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
#74 Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
#75 A Separate Peace by John Knowles
#76 The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath
#77 The Red Pony by John Steinbeck
#78 Popol Vuh
#79 Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith
#80 Satyricon by Petronius
#81 James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
#82 Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
#83 Black Boy by Richard Wright
#84 Spirit of the Laws by Charles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu
#85 Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
#86 Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
#87 Metaphysics by Aristotle
#88 Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder
#89 Institutes of the Christian Religion by Jean Calvin
#90 Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse
#91 Power and the Glory by Graham Greene
#92 Sanctuary by William Faulkner
#93 As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
#94 Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin
#95 Sylvester and the Magic Pebble by William Steig
#96 Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
#97 General Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud
#98 The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
#99 Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Alexander Brown
#100 A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
#101 Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman by Ernest J. Gaines
#102 Émile Jean by Jacques Rousseau
#103 Nana by Émile Zola
#104 Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
#105 Go Tell It on the Mountain by James Baldwin
#106 Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#107 Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein
#108 A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
#109 Ox-Bow Incident by Walter Van Tilburg Clark
#110 Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
#111 Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret, Judy Blume
#112 The Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling
#113 The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare
#114 A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle
#115 The Witches of Worm, Zilpha Keatly Snyder
Sunday, February 27, 2005
The Papers of Dr. Frank Stagg
I found this great webpage that contains a list of the documents that the great Southern Baptist Theologian, Dr. Frank Stagg donated to Samford University.
Interesting ... this great Baptist scholar who spent 20 years at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and 30 years teaching at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary decided to donate all of his personal and professional papers to a school that wasn't a Southern Baptist Seminary.
I'll have to go to Samford in the future to indulge my love and appreciation for Dr. Stagg's work.
Interesting ... this great Baptist scholar who spent 20 years at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and 30 years teaching at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary decided to donate all of his personal and professional papers to a school that wasn't a Southern Baptist Seminary.
I'll have to go to Samford in the future to indulge my love and appreciation for Dr. Stagg's work.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Can Christians Believe That People Are Born Gay?
I am about to get controversial again.
Now I do not by into the Augustine notion of original sin which teaches that man is born with a sinful nature. I prefer the view that looks at sin as something that comes upon the person following birth when the person makes contact with sinners.
Nevertheless, I wondered today …
Why is it that we as evangelical Christians do not believe that some people are born gay?
Really, if we believe that humans are born with sinful natures and are still responsible for their sins then why do we not believe that some are born with the sinful nature of homosexuality? Can people not be born gay and still be sinners sinning by being gay?
Now before some of you start forwarding this post to the dean, let me reiterate my stance against homosexuality. I think homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals and those practicing homosexuality need Christ. Being gay is wrong.
Having said that, I do wonder if an evangelical can believe that person can be born a homosexual and still maintain that homosexuals are under the penalty of that sin because homosexuality is a sin. I think they could under this scenario. Why would someone be born a homosexual? Because the effect of sin upon creation following the fall of man has caused them to be homosexual sinners. Why is any man a sinner? Because the effect of sin upon creation following the fall of man has caused them to be a sinner. If this scenario is true, then we should have no more a problem believing that people are born homosexuals than we believe that anyone is born a sinner.
Of course, I do not believe that man is born with a sinful nature so I don’t have to face this problem.
Aborting Ideology... as we know it.
Completely Brilliant!
Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey introduced an unusual piece of legislation this month. It's a pro-life bill designed to tighten protections for the unborn. But that's not the unusual part — that happens all the time. The interesting part is that Duprey's bill is designed to protect gay fetuses.
Rep. Duprey told a local paper, the Magic City Morning Star, that he'd been listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show when Limbaugh commented that if scientists ever located the genetic cause for homosexuality — the so-called "gay gene" — then homosexuals would become pro-life "overnight."
"Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime," Duprey said. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected." That's why he introduced LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination."
Now, I don't know whether Duprey's on the up-and-up with all of this. I don't even know whether he's against abortions for straight babies. I also doubt that we'll ever find anything like a "gay gene." Still, this little stunt ought to provoke some much-needed reflection about technology, ideology, and human society.
Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that Rep. Duprey is right — that sometime in the near future women will be able to abort their pregnancies solely to avoid giving birth to a gay kid. Would this increase the number of pro-life gays and put pressure on the political alliance between gay groups and pro-abortion groups? Probably (although there are significant numbers of pro-life gays and lesbians already).
Nothing sharpens a man's mind as much as knowing he'll be hanged in the morning, as the saying goes. Likewise, one may assume without fear of much contradiction that homosexuals would greet the prospect of the quiet annihilation of their culture with a special revulsion they do not (for the most part) reserve for the consequences of abortion generally. (This desire to protect an identity-group culture is not unique to gays. For example, some radical members of the deaf community oppose cochlear implants and other remedies for deafness because they see it as destructive to their unique culture.)
There is little chance that a law like Duprey's would be nationalized, much less enforced ruthlessly. But what if it were? How could supporters deny that gays weren't being granted "special rights" since non-homosexual children would not have the same right to life? Faced with this massive contradiction between banning the termination of gay children and yet permitting women to abort all other children for any motive under the sun — gender selection, disease, etc. — would pro-choicers split apart? Would some on the right commit the horrid heresy of endorsing abortion only for "undesirables" but not for others?
Heck, I don't know.
But let's leave aside abortion and imagine what I think is the more possible — though not necessarily probable — scenario. Let's suppose that homosexuality is derived not solely from genetic dispensation but also from specific hormonal processes during gestation (as well as cultural factors). Let's also suppose that a way was found to "remedy" homosexuality in utero with a pill or an injection. The procedure might be no more intrusive than taking prenatal vitamins.
Well, then, in the American context is it so outlandish to imagine that the entire debate about the role of homosexuals in society would disappear along with substantial numbers of homosexuals in successive generations? The turbulent period from the Stonewall riots to gay marriage would be just one fascinating but brief parentheses in the history of the republic. And the "silent spring" of homosexuality would open a completely unprecedented chapter in human history, since homosexuality has always been with us. What would happen to the ideological feuds that are currently fueled implicitly or explicitly by homosexuality? What would happen to the culture and the economy? Again: I dunno.
Now, please keep in mind that I'm not advocating, or even remotely enthusiastic about, these or any other similar prospects. The point is not to wish for some abracadabra that would make homosexuals disappear. Rather, it is to point out how profoundly transformative and corrosive technology can be to our established concepts and institutions.
We have a tendency to assume that existing ideological categories are permanent. History is the study of the repeated debunking of such assumptions. The saddle, the stirrup, the moat, the locomotive, the telephone, the atomic bomb, the car, the computer, the birth-control pill: All of these caused tectonic changes in ideological arrangements, and all of them, save the last, were primarily innovations in transportation, communication, or war. The new earthquakes to come from biotechnology — "cures" for homosexuality, unimaginable longevity, real "happy pills" — could level all of the landmarks of our ideological landscape, even redefining the first ideology, conservatism.
It's been said that conservatism can be defined as the idea that human nature has no history. As we look around right now, that idea is on the brink of oblivion.
Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey introduced an unusual piece of legislation this month. It's a pro-life bill designed to tighten protections for the unborn. But that's not the unusual part — that happens all the time. The interesting part is that Duprey's bill is designed to protect gay fetuses.
Rep. Duprey told a local paper, the Magic City Morning Star, that he'd been listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show when Limbaugh commented that if scientists ever located the genetic cause for homosexuality — the so-called "gay gene" — then homosexuals would become pro-life "overnight."
"Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime," Duprey said. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected." That's why he introduced LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination."
Now, I don't know whether Duprey's on the up-and-up with all of this. I don't even know whether he's against abortions for straight babies. I also doubt that we'll ever find anything like a "gay gene." Still, this little stunt ought to provoke some much-needed reflection about technology, ideology, and human society.
Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that Rep. Duprey is right — that sometime in the near future women will be able to abort their pregnancies solely to avoid giving birth to a gay kid. Would this increase the number of pro-life gays and put pressure on the political alliance between gay groups and pro-abortion groups? Probably (although there are significant numbers of pro-life gays and lesbians already).
Nothing sharpens a man's mind as much as knowing he'll be hanged in the morning, as the saying goes. Likewise, one may assume without fear of much contradiction that homosexuals would greet the prospect of the quiet annihilation of their culture with a special revulsion they do not (for the most part) reserve for the consequences of abortion generally. (This desire to protect an identity-group culture is not unique to gays. For example, some radical members of the deaf community oppose cochlear implants and other remedies for deafness because they see it as destructive to their unique culture.)
There is little chance that a law like Duprey's would be nationalized, much less enforced ruthlessly. But what if it were? How could supporters deny that gays weren't being granted "special rights" since non-homosexual children would not have the same right to life? Faced with this massive contradiction between banning the termination of gay children and yet permitting women to abort all other children for any motive under the sun — gender selection, disease, etc. — would pro-choicers split apart? Would some on the right commit the horrid heresy of endorsing abortion only for "undesirables" but not for others?
Heck, I don't know.
But let's leave aside abortion and imagine what I think is the more possible — though not necessarily probable — scenario. Let's suppose that homosexuality is derived not solely from genetic dispensation but also from specific hormonal processes during gestation (as well as cultural factors). Let's also suppose that a way was found to "remedy" homosexuality in utero with a pill or an injection. The procedure might be no more intrusive than taking prenatal vitamins.
Well, then, in the American context is it so outlandish to imagine that the entire debate about the role of homosexuals in society would disappear along with substantial numbers of homosexuals in successive generations? The turbulent period from the Stonewall riots to gay marriage would be just one fascinating but brief parentheses in the history of the republic. And the "silent spring" of homosexuality would open a completely unprecedented chapter in human history, since homosexuality has always been with us. What would happen to the ideological feuds that are currently fueled implicitly or explicitly by homosexuality? What would happen to the culture and the economy? Again: I dunno.
Now, please keep in mind that I'm not advocating, or even remotely enthusiastic about, these or any other similar prospects. The point is not to wish for some abracadabra that would make homosexuals disappear. Rather, it is to point out how profoundly transformative and corrosive technology can be to our established concepts and institutions.
We have a tendency to assume that existing ideological categories are permanent. History is the study of the repeated debunking of such assumptions. The saddle, the stirrup, the moat, the locomotive, the telephone, the atomic bomb, the car, the computer, the birth-control pill: All of these caused tectonic changes in ideological arrangements, and all of them, save the last, were primarily innovations in transportation, communication, or war. The new earthquakes to come from biotechnology — "cures" for homosexuality, unimaginable longevity, real "happy pills" — could level all of the landmarks of our ideological landscape, even redefining the first ideology, conservatism.
It's been said that conservatism can be defined as the idea that human nature has no history. As we look around right now, that idea is on the brink of oblivion.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Nouthetic-Only Counseling: The Fad Continues
The issue of nouthetic counseling, modern psychology and evangelical schools is one that has frequently caught my attention. I have had many discussions with nouthetic-only counseling advocates in recent years. Here is one I posted.
The recent news out of Southern Seminary concerning this subject is only the latest in a series of small squirmishes that have begun in conservative, evangelical schools of higher learning (needless to say the schools that have adopted the nouthetic-only counseling teaching approach have been those who have been consistingly leaning towards the fundamentalist side of Christendom).
Having read the ABP article, I immediately wished to make commentary on it. Since Southern is not my seminary, I can freely do so.
But I also thought that both my audience and I would gain something by knowing exactly why this particular issue is of some importance to me. Now I have studied psychology in high school, college, and at seminary. When I usually discuss this issue with someone who is against modern psychology 1) they usually, but not always, do not know anything about psychology … except what they read in Competent to Counsel, and 2) think that my knowledge of the subject somehow invalidates my scrutiny of the discipline, i.e., I am too close to the subject to be objective. Of course, if I knew nothing about psychology then they would say that I was ignorant of the subject and therefore my opinion would again be invalid.
As a conservative evangelical, I hate to see conservative evangelicals make fools of themselves, especially in the area of science of which they tend to know nothing about. We really hurt ourselves as witnesses when we begin to make hay over matters we know nothing about, i.e. evolution.
But this ignorance also is theological. Many of these people have an ignorant view of human nature and the nature and purpose of the Scriptures. They have adopted a Platonic, Cartesian, and even a Lockian view of human nature that is foreign to the Bible. What is really ironic is that the atheistic psychologists whom the nouthetic-only crowd claims to be concerned about has the exact same dichotomous view of man’s nature. Naturally, atheistic psychologists arrive at unscriptural conclusions. But theistic psychologists do arrive at scriptural conclusions. Most of these Christian psychologists do have a correct view of the nature of man and know when to use psychological methods and when to use Biblical methods. The nouthetic-only crowd, who are understandably affronted by the unscriptural conclusions of atheistic psychologists, would rather dismiss all psychology rather than attempt to separate the wheat from the tares.
As a future educator of Christendom, I am always somewhat irritated when a particular discipline is hand-tied for the sake of political correctness (yes, let’s call the new nouthetic-only education fad what it is: a evangelical political correctness; it certainly isn’t theological correctness). I am even more infuriated to see students short-changed out of their education because of fads and theological naivete.
Also, I am very concerned that ill-equipped Christian counselors in the future are going to be unable to wrestle with many of the problems they will encounter because evangelical schools are unwilling to teach psychology.
As a future professor, I hate to see current professors vilified and fired because of naïve Christian politicians.
The Christian counseling department of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which defined the role of pastoral counseling for generations of ministers and Christian counselors, will make a wholesale change by emphasizing "biblical counseling" over behavioral science.
Southern used to define many things. That school used to be one of the greatest seminaries in the world but now …
The move is a departure from the previous integrative or "collaborative" approach, favored by many pastoral counseling professors and advocates, which teaches both behavioral sciences and biblical theology to minister to a person's needs.
Now you cannot even teach both.
The move drew unfavorable responses from several Christian counseling specialists who were students of Wayne Oates, the former Southern Seminary professor who established the school's "psychology of religion" department more than 50 years ago and who is considered a pioneer in the pastoral counseling field.
He’s written some good books.
According to a report from the seminary's news office, the new vision for the department "is a wholesale change of emphasis built upon the view that Scripture is sufficient to answer comprehensively the deepest needs of the human heart."
Here is the problem in a nutshell. Psychology does not solve the problem of sin. Only the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures can solve problems of sin. But Psychology solves problems that the Bible does not address, i.e., non-sinful issues that affect the mind, the body and the behavior. Not all of the problems that affects are minds, bodies and behavior are due to sinful natures. To believe otherwise is to have a, well, ignorant view of man’s nature and the nature and purpose of the Scriptures.
Seminary officials characterized the school's previous model as one that prepared therapists for state licensure more than it did for ministry in the local church.
Now the students will be ill-prepared for both.
But not everyone who is going to learn therapy at a seminary is going to serve full-time in a local church. Some students will be working in the world. If we keep Christians from being able to receive an adequate education at Christian schools, then these Christians will go to non-Christian schools and learn a non-Christian education. Is that what we want?
I once overheard two “future pastors” speak about this issue. They were discussing the problems of modern psychology but the one argument they made that interested me the most was that modern psychology prevented pastors from counseling because you have to have a degree in order to be qualified. Basically, learning modern methods of psychology is too difficult for a preaching pastor to concern himself about. And in this they were right. But 1) counseling in the local church was never meant to be the sole activity of a single “pastor” and 2) not all counseling moments will be done by an ordained minister within the confines of the local church.
I think some aspects of this issue stem from our attitude of the pastorship. We have elevated the office of pastor to such an exalted place that we expect him (always “him”) to perform the ministerial duties of an entire congregation. We have so elevated the position of pastor in our minds and activities that our seminaries only wish to train pastors and the occasional music minister. The idea that an un-ordained minister could learn counseling methods different from that of a preaching pastor is now so foreign to how we view the church that we shun at the suggestion. Again, why should a pastor of a church learn modern psychology? It would be like a lay-man learning advanced hermeneutical methods for teaching a Sunday School class.
"We're very concerned with the way in which so many institutions are really being driven by licensure demands in the way that we really intentionally want to be driven by the needs of the churches," said Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration.
So because the local church and its needs are our primary focus, we are going to stop teaching those who will not be serving in ordained positions in churches. Yes, they are basically ceding an entire area of ministry to the world.
Moore called the previous approach to integrate theology and psychology a "failed" model "because it is so naïve about the presuppositions behind secular psychologies."
The naivete, I’m afraid, is with those who neither understand psychology nor the nature of man. Some think others are naïve when those doing the thinking just do not understand.
"I think we're seeing now that psychotherapy is not one vision of science," he said. "You can't simply say you're going to integrate the science of psychotherapy with Scripture because there are only sciences and theories of psychotherapy that are contradictory and incoherent."
Perhaps we shouldn’t use hermeneutics; it is only a science and an art form with many different theories that are often contradictory and incoherent. We could separate the good hermeneutics from the bad hermeneutics but why not just chunk the whole discipline out in order that we do not teach a false hermeneutics. The Bible is sufficient! We do not need hermeneutics!
Wade Rowatt, a former professor at Southern Seminary and a counselor at the St. Matthews Pastoral Counseling Center, said the same criticism of multiple and contradictory interpretations could be said of biblical theology, but ministers still learn and apply the Scriptures and integrate them with specific understandings of human personality.
Ah, he gets it.
"I don't want to pick a fight with Southern Seminary," said Rowatt, whose counseling center is affiliated with St. Matthews Baptist Church. "I don't want to pick a fight with this other model. But I do want to speak a clear word of support for the model that has been terminated -- that has been there 60-something years. It's a system that's produced chaplains' programs in hundreds of hospitals, that has trained hundreds of military chaplains, thousands of pastors to be effective care-givers in their congregations."
I think one reason that the leaders of the current convention are so old and the new professors and leadership are so young is because the new professors have no memory of what life was like before the takeover and the older leaders don’t want anyone to know. All they know is what they are told. Heck, we do not even want history books and history professors around who might give a different view of what life was like before 1979.
But you can’t hide the past. And these young professors, over time, are going to slowly begin to reach the same conclusions that previous generations did; it’s inevitable. And when this happens there is going to be another round of resurgence.
In the seminary's news report, President Al Mohler said the program will emphasize teaching pastors and other church leaders how to apply Scripture comprehensively to the concerns and crises of everyday life.
Because only church leaders are qualified to counsel. And those who aren’t qualified, we aren’t going to teach them how to be qualified.
Those future pastors are in for a shock.
"In this psycho-therapeutic age, it is really important that we think as Christians, that we employ authentically Christian thinking -- biblical thinking -- to human life, and that we do this in a way that, without apology, confronts and critiques the wisdom of the age and seeks the wisdom that can come only from God and from God's Word."
Psycho is right.
The issue is about application and context not principle and content.
But Vicki Hollon, executive director of the Wayne Oates Institute, said seminary officials are creating a false dichotomy "by implying that pastoral care and counseling is not and has not been biblical."
That’s what I said!
"They have created the proverbial straw man," Hollon said. "And their movement away from science reveals a lack of faith, or at least a fear that somehow science is outside the realm of God's creation and domain."
It is probably not so much a lack of faith as a lack of understanding about theology and psychology. One can still have good faith and be ignorant of things they know nothing about. I know practically nothing about leading worship in a church, but that doesn’t mean that I have inadequate faith. Contrarywise, knowing about leading worship or, in this case, psychology and theology doesn’t mean you have good faith.
Sufficiency of the Scripture seems to be a selectively utilized concept. There was a time when this biblical concept was used to argue against Christian associations, denominations, mission boards, and seminaries for the expressed reason that such is absent to the Scriptures. Ironically, those who are currently advocating a rigid interpretation of the sufficiency of the Scriptures are also strongly advocating creeds. This nouthetic-only counseling is just the latest in a long line of fad-driven, fundamentalist movements. Like all other movements, it will soon die and the next generation of rigid Christian traditionalists, whose fathers opposed psychology will embrace the discipline but have a new focus of ire.
The Louisville-based institute was established to advance the field of pastoral counseling, the focus of Wayne Oates' writings and teaching. Oates taught at Southern from 1948-74 and afterward at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. The author of 57 books, including "The Christian Pastor," Oates died at the age of 82 in 1999.
Now what is that spinning noise?
"Dr. Oates' unique contribution was to lead Baptists to say we need to be thoroughly informed about understanding persons through personality theory, and understanding families through family systems theory, and understanding groups of people -- understanding society," Rowatt said, "and then integrating it with sound biblical theological scholarship in constructing a theory for the pastoral shepherding of persons."
Using modern methods of investigation to apply biblical principles? Sounds like liberalism to me.
Rowatt described the process as a "trialogue," with "the minister, the person in crisis and the Holy Spirit, seeking wholeness and healing in a spiritual journey."
The basic 2 commandments. Loving the Lord and loving our neighbor. About as basically biblical as it comes.
But Moore said such a process is leading to the inclusion of counter-Christian beliefs in such programs. "What we're seeing in other institutions is an integrationism in which Freudian and Darwinist and behaviorist understandings of human nature are just uncritically accepted into a Christian worldview."
Notice this wording. Not “has led” but “is leading”. I noticed this terminology when reading a few recent books by some of the leaders of the conservative resurgence. According to their accounts, nothing that the “old” convention had done had “led” to liberalism but it was “leading” to liberalism. This means that in their own view there wasn’t a problem but soon would be one, but before a problem does come they needed to act. In this same way, the last 60 yrs of psychology teaching at Southern has not led away from the Scripture but is leading.
Okay, most psychologist, Christian or non-Christian, do not refer to Freud anymore. Freudian psychology was overwhelmingly abandoned in the 1960s. Either he is ignorant of psychology or he is simply using Freud as a straw man to represent to an even more ignorant audience all of the contemporary aspects of modern psychology that he dislikes. The same thing can be said about his use of Darwin. The equivalence would be for a moderate to accuse a contemporary conservative of Landmarkism simply because they do not like psychology.
Christian psychologists do critique modern methods of learning and application. That is why Christian psychologists do not use all modern methods; they pick and choose and compare different methods with Scripture. The fact that some wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater suggests that they are the ones who are not thinking critically.
Rowatt, who is also a professor of pastoral counseling at the new Baptist Seminary of Kentucky, countered that he hasn't seen the teachings of Freud advanced in any Christian pastoral counseling program he's aware of. "We don't train junior psychologists and psychiatrists," he said. "We train pastors who have a knowledge of Bible theology and the behavioral science and supervision in the integration of that for the practice of ministry."
See.
Roy Woodruff, retired executive director of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and a student of Oates, said the implication that the previous pastoral counseling model was not biblically based "is either totally ignorant or totally arrogant, and I don't know which."
Both.
Southern officials said the new direction is not a new degree program but will involve "a wholesale change of emphasis." The seminary's master of divinity degree with an emphasis on pastoral counseling was renamed the "master of divinity with an emphasis on biblical counseling." Its master of arts in Christian counseling was renamed "master of arts in biblical counseling."
2 Peter 2:22
The 70 students already enrolled in both previous degree programs can finish the degrees they started, said Lawrence Smith, Southern's vice president for public relations.
That is the something that I am thankful for. At least they allow students to finish their degree programs. But if what those students are learning is so harmful to the future of the ministry then why allow them to continue? It must not be that detrimental then.
In the new model, students will take courses that deal with such topics as biblical and theological foundations for counseling, marriage and sexuality, parenting and family, and biblical foundations for the nature of personhood. Moore said Southern will teach women to counsel other women.
And men to counsel women but not women to counsel men.
Interesting.
According to them, a woman can not be a pastor. But even as un-ordained she could still counsel others, including men, because what she was doing lay outside the confines of the local church. Since the emphasis will now be towards nouthetic-only pastoral care, will women be trained to counsel men? Interesting.
The new direction does not deny the existence of some mental conditions that science attributes to chemical imbalances, such as bipolar disorder or severe depression, Moore said. "The problem is, we are living in an era in which there is the notion that there is a pharmacological solution to every human problem."
Yes, the new direction doesn’t deny the existence of such problems, we just will not teach students to deal with them. We’ll let Christian counselors go to secular schools to get such training. Heck, will let the lost go to secular psychologists to get help.
This guy is not thinking critically. Everything he says seems to come right out of the Jay E. Adams book.
Hollon and Rowatt said the new program will produce students who cannot gain the accreditation or certification required by many agencies for such roles as hospital, hospice or prison chaplain.
Well, women cannot counsel other women in the military because of the shift in SBC policy. Why not right off a whole other demographic to the Satan?
"Omitting knowledge from the behavioral sciences and the hard sciences will produce ill-equipped pastors, chaplains, counselors who will have knowledge of the tip of the iceberg without comprehensive understanding of the other factors," Rowatt said.
We may be sending a generation to hell but at least we’re sending them to hell biblically.
The recent news out of Southern Seminary concerning this subject is only the latest in a series of small squirmishes that have begun in conservative, evangelical schools of higher learning (needless to say the schools that have adopted the nouthetic-only counseling teaching approach have been those who have been consistingly leaning towards the fundamentalist side of Christendom).
Having read the ABP article, I immediately wished to make commentary on it. Since Southern is not my seminary, I can freely do so.
But I also thought that both my audience and I would gain something by knowing exactly why this particular issue is of some importance to me. Now I have studied psychology in high school, college, and at seminary. When I usually discuss this issue with someone who is against modern psychology 1) they usually, but not always, do not know anything about psychology … except what they read in Competent to Counsel, and 2) think that my knowledge of the subject somehow invalidates my scrutiny of the discipline, i.e., I am too close to the subject to be objective. Of course, if I knew nothing about psychology then they would say that I was ignorant of the subject and therefore my opinion would again be invalid.
As a conservative evangelical, I hate to see conservative evangelicals make fools of themselves, especially in the area of science of which they tend to know nothing about. We really hurt ourselves as witnesses when we begin to make hay over matters we know nothing about, i.e. evolution.
But this ignorance also is theological. Many of these people have an ignorant view of human nature and the nature and purpose of the Scriptures. They have adopted a Platonic, Cartesian, and even a Lockian view of human nature that is foreign to the Bible. What is really ironic is that the atheistic psychologists whom the nouthetic-only crowd claims to be concerned about has the exact same dichotomous view of man’s nature. Naturally, atheistic psychologists arrive at unscriptural conclusions. But theistic psychologists do arrive at scriptural conclusions. Most of these Christian psychologists do have a correct view of the nature of man and know when to use psychological methods and when to use Biblical methods. The nouthetic-only crowd, who are understandably affronted by the unscriptural conclusions of atheistic psychologists, would rather dismiss all psychology rather than attempt to separate the wheat from the tares.
As a future educator of Christendom, I am always somewhat irritated when a particular discipline is hand-tied for the sake of political correctness (yes, let’s call the new nouthetic-only education fad what it is: a evangelical political correctness; it certainly isn’t theological correctness). I am even more infuriated to see students short-changed out of their education because of fads and theological naivete.
Also, I am very concerned that ill-equipped Christian counselors in the future are going to be unable to wrestle with many of the problems they will encounter because evangelical schools are unwilling to teach psychology.
As a future professor, I hate to see current professors vilified and fired because of naïve Christian politicians.
The Christian counseling department of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which defined the role of pastoral counseling for generations of ministers and Christian counselors, will make a wholesale change by emphasizing "biblical counseling" over behavioral science.
Southern used to define many things. That school used to be one of the greatest seminaries in the world but now …
The move is a departure from the previous integrative or "collaborative" approach, favored by many pastoral counseling professors and advocates, which teaches both behavioral sciences and biblical theology to minister to a person's needs.
Now you cannot even teach both.
The move drew unfavorable responses from several Christian counseling specialists who were students of Wayne Oates, the former Southern Seminary professor who established the school's "psychology of religion" department more than 50 years ago and who is considered a pioneer in the pastoral counseling field.
He’s written some good books.
According to a report from the seminary's news office, the new vision for the department "is a wholesale change of emphasis built upon the view that Scripture is sufficient to answer comprehensively the deepest needs of the human heart."
Here is the problem in a nutshell. Psychology does not solve the problem of sin. Only the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures can solve problems of sin. But Psychology solves problems that the Bible does not address, i.e., non-sinful issues that affect the mind, the body and the behavior. Not all of the problems that affects are minds, bodies and behavior are due to sinful natures. To believe otherwise is to have a, well, ignorant view of man’s nature and the nature and purpose of the Scriptures.
Seminary officials characterized the school's previous model as one that prepared therapists for state licensure more than it did for ministry in the local church.
Now the students will be ill-prepared for both.
But not everyone who is going to learn therapy at a seminary is going to serve full-time in a local church. Some students will be working in the world. If we keep Christians from being able to receive an adequate education at Christian schools, then these Christians will go to non-Christian schools and learn a non-Christian education. Is that what we want?
I once overheard two “future pastors” speak about this issue. They were discussing the problems of modern psychology but the one argument they made that interested me the most was that modern psychology prevented pastors from counseling because you have to have a degree in order to be qualified. Basically, learning modern methods of psychology is too difficult for a preaching pastor to concern himself about. And in this they were right. But 1) counseling in the local church was never meant to be the sole activity of a single “pastor” and 2) not all counseling moments will be done by an ordained minister within the confines of the local church.
I think some aspects of this issue stem from our attitude of the pastorship. We have elevated the office of pastor to such an exalted place that we expect him (always “him”) to perform the ministerial duties of an entire congregation. We have so elevated the position of pastor in our minds and activities that our seminaries only wish to train pastors and the occasional music minister. The idea that an un-ordained minister could learn counseling methods different from that of a preaching pastor is now so foreign to how we view the church that we shun at the suggestion. Again, why should a pastor of a church learn modern psychology? It would be like a lay-man learning advanced hermeneutical methods for teaching a Sunday School class.
"We're very concerned with the way in which so many institutions are really being driven by licensure demands in the way that we really intentionally want to be driven by the needs of the churches," said Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration.
So because the local church and its needs are our primary focus, we are going to stop teaching those who will not be serving in ordained positions in churches. Yes, they are basically ceding an entire area of ministry to the world.
Moore called the previous approach to integrate theology and psychology a "failed" model "because it is so naïve about the presuppositions behind secular psychologies."
The naivete, I’m afraid, is with those who neither understand psychology nor the nature of man. Some think others are naïve when those doing the thinking just do not understand.
"I think we're seeing now that psychotherapy is not one vision of science," he said. "You can't simply say you're going to integrate the science of psychotherapy with Scripture because there are only sciences and theories of psychotherapy that are contradictory and incoherent."
Perhaps we shouldn’t use hermeneutics; it is only a science and an art form with many different theories that are often contradictory and incoherent. We could separate the good hermeneutics from the bad hermeneutics but why not just chunk the whole discipline out in order that we do not teach a false hermeneutics. The Bible is sufficient! We do not need hermeneutics!
Wade Rowatt, a former professor at Southern Seminary and a counselor at the St. Matthews Pastoral Counseling Center, said the same criticism of multiple and contradictory interpretations could be said of biblical theology, but ministers still learn and apply the Scriptures and integrate them with specific understandings of human personality.
Ah, he gets it.
"I don't want to pick a fight with Southern Seminary," said Rowatt, whose counseling center is affiliated with St. Matthews Baptist Church. "I don't want to pick a fight with this other model. But I do want to speak a clear word of support for the model that has been terminated -- that has been there 60-something years. It's a system that's produced chaplains' programs in hundreds of hospitals, that has trained hundreds of military chaplains, thousands of pastors to be effective care-givers in their congregations."
I think one reason that the leaders of the current convention are so old and the new professors and leadership are so young is because the new professors have no memory of what life was like before the takeover and the older leaders don’t want anyone to know. All they know is what they are told. Heck, we do not even want history books and history professors around who might give a different view of what life was like before 1979.
But you can’t hide the past. And these young professors, over time, are going to slowly begin to reach the same conclusions that previous generations did; it’s inevitable. And when this happens there is going to be another round of resurgence.
In the seminary's news report, President Al Mohler said the program will emphasize teaching pastors and other church leaders how to apply Scripture comprehensively to the concerns and crises of everyday life.
Because only church leaders are qualified to counsel. And those who aren’t qualified, we aren’t going to teach them how to be qualified.
Those future pastors are in for a shock.
"In this psycho-therapeutic age, it is really important that we think as Christians, that we employ authentically Christian thinking -- biblical thinking -- to human life, and that we do this in a way that, without apology, confronts and critiques the wisdom of the age and seeks the wisdom that can come only from God and from God's Word."
Psycho is right.
The issue is about application and context not principle and content.
But Vicki Hollon, executive director of the Wayne Oates Institute, said seminary officials are creating a false dichotomy "by implying that pastoral care and counseling is not and has not been biblical."
That’s what I said!
"They have created the proverbial straw man," Hollon said. "And their movement away from science reveals a lack of faith, or at least a fear that somehow science is outside the realm of God's creation and domain."
It is probably not so much a lack of faith as a lack of understanding about theology and psychology. One can still have good faith and be ignorant of things they know nothing about. I know practically nothing about leading worship in a church, but that doesn’t mean that I have inadequate faith. Contrarywise, knowing about leading worship or, in this case, psychology and theology doesn’t mean you have good faith.
Sufficiency of the Scripture seems to be a selectively utilized concept. There was a time when this biblical concept was used to argue against Christian associations, denominations, mission boards, and seminaries for the expressed reason that such is absent to the Scriptures. Ironically, those who are currently advocating a rigid interpretation of the sufficiency of the Scriptures are also strongly advocating creeds. This nouthetic-only counseling is just the latest in a long line of fad-driven, fundamentalist movements. Like all other movements, it will soon die and the next generation of rigid Christian traditionalists, whose fathers opposed psychology will embrace the discipline but have a new focus of ire.
The Louisville-based institute was established to advance the field of pastoral counseling, the focus of Wayne Oates' writings and teaching. Oates taught at Southern from 1948-74 and afterward at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. The author of 57 books, including "The Christian Pastor," Oates died at the age of 82 in 1999.
Now what is that spinning noise?
"Dr. Oates' unique contribution was to lead Baptists to say we need to be thoroughly informed about understanding persons through personality theory, and understanding families through family systems theory, and understanding groups of people -- understanding society," Rowatt said, "and then integrating it with sound biblical theological scholarship in constructing a theory for the pastoral shepherding of persons."
Using modern methods of investigation to apply biblical principles? Sounds like liberalism to me.
Rowatt described the process as a "trialogue," with "the minister, the person in crisis and the Holy Spirit, seeking wholeness and healing in a spiritual journey."
The basic 2 commandments. Loving the Lord and loving our neighbor. About as basically biblical as it comes.
But Moore said such a process is leading to the inclusion of counter-Christian beliefs in such programs. "What we're seeing in other institutions is an integrationism in which Freudian and Darwinist and behaviorist understandings of human nature are just uncritically accepted into a Christian worldview."
Notice this wording. Not “has led” but “is leading”. I noticed this terminology when reading a few recent books by some of the leaders of the conservative resurgence. According to their accounts, nothing that the “old” convention had done had “led” to liberalism but it was “leading” to liberalism. This means that in their own view there wasn’t a problem but soon would be one, but before a problem does come they needed to act. In this same way, the last 60 yrs of psychology teaching at Southern has not led away from the Scripture but is leading.
Okay, most psychologist, Christian or non-Christian, do not refer to Freud anymore. Freudian psychology was overwhelmingly abandoned in the 1960s. Either he is ignorant of psychology or he is simply using Freud as a straw man to represent to an even more ignorant audience all of the contemporary aspects of modern psychology that he dislikes. The same thing can be said about his use of Darwin. The equivalence would be for a moderate to accuse a contemporary conservative of Landmarkism simply because they do not like psychology.
Christian psychologists do critique modern methods of learning and application. That is why Christian psychologists do not use all modern methods; they pick and choose and compare different methods with Scripture. The fact that some wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater suggests that they are the ones who are not thinking critically.
Rowatt, who is also a professor of pastoral counseling at the new Baptist Seminary of Kentucky, countered that he hasn't seen the teachings of Freud advanced in any Christian pastoral counseling program he's aware of. "We don't train junior psychologists and psychiatrists," he said. "We train pastors who have a knowledge of Bible theology and the behavioral science and supervision in the integration of that for the practice of ministry."
See.
Roy Woodruff, retired executive director of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and a student of Oates, said the implication that the previous pastoral counseling model was not biblically based "is either totally ignorant or totally arrogant, and I don't know which."
Both.
Southern officials said the new direction is not a new degree program but will involve "a wholesale change of emphasis." The seminary's master of divinity degree with an emphasis on pastoral counseling was renamed the "master of divinity with an emphasis on biblical counseling." Its master of arts in Christian counseling was renamed "master of arts in biblical counseling."
2 Peter 2:22
The 70 students already enrolled in both previous degree programs can finish the degrees they started, said Lawrence Smith, Southern's vice president for public relations.
That is the something that I am thankful for. At least they allow students to finish their degree programs. But if what those students are learning is so harmful to the future of the ministry then why allow them to continue? It must not be that detrimental then.
In the new model, students will take courses that deal with such topics as biblical and theological foundations for counseling, marriage and sexuality, parenting and family, and biblical foundations for the nature of personhood. Moore said Southern will teach women to counsel other women.
And men to counsel women but not women to counsel men.
Interesting.
According to them, a woman can not be a pastor. But even as un-ordained she could still counsel others, including men, because what she was doing lay outside the confines of the local church. Since the emphasis will now be towards nouthetic-only pastoral care, will women be trained to counsel men? Interesting.
The new direction does not deny the existence of some mental conditions that science attributes to chemical imbalances, such as bipolar disorder or severe depression, Moore said. "The problem is, we are living in an era in which there is the notion that there is a pharmacological solution to every human problem."
Yes, the new direction doesn’t deny the existence of such problems, we just will not teach students to deal with them. We’ll let Christian counselors go to secular schools to get such training. Heck, will let the lost go to secular psychologists to get help.
This guy is not thinking critically. Everything he says seems to come right out of the Jay E. Adams book.
Hollon and Rowatt said the new program will produce students who cannot gain the accreditation or certification required by many agencies for such roles as hospital, hospice or prison chaplain.
Well, women cannot counsel other women in the military because of the shift in SBC policy. Why not right off a whole other demographic to the Satan?
"Omitting knowledge from the behavioral sciences and the hard sciences will produce ill-equipped pastors, chaplains, counselors who will have knowledge of the tip of the iceberg without comprehensive understanding of the other factors," Rowatt said.
We may be sending a generation to hell but at least we’re sending them to hell biblically.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Oxford Trip 2004 XI: Arthur's Seat (or getting high on a mountain)
Today I finally reach the peak, as it were, of my trip to England. On this day I went to Arthur’s Seat (or as I commonly refer to it: Arthur's Bottom). This is a small mountain overlooking Edinburgh and the sea and it is the most beautiful place I have ever been to in my entire life. This is my favourite place on earth.
It took me about 30 minutes to climb to the top but I spent nearly 6 hours up there. Definitely worth the trouble of climbing!
This nice road runs right between the mountain and the University.
Here is the University.
Here is the “Arthur’s Seat” part of the mountain. I would have loved to have stood on top of it but I am only a visitor to this country. Arthur and I are both Welsh.
These are pics of the glorious view from the mountain.
When I saw these sights I immediately prayed to God, thanking Him for creating such wonders.
I mentioned to someone how amazing it was for God to spend millions of years creating, carving these volcanic mountains up and down so that we could experience them. The person I mentioned this to said he believed the earth was only six thousand years old.
I took more photos from this mountain than I did anything else on my whole trip.
I actually met a nice Scottish bloke on this mountain. He was attending the school and frequently climbed up the mountain. His pic is on the NicPics blog. We stood and talked for three hours and I did a little witnessing.
I actually witnessed in number of places while I was in England. I never intended on doing so but I would be sitting in a pub "having dinner" and I would get in conversations with the locals and some tourists about the Faith. They would see me reading the Bible or reading a theology book and start asking me questions. Of course I got punished for my evangelistic method but it worked.
I noticed recently that the 2005 Oxford Study program for my seminary plans to do some witnessing while they are there. I think this is a good idea. I certainly hope that they do this the right way. Allow me to make some points.
1) I assume that street preaching will not be a part of this witnessing. From a practical standpoint I do not know how a group of young Americans staying in England only for a few weeks will go down with the locals when it comes to witnessing.
2) Even if they are successful, where will you send the new believers? You can't invite them to Travis Avenue and they cerainly need to be a part of a good Christian fellowship in their own country.
3) Therefore, I suggest that the leadership of this evangelistic Oxford endeavour make contact with an evangelistic church in the local area of wherever in England you plan to witness and assist that church with their evangelism. This way, the local believers will be front and center above the "3-week missionaries" and, when successful, the new believers will have a church group to become involved in.
These points are so obvious that I know the leadership of this evangelistic Oxford endeavour are already thinking along these lines.
This view made me want to go out and buy insurance.
Night falls on Arthur’s Seat.
I am planning to go back to Oxford this summer. I plan to visit some colleges there and look into the possibility of taking doctoral classes.
I know of at least two seminaries that will be there this summer and I am not yet sure when I will be in Oxford, so I do not know which group I will be running into. I do know that a many Baptists from around the world will be in Birmingham for the BWA Centennial. Perhaps I should hang out with them. Heck, I will hang out with any believers that will let me go to the Eagle and the Child. Hey! That’s every believer except the Southern Baptists! Hooray!
[Editorial Note: The author of Panis Circenses is not currently imbibing alcohol while he is in seminary and will not be doing so while he is in Oxford this summer. The above reference to the Eagle and the Child and the famous catch-phrase by Homer Simpson was meant in jest. Even though it is only blinkered philistine pig ignorance that makes some believers hold their cultural traditions above and beyond the Word of God and deny biblical mandates, forcing others to heed to the local hypocrisy of power hungry despots, I do not indulge. No, not me.]
It took me about 30 minutes to climb to the top but I spent nearly 6 hours up there. Definitely worth the trouble of climbing!
This nice road runs right between the mountain and the University.
Here is the University.
Here is the “Arthur’s Seat” part of the mountain. I would have loved to have stood on top of it but I am only a visitor to this country. Arthur and I are both Welsh.
These are pics of the glorious view from the mountain.
When I saw these sights I immediately prayed to God, thanking Him for creating such wonders.
I mentioned to someone how amazing it was for God to spend millions of years creating, carving these volcanic mountains up and down so that we could experience them. The person I mentioned this to said he believed the earth was only six thousand years old.
I took more photos from this mountain than I did anything else on my whole trip.
I actually met a nice Scottish bloke on this mountain. He was attending the school and frequently climbed up the mountain. His pic is on the NicPics blog. We stood and talked for three hours and I did a little witnessing.
I actually witnessed in number of places while I was in England. I never intended on doing so but I would be sitting in a pub "having dinner" and I would get in conversations with the locals and some tourists about the Faith. They would see me reading the Bible or reading a theology book and start asking me questions. Of course I got punished for my evangelistic method but it worked.
I noticed recently that the 2005 Oxford Study program for my seminary plans to do some witnessing while they are there. I think this is a good idea. I certainly hope that they do this the right way. Allow me to make some points.
1) I assume that street preaching will not be a part of this witnessing. From a practical standpoint I do not know how a group of young Americans staying in England only for a few weeks will go down with the locals when it comes to witnessing.
2) Even if they are successful, where will you send the new believers? You can't invite them to Travis Avenue and they cerainly need to be a part of a good Christian fellowship in their own country.
3) Therefore, I suggest that the leadership of this evangelistic Oxford endeavour make contact with an evangelistic church in the local area of wherever in England you plan to witness and assist that church with their evangelism. This way, the local believers will be front and center above the "3-week missionaries" and, when successful, the new believers will have a church group to become involved in.
These points are so obvious that I know the leadership of this evangelistic Oxford endeavour are already thinking along these lines.
This view made me want to go out and buy insurance.
Night falls on Arthur’s Seat.
I am planning to go back to Oxford this summer. I plan to visit some colleges there and look into the possibility of taking doctoral classes.
I know of at least two seminaries that will be there this summer and I am not yet sure when I will be in Oxford, so I do not know which group I will be running into. I do know that a many Baptists from around the world will be in Birmingham for the BWA Centennial. Perhaps I should hang out with them. Heck, I will hang out with any believers that will let me go to the Eagle and the Child. Hey! That’s every believer except the Southern Baptists! Hooray!
[Editorial Note: The author of Panis Circenses is not currently imbibing alcohol while he is in seminary and will not be doing so while he is in Oxford this summer. The above reference to the Eagle and the Child and the famous catch-phrase by Homer Simpson was meant in jest. Even though it is only blinkered philistine pig ignorance that makes some believers hold their cultural traditions above and beyond the Word of God and deny biblical mandates, forcing others to heed to the local hypocrisy of power hungry despots, I do not indulge. No, not me.]
Friday, February 18, 2005
Killing in the Name of America
Someone recently commented on my posting of some other blogger's article. Allow me to post his comments in full and then with my reply.
I would have to disagree that there is any problem or "idolatry" in a church when it chooses to let boy scouts (or anyone for that matter) lead the pledge of allegiance in the worship service. This is based on several factors. The first is that swearing allegiance and loyalty to another entity, in this case the USA, is not worship (please hold saying something to the tune of "that's exactly why it shouldn't be in a WORSHIP service", I'm getting to that part). This swearing of allegiance is the willingess to say that one will defend and protect that entity with their lives. I proudly say the pledge of allegiance. I would die for my country, but I do not live my life for anyone other than God. The two do not conflict. Worship and patriotism are two different things, and neither is synonymous with "idolatry". Bringing Patriotism IN to the church does not create idolatry. It would appear that whoever started that conversation needs to learn the same lesson that non-christians do. That Freedom OF religion does not mean Freedom FROM religion. The two were never meant to be separated. To do so is to first live a lie, and second to be worthless to the world around you. We are no longer to be of the world, but we ARE to be in it, and making a difference. There is absolutely no reason why a church body that has come together to worship God, cannot also be reminded of, and teach younger children, the fact that we live in a great, FREE, able to worship nation, and that it is a good thing to be willing to step up and defend that which our forefathers and hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to ensure that we have in that church building. It is not wrong to teach our children and remind other adults, that while we do not kill in the name of God anymore, but instead turn the other cheek on account of his name, that we do still have to sometimes kill to defend the ground that we freely walk on and enjoy every day. It is not a fun thing to teach, but it is a reality, because there are those that would see this free ground, and the freedoms we enjoy be stripped from us. Having a church that refuses to teach on moral, and societal issues, is to have a church that is no good to the community around it. In fact it is a waste of perfectly good real estate, because all that happens in that case is a bunch of well-meaning christians come together to praise God and feel good and then leave not knowing any more than they came in with about how to act and react in the world in which they live. No offense brother, but they can get that from a praise CD and personal Bible study or small group study. The church is to be a place of corporate and personal worship. It's primary importance is the declaration, communion with, praise of, and committing to God. That does not, however, rule out the remembrance of thanking God for one of our greatest gifts...this free country. Nor does it rule out pledging defense and loyalty (not worship) to that country. If that is a pledge you would not make, then you're a coward, and do a dishonor to those who have died for this country, many who have cited freedom of religion as one of their main reasons for being willing to go to War. To be a "conscientious objector" is to misunderstand God's word. Killing and murdering are two different things. One is wrong, the other is not. I personally do not ever wish to harm or kill another human being, but before I make my country draft me, I will enlist and do just that to defend this nation. The Bible has no problems with self-defense, and therefore neither do I. So let's look at this picture. In a war, I stand to lose everything else that my fellow Americans do if we are ever on the ultimate losing side. I also stand to lose a little more, because those who would take us over would see Christianity done away with. There went the best freedom I possess, the ability to worship my God without persecution from the government. If someone is willing to kill me because they don't like my country, they aren't going to care if I'm an objector to war or not. Either way I grow a few ounces of lead heavier. If you wish to not say the pledge and take up a rifle to defend this nation, I think less of you...I am sorry. But it should not be implied that those who would do those things are idolatrous just because they would do so in a church, therefore not just thanking God with their lips, but thanking God by their actions as well. I say thank you to those who have come before me, who learned the pledges to the American flag, the bible, and the christian flag in Sunday school and church services, who remembered those vows when they grew to me men, and who bled and died because of those vows and had their lives cut short. I say thank you because their sacrifice has given me the ability to walk freely in to a church and worship God today. That same sacrifice also gives me the freedom to learn those same vows (pledges), and to teach them to others, in my own sunday school and service. A Christian is called to give. One way that I believe I can give, is to be willing to give my life in the defense of a country that allows myself, and my family and friends and neighbors to be free. In the meantime, I would gladly give of myself to support and help the teaching of our national pledge, anthem, etc. in a sunday school or church service. God bless our scouts and the church that allowed them to bring in that lesson once again.
And the reply:
I would have to disagree that there is any problem or "idolatry" in a church when it chooses to let boy scouts (or anyone for that matter) lead the pledge of allegiance in the worship service.
Feel free to disagree.
This is based on several factors. The first is that swearing allegiance and loyalty to another entity, in this case the USA, is not worship (please hold saying something to the tune of "that's exactly why it shouldn't be in a WORSHIP service", I'm getting to that part). This swearing of allegiance is the willingess to say that one will defend and protect that entity with their lives.
Exactly, I won’t defend and protect America.
I proudly say the pledge of allegiance. I would die for my country, but I do not live my life for anyone other than God.
I won’t die for my country. I certainly won’t kill for my country.
The two do not conflict. Worship and patriotism are two different things, and neither is synonymous with "idolatry". Bringing Patriotism IN to the church does not create idolatry.
No, it just brings division into the body of Christ.
It would appear that whoever started that conversation needs to learn the same lesson that non-christians do. That Freedom OF religion does not mean Freedom FROM religion.
Actually freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion. I do not have to suffer Islam and paganism if I do not want to. But freedom OF religion does mean mean freedom FROM the state. It’s the state we do not want in our churches.
The two were never meant to be separated.
Yes, they were.
To do so is to first live a lie, and second to be worthless to the world around you.
Is not wanting the state (and the world) intruding on our worship services living a lie?
We are no longer to be of the world, but we ARE to be in it, and making a difference.
Then why bring the world into our churches?
There is absolutely no reason why a church body that has come together to worship God, cannot also be reminded of, and teach younger children, the fact that we live in a great, FREE, able to worship nation, and that it is a good thing to be willing to step up and defend that which our forefathers and hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to ensure that we have in that church building.
But why in church? Why not at home or in school? Why must we do so in church? The Church is bigger than America.
It is not wrong to teach our children and remind other adults, that while we do not kill in the name of God anymore, but instead turn the other cheek on account of his name, that we do still have to sometimes kill to defend the ground that we freely walk on and enjoy every day.
You mean instead of killing in the name of God we kill in the name of America. That is much better.
No, I disagree. Christians should not kill in anyone’s name. Christ said not to so I don’t.
It is not a fun thing to teach, but it is a reality, because there are those that would see this free ground, and the freedoms we enjoy be stripped from us.
But why must we teach it in church?
Having a church that refuses to teach on moral, and societal issues, is to have a church that is no good to the community around it.
That's what the liberal churches said and look what happened to them.
In fact it is a waste of perfectly good real estate, because all that happens in that case is a bunch of well-meaning christians come together to praise God and feel good and then leave not knowing any more than they came in with about how to act and react in the world in which they live.
Yes, let’s teach love of America in church. That’s what the Great Commission is all about.
No offense brother, but they can get that from a praise CD and personal Bible study or small group study.
None taken. But they can get patriotism at home and at school or on television. Why don’t we as a church provide people what they can’t get anywhere else, i.e. the body of Christ, which extends beyond the bounds of America.
The church is to be a place of corporate and personal worship. It's primary importance is the declaration, communion with, praise of, and committing to God.
Then why bring patriotism into the Church … where does the New Testament advocate that?
That does not, however, rule out the remembrance of thanking God for one of our greatest gifts...this free country.
See above. Pledging and thanking are two different things. Putting a flag in a church is much different than thanking God for His blessings. Thanking God for religious liberty is much different than blowing people’s heads off for king and country.
Nor does it rule out pledging defense and loyalty (not worship) to that country.
Won’t catch me pledging to America and certainly not in church.
If that is a pledge you would not make, then you're a coward, and do a dishonor to those who have died for this country, many who have cited freedom of religion as one of their main reasons for being willing to go to War.
I’d rather dishonor men than dishonor God. I am not saying that is what others are doing by being patriotic in church. I am merely stating that I have reached the point in my walk with Christ when I feel I would dishonor God by pledging to anyone but Him and epsecially in a church. Because we live in such a free country with such religious liberty I have the freedom to abstain from acts which run contrary to my faith.
To be a "conscientious objector" is to misunderstand God's word.
Nonsense.
Killing and murdering are two different things.
True and my faith commands me to do neither.
One is wrong, the other is not.
Killing is not wrong? Or do you mean murder is not wrong?
I personally do not ever wish to harm or kill another human being, but before I make my country draft me, I will enlist and do just that to defend this nation.
I’ll either abstain from fighitng or leave the country.
The Bible has no problems with self-defense, and therefore neither do I.
Do as you think the Bible says. I’ll do as I think the Bible says.
So let's look at this picture. In a war, I stand to lose everything else that my fellow Americans do if we are ever on the ultimate losing side. I also stand to lose a little more, because those who would take us over would see Christianity done away with.
The other day you said it was America that was going to do away with Christianity. Can’t another country protect Christendom? Can’t America ever be wrong in a war?
There went the best freedom I possess, the ability to worship my God without persecution from the government.
No one can take away your freedom to worship God. No one.
If someone is willing to kill me because they don't like my country, they aren't going to care if I'm an objector to war or not. Either way I grow a few ounces of lead heavier. If you wish to not say the pledge and take up a rifle to defend this nation, I think less of you...I am sorry.
And I don’t care.
But it should not be implied that those who would do those things are idolatrous just because they would do so in a church, therefore not just thanking God with their lips, but thanking God by their actions as well.
Take it up with the guy who wrote the article, not me. But thanking God by pledging to someone other than Him?
I say thank you to those who have come before me, who learned the pledges to the American flag, the bible, and the christian flag in Sunday school and church services, who remembered those vows when they grew to me men, and who bled and died because of those vows and had their lives cut short.
Notice the “bible” came second.
I learned the Bible in Sunday School. I learned the pledge in school. What is wrong with evangelicals today? We want the Bible taught in secular schools by secular teachers and we want the secular pledge taught in Sunday schools!
I say thank you because their sacrifice has given me the ability to walk freely in to a church and worship God today. That same sacrifice also gives me the freedom to learn those same vows (pledges), and to teach them to others, in my own sunday school and service.
It also gives me the freedom to abstain.
A Christian is called to give. One way that I believe I can give, is to be willing to give my life in the defense of a country that allows myself, and my family and friends and neighbors to be free.
I’d rather give the gospel but that’s just me.
In the meantime, I would gladly give of myself to support and help the teaching of our national pledge, anthem, etc. in a sunday school or church service. God bless our scouts and the church that allowed them to bring in that lesson once again.
And God bless the fact that I don’t go to that church.
I would have to disagree that there is any problem or "idolatry" in a church when it chooses to let boy scouts (or anyone for that matter) lead the pledge of allegiance in the worship service. This is based on several factors. The first is that swearing allegiance and loyalty to another entity, in this case the USA, is not worship (please hold saying something to the tune of "that's exactly why it shouldn't be in a WORSHIP service", I'm getting to that part). This swearing of allegiance is the willingess to say that one will defend and protect that entity with their lives. I proudly say the pledge of allegiance. I would die for my country, but I do not live my life for anyone other than God. The two do not conflict. Worship and patriotism are two different things, and neither is synonymous with "idolatry". Bringing Patriotism IN to the church does not create idolatry. It would appear that whoever started that conversation needs to learn the same lesson that non-christians do. That Freedom OF religion does not mean Freedom FROM religion. The two were never meant to be separated. To do so is to first live a lie, and second to be worthless to the world around you. We are no longer to be of the world, but we ARE to be in it, and making a difference. There is absolutely no reason why a church body that has come together to worship God, cannot also be reminded of, and teach younger children, the fact that we live in a great, FREE, able to worship nation, and that it is a good thing to be willing to step up and defend that which our forefathers and hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to ensure that we have in that church building. It is not wrong to teach our children and remind other adults, that while we do not kill in the name of God anymore, but instead turn the other cheek on account of his name, that we do still have to sometimes kill to defend the ground that we freely walk on and enjoy every day. It is not a fun thing to teach, but it is a reality, because there are those that would see this free ground, and the freedoms we enjoy be stripped from us. Having a church that refuses to teach on moral, and societal issues, is to have a church that is no good to the community around it. In fact it is a waste of perfectly good real estate, because all that happens in that case is a bunch of well-meaning christians come together to praise God and feel good and then leave not knowing any more than they came in with about how to act and react in the world in which they live. No offense brother, but they can get that from a praise CD and personal Bible study or small group study. The church is to be a place of corporate and personal worship. It's primary importance is the declaration, communion with, praise of, and committing to God. That does not, however, rule out the remembrance of thanking God for one of our greatest gifts...this free country. Nor does it rule out pledging defense and loyalty (not worship) to that country. If that is a pledge you would not make, then you're a coward, and do a dishonor to those who have died for this country, many who have cited freedom of religion as one of their main reasons for being willing to go to War. To be a "conscientious objector" is to misunderstand God's word. Killing and murdering are two different things. One is wrong, the other is not. I personally do not ever wish to harm or kill another human being, but before I make my country draft me, I will enlist and do just that to defend this nation. The Bible has no problems with self-defense, and therefore neither do I. So let's look at this picture. In a war, I stand to lose everything else that my fellow Americans do if we are ever on the ultimate losing side. I also stand to lose a little more, because those who would take us over would see Christianity done away with. There went the best freedom I possess, the ability to worship my God without persecution from the government. If someone is willing to kill me because they don't like my country, they aren't going to care if I'm an objector to war or not. Either way I grow a few ounces of lead heavier. If you wish to not say the pledge and take up a rifle to defend this nation, I think less of you...I am sorry. But it should not be implied that those who would do those things are idolatrous just because they would do so in a church, therefore not just thanking God with their lips, but thanking God by their actions as well. I say thank you to those who have come before me, who learned the pledges to the American flag, the bible, and the christian flag in Sunday school and church services, who remembered those vows when they grew to me men, and who bled and died because of those vows and had their lives cut short. I say thank you because their sacrifice has given me the ability to walk freely in to a church and worship God today. That same sacrifice also gives me the freedom to learn those same vows (pledges), and to teach them to others, in my own sunday school and service. A Christian is called to give. One way that I believe I can give, is to be willing to give my life in the defense of a country that allows myself, and my family and friends and neighbors to be free. In the meantime, I would gladly give of myself to support and help the teaching of our national pledge, anthem, etc. in a sunday school or church service. God bless our scouts and the church that allowed them to bring in that lesson once again.
And the reply:
I would have to disagree that there is any problem or "idolatry" in a church when it chooses to let boy scouts (or anyone for that matter) lead the pledge of allegiance in the worship service.
Feel free to disagree.
This is based on several factors. The first is that swearing allegiance and loyalty to another entity, in this case the USA, is not worship (please hold saying something to the tune of "that's exactly why it shouldn't be in a WORSHIP service", I'm getting to that part). This swearing of allegiance is the willingess to say that one will defend and protect that entity with their lives.
Exactly, I won’t defend and protect America.
I proudly say the pledge of allegiance. I would die for my country, but I do not live my life for anyone other than God.
I won’t die for my country. I certainly won’t kill for my country.
The two do not conflict. Worship and patriotism are two different things, and neither is synonymous with "idolatry". Bringing Patriotism IN to the church does not create idolatry.
No, it just brings division into the body of Christ.
It would appear that whoever started that conversation needs to learn the same lesson that non-christians do. That Freedom OF religion does not mean Freedom FROM religion.
Actually freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion. I do not have to suffer Islam and paganism if I do not want to. But freedom OF religion does mean mean freedom FROM the state. It’s the state we do not want in our churches.
The two were never meant to be separated.
Yes, they were.
To do so is to first live a lie, and second to be worthless to the world around you.
Is not wanting the state (and the world) intruding on our worship services living a lie?
We are no longer to be of the world, but we ARE to be in it, and making a difference.
Then why bring the world into our churches?
There is absolutely no reason why a church body that has come together to worship God, cannot also be reminded of, and teach younger children, the fact that we live in a great, FREE, able to worship nation, and that it is a good thing to be willing to step up and defend that which our forefathers and hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to ensure that we have in that church building.
But why in church? Why not at home or in school? Why must we do so in church? The Church is bigger than America.
It is not wrong to teach our children and remind other adults, that while we do not kill in the name of God anymore, but instead turn the other cheek on account of his name, that we do still have to sometimes kill to defend the ground that we freely walk on and enjoy every day.
You mean instead of killing in the name of God we kill in the name of America. That is much better.
No, I disagree. Christians should not kill in anyone’s name. Christ said not to so I don’t.
It is not a fun thing to teach, but it is a reality, because there are those that would see this free ground, and the freedoms we enjoy be stripped from us.
But why must we teach it in church?
Having a church that refuses to teach on moral, and societal issues, is to have a church that is no good to the community around it.
That's what the liberal churches said and look what happened to them.
In fact it is a waste of perfectly good real estate, because all that happens in that case is a bunch of well-meaning christians come together to praise God and feel good and then leave not knowing any more than they came in with about how to act and react in the world in which they live.
Yes, let’s teach love of America in church. That’s what the Great Commission is all about.
No offense brother, but they can get that from a praise CD and personal Bible study or small group study.
None taken. But they can get patriotism at home and at school or on television. Why don’t we as a church provide people what they can’t get anywhere else, i.e. the body of Christ, which extends beyond the bounds of America.
The church is to be a place of corporate and personal worship. It's primary importance is the declaration, communion with, praise of, and committing to God.
Then why bring patriotism into the Church … where does the New Testament advocate that?
That does not, however, rule out the remembrance of thanking God for one of our greatest gifts...this free country.
See above. Pledging and thanking are two different things. Putting a flag in a church is much different than thanking God for His blessings. Thanking God for religious liberty is much different than blowing people’s heads off for king and country.
Nor does it rule out pledging defense and loyalty (not worship) to that country.
Won’t catch me pledging to America and certainly not in church.
If that is a pledge you would not make, then you're a coward, and do a dishonor to those who have died for this country, many who have cited freedom of religion as one of their main reasons for being willing to go to War.
I’d rather dishonor men than dishonor God. I am not saying that is what others are doing by being patriotic in church. I am merely stating that I have reached the point in my walk with Christ when I feel I would dishonor God by pledging to anyone but Him and epsecially in a church. Because we live in such a free country with such religious liberty I have the freedom to abstain from acts which run contrary to my faith.
To be a "conscientious objector" is to misunderstand God's word.
Nonsense.
Killing and murdering are two different things.
True and my faith commands me to do neither.
One is wrong, the other is not.
Killing is not wrong? Or do you mean murder is not wrong?
I personally do not ever wish to harm or kill another human being, but before I make my country draft me, I will enlist and do just that to defend this nation.
I’ll either abstain from fighitng or leave the country.
The Bible has no problems with self-defense, and therefore neither do I.
Do as you think the Bible says. I’ll do as I think the Bible says.
So let's look at this picture. In a war, I stand to lose everything else that my fellow Americans do if we are ever on the ultimate losing side. I also stand to lose a little more, because those who would take us over would see Christianity done away with.
The other day you said it was America that was going to do away with Christianity. Can’t another country protect Christendom? Can’t America ever be wrong in a war?
There went the best freedom I possess, the ability to worship my God without persecution from the government.
No one can take away your freedom to worship God. No one.
If someone is willing to kill me because they don't like my country, they aren't going to care if I'm an objector to war or not. Either way I grow a few ounces of lead heavier. If you wish to not say the pledge and take up a rifle to defend this nation, I think less of you...I am sorry.
And I don’t care.
But it should not be implied that those who would do those things are idolatrous just because they would do so in a church, therefore not just thanking God with their lips, but thanking God by their actions as well.
Take it up with the guy who wrote the article, not me. But thanking God by pledging to someone other than Him?
I say thank you to those who have come before me, who learned the pledges to the American flag, the bible, and the christian flag in Sunday school and church services, who remembered those vows when they grew to me men, and who bled and died because of those vows and had their lives cut short.
Notice the “bible” came second.
I learned the Bible in Sunday School. I learned the pledge in school. What is wrong with evangelicals today? We want the Bible taught in secular schools by secular teachers and we want the secular pledge taught in Sunday schools!
I say thank you because their sacrifice has given me the ability to walk freely in to a church and worship God today. That same sacrifice also gives me the freedom to learn those same vows (pledges), and to teach them to others, in my own sunday school and service.
It also gives me the freedom to abstain.
A Christian is called to give. One way that I believe I can give, is to be willing to give my life in the defense of a country that allows myself, and my family and friends and neighbors to be free.
I’d rather give the gospel but that’s just me.
In the meantime, I would gladly give of myself to support and help the teaching of our national pledge, anthem, etc. in a sunday school or church service. God bless our scouts and the church that allowed them to bring in that lesson once again.
And God bless the fact that I don’t go to that church.
Bizzarro College (Seminary?)
This post is directed towards students who attend my seminary. I discovered something today.
I wandered onto the Dallas Baptist University website and found this page.
Is it just me or are two of the statues at DBU shown on that page very similar to two statues at a certain seminary that I attend?
Any guesses for the reason of this coincidence?
I wandered onto the Dallas Baptist University website and found this page.
Is it just me or are two of the statues at DBU shown on that page very similar to two statues at a certain seminary that I attend?
Any guesses for the reason of this coincidence?
Killing.......in Jesus Name.........
I agree with this article and have made such principled observations many times in the past ... but I would go a step further (or a step backward) and also apply the principle discussed to the individual believer's relation to his convention and to his seminary.
Seminar discussions with a group of evangelicals concerning religion and the body politic can get amusing, intense, heated, engaging and at times disturbing -- particularly when the discussion turns to whether or not it is idolatrous to incorporate the national pledge of allegiance, patriotic ballads and/or other forms of national pride into the gathered, corporate worship of the triune God.
To such a conversation several colleagues and I turned just yesterday. The question was particular at first: What harm is done by bringing the Boy Scouts into a Sunday morning liturgy bearing flags and leading in the recitation of the pledge? More specifically, the instance that prompted the most intense part of my conversation was that it had happened in a Roman Catholic church. At first, I was shocked that my otherwise astute interlocutor was "okay" with the pledge as a part of sacred worship. My concern, and that of others, is that "pledging allegiance" to anything or anyone other than God in worship constitutes, at the least, subtle and incipient idolatry. I guess I should have been less incredulous -- Catholics don't understand the Protestant revulsion to idolatry, icons, statues of MaryJosephJesus or (insert your patron saint here).
But it's not a Catholic-Protestant issue. Many a mindless Protestant has succumbed to the tempting allure of nationalistic piety and patriotic obeisance. But this conversation was not occuring between mindless men given to blind acceptance of any appeal to patriotic sentimentality.
Another of my colleagues, a gracious and studious chap, went so far as to suggest that it is a Christian's "duty" to pledge to the flag, to sing the national anthem, and to take up arms to kill on command when the almighty state (justly ordered) "drafts" them. My concern, even fear, is manifold.
First, a Christian is not obliged by God to swear an oath of allegiance to any government, king, or flag. Jesus told his disciples to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...and unto God that which is God's." The greatest stretch of interpretive license can only allow that a Christian is obliged to pay taxes to Caesar -- their souls they owe to God alone. To suggest that a "good Christian" will, out of obedience to God, pledge his allegiance to any temporal authority reflects an uncritical, and perhaps anti-Christian, doctrine of civic responsibility.
Consider, if you will, the scenario of the prophet Daniel. Within a few short weeks he was under the temporal authority of the Babylonians, then the Medes and the Persians. Three different rulers in rapid succession. To which of these governments was he to owe his allegiance? The message is clear: Daniel owed his allegiance to God alone. Were Christian dissidents in Soviet Russia obliged to swear allegiance to the communist state? Were Chinese students in Tiennamen commiting sin against God when they refused to pledge their lives to the machine of oppressive regimes? Are peace-loving Muslims obliged to swear their allegiance to the Iranian tyrants and take up arms against the United States? Is it any state to which a Christian must pledge his allegiance, or just the democratic ones?
When it came to Daniel and his obstinate companions, they found that refusal to owe their souls to the state alongside God had drastic consequences. But they also discovered that the furnace kindled hot for the uncompromising soul would, in the end, serve as that vexing scene wherein the faithful come to experience beatific solidarity with the very Son of God.
Second, no state is authorized by God with the legitimacy to "require" that its citizens pick up a rifle and shoot it at whatever target is put in front of them. Men are not, under any circumstance, intended by God to be uncritically obliged to serve the warring objectives of modern empire, however just the war may be. The privilege of conscientious objection must be esteemed above the obligation to murder when Uncle Sam says it's right. Whether or not a Christian is given a special dispensation of grace when he chooses to kill his fellow man while engaged in just military conflict is another matter. But to suggest that a devout Christian will always opt for the sword over the plowshare is to deny a great tradition of biblical interpretation. Moreover, it suggests a further evidence that love of God has been trumped by nationalist passion.
Can a Christian pledge allegiance, voluntarily, to any state of his choosing. I think a Christian should be allowed the latitude to maintain his civic duty without saluting or paying tribute to a temporal authority. Those who do, in good conscience, are not un-Christian (so long as it is not confused with worship that is rightly rendered to God alone). Those who cannot should be given the recognition that their faithfulness to God or obedience to ruling authorities is not encumbered by their freedom of conscience.
Can a Christian arm himself with an assault rifle and pick off Muslims by the bushel in Iraq without fear that he is violating the royal law of God to love his neighbor as himself? No Christian will accept whatever responsibility the state puts on him without carefully weighing the moral rightness of the action required. To send a soul to meet his maker is far too grave a matter than that we should suggest that only the "best Christians" will kill in order to obey the state, and thus God.
Long post...stay tuned for some shorter soundbite quips about those who think any person ought swear an oath or draw a sword to qualify as a faithful disciple of the Prince of Peace.
... or a pen.
Seminar discussions with a group of evangelicals concerning religion and the body politic can get amusing, intense, heated, engaging and at times disturbing -- particularly when the discussion turns to whether or not it is idolatrous to incorporate the national pledge of allegiance, patriotic ballads and/or other forms of national pride into the gathered, corporate worship of the triune God.
To such a conversation several colleagues and I turned just yesterday. The question was particular at first: What harm is done by bringing the Boy Scouts into a Sunday morning liturgy bearing flags and leading in the recitation of the pledge? More specifically, the instance that prompted the most intense part of my conversation was that it had happened in a Roman Catholic church. At first, I was shocked that my otherwise astute interlocutor was "okay" with the pledge as a part of sacred worship. My concern, and that of others, is that "pledging allegiance" to anything or anyone other than God in worship constitutes, at the least, subtle and incipient idolatry. I guess I should have been less incredulous -- Catholics don't understand the Protestant revulsion to idolatry, icons, statues of MaryJosephJesus or (insert your patron saint here).
But it's not a Catholic-Protestant issue. Many a mindless Protestant has succumbed to the tempting allure of nationalistic piety and patriotic obeisance. But this conversation was not occuring between mindless men given to blind acceptance of any appeal to patriotic sentimentality.
Another of my colleagues, a gracious and studious chap, went so far as to suggest that it is a Christian's "duty" to pledge to the flag, to sing the national anthem, and to take up arms to kill on command when the almighty state (justly ordered) "drafts" them. My concern, even fear, is manifold.
First, a Christian is not obliged by God to swear an oath of allegiance to any government, king, or flag. Jesus told his disciples to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...and unto God that which is God's." The greatest stretch of interpretive license can only allow that a Christian is obliged to pay taxes to Caesar -- their souls they owe to God alone. To suggest that a "good Christian" will, out of obedience to God, pledge his allegiance to any temporal authority reflects an uncritical, and perhaps anti-Christian, doctrine of civic responsibility.
Consider, if you will, the scenario of the prophet Daniel. Within a few short weeks he was under the temporal authority of the Babylonians, then the Medes and the Persians. Three different rulers in rapid succession. To which of these governments was he to owe his allegiance? The message is clear: Daniel owed his allegiance to God alone. Were Christian dissidents in Soviet Russia obliged to swear allegiance to the communist state? Were Chinese students in Tiennamen commiting sin against God when they refused to pledge their lives to the machine of oppressive regimes? Are peace-loving Muslims obliged to swear their allegiance to the Iranian tyrants and take up arms against the United States? Is it any state to which a Christian must pledge his allegiance, or just the democratic ones?
When it came to Daniel and his obstinate companions, they found that refusal to owe their souls to the state alongside God had drastic consequences. But they also discovered that the furnace kindled hot for the uncompromising soul would, in the end, serve as that vexing scene wherein the faithful come to experience beatific solidarity with the very Son of God.
Second, no state is authorized by God with the legitimacy to "require" that its citizens pick up a rifle and shoot it at whatever target is put in front of them. Men are not, under any circumstance, intended by God to be uncritically obliged to serve the warring objectives of modern empire, however just the war may be. The privilege of conscientious objection must be esteemed above the obligation to murder when Uncle Sam says it's right. Whether or not a Christian is given a special dispensation of grace when he chooses to kill his fellow man while engaged in just military conflict is another matter. But to suggest that a devout Christian will always opt for the sword over the plowshare is to deny a great tradition of biblical interpretation. Moreover, it suggests a further evidence that love of God has been trumped by nationalist passion.
Can a Christian pledge allegiance, voluntarily, to any state of his choosing. I think a Christian should be allowed the latitude to maintain his civic duty without saluting or paying tribute to a temporal authority. Those who do, in good conscience, are not un-Christian (so long as it is not confused with worship that is rightly rendered to God alone). Those who cannot should be given the recognition that their faithfulness to God or obedience to ruling authorities is not encumbered by their freedom of conscience.
Can a Christian arm himself with an assault rifle and pick off Muslims by the bushel in Iraq without fear that he is violating the royal law of God to love his neighbor as himself? No Christian will accept whatever responsibility the state puts on him without carefully weighing the moral rightness of the action required. To send a soul to meet his maker is far too grave a matter than that we should suggest that only the "best Christians" will kill in order to obey the state, and thus God.
Long post...stay tuned for some shorter soundbite quips about those who think any person ought swear an oath or draw a sword to qualify as a faithful disciple of the Prince of Peace.
... or a pen.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Historicity of Christ
Well, I have worked myself into a theological quandary recently. Allow me to explain with three points:
First, I am of the theological opinion that the “fall of man” as recorded in Genesis 2-3 is not a “historical” event in the sense that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy is a historical event. Rather, I have been of the opinion that the Genesis 2-3 story is an “apocalyptic” event that refers to an event that occurs in each individual’s life, each day, when they disobey God and fall from the image of God. Adam, then, is a typological figure that represents all men and each man in their relation to God, evil, and their environment. This is not an unknown idea in Scripture, particularly in apocalyptic literature. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the elected people of Israel who will be given dominion and glory and a kingdom on the earth. Jesus takes up this term and applies it to Himself as the true Israel whose body is made up of elected believers.
The Genesis story’s original purpose then is to answer questions such as “Why do humans suffer?” and “Why is man separated from God?”. While this has been my understanding of the Edenic event, I have been arguing with those opposed to this interpretation that whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this interpretation, i.e. whether or not you take the story as literal-historical or symbolic-apocalyptic, the meaning of the story does not change; certainly the meaning of the story to us does not change. So far I have not had any challenge to this position that the meaning of the story doesn’t alter if the events are not historical or not. Whether or not Adam really existed as an individual, historic figure does not matter in terms of the meaning of the story to contemporary believers.
Second, I believe that there definitely was an individual, historic figure of Abraham. I think that the nature of the story in Genesis points to a historical narrative. But there is an older, out dated view that maintains that Abraham is not really a historical figure but rather a symbolic representation for the whole of the “tribe of Israel” during the Patriarchal times. In a moderated form, this is not an unknown idea. While the characters of Samson and Jonah are undoubtedly historical figures, the writers of their respective books use these figures to represent the whole of Israel. While the events of the figures lives as recorded in the Scriptures is historically true, the writer has arranged the story to point out the character of Israel. Now I do not hold to the view that Abraham is not a historical, individual figure but I currently do not think that the absence of such a belief is inherently important to the Christian life. I certainly do not think that it invalidates one’s faith. What is important is not whether one believes that Abraham actually existed as a historical, individual figure or rather was a symbolic representation of an elected tribal group; it is the meaning of the story and its effect upon us that is ultimately important.
But third - and this is the quandary - I have made the statement that I do not believe in Adam as a historical figure and it does not matter. I have made the statement that I do believe in Abraham as a historical figure but it does not matter. Now - and this is the crux of the matter - I believe in Christ as a historical figure (and no one doubts that he was) but would it matter to faith if we did not believe He was a historical figure but a symbolic representation of the God-Incarnate figure? I immediately say that it does matter most definitely, but why does it matter? Or does it? And, in light of my previous points, have I thought my way into a theological box?
Now at this point many of my dear friends who support Counter Reformation more commonly known as the conservative resurgence are thinking, “See! This is the slippery slope that we were talking about and battling against.” If you have read the latest work from a prominent resurgent leader on the issue of the slippery slope, you would notice that he states that the convention and its agencies were not liberal but leaning toward liberalism; they were not to the left but drifting in that direction. I won’t comment directly on this analysis but only say that my first two points and the inherent problem of the third point of my reasoning might at least validate the suspicions of those who were concerned of a slippery slope toward liberalism; i.e., the argument being, if you do not believe in a historic Adam then you’ll soon not believe in a historic Christ.
I am going to attempt to analyze this problem I have constructed for myself in the coming weeks. There are three possible conclusions that I could draw from this inquiry:
1) Believing in the historicity of both Adam and Christ is essential. You cannot have one without the other. The loss of belief in the historical Adam inevitable leads to a drift toward not believing in the historical Christ which is very essential.
2) Believing in the historicity of Christ is not as important as the existential encounter of Christ one receives from reading the Scriptures and hearing the Word. One does not have to believe in Christ’s historicity in order to have faith in God.
3) Believing in the historicity of Adam and the historicity of Christ is like comparing apples and oranges. The two are not analogous and no theological problem exists.
I hope to draw on many resources and arguments to prove or disprove the three above conclusions. I will be reading Kierkegaard, Moody, Tillich, Cullman, Bultmann and one of my current professors whose insights are extraordinary. Thankfully he is tenured and his insights cannot get him into any trouble.
Any thoughts on this subject?
First, I am of the theological opinion that the “fall of man” as recorded in Genesis 2-3 is not a “historical” event in the sense that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy is a historical event. Rather, I have been of the opinion that the Genesis 2-3 story is an “apocalyptic” event that refers to an event that occurs in each individual’s life, each day, when they disobey God and fall from the image of God. Adam, then, is a typological figure that represents all men and each man in their relation to God, evil, and their environment. This is not an unknown idea in Scripture, particularly in apocalyptic literature. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the elected people of Israel who will be given dominion and glory and a kingdom on the earth. Jesus takes up this term and applies it to Himself as the true Israel whose body is made up of elected believers.
The Genesis story’s original purpose then is to answer questions such as “Why do humans suffer?” and “Why is man separated from God?”. While this has been my understanding of the Edenic event, I have been arguing with those opposed to this interpretation that whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this interpretation, i.e. whether or not you take the story as literal-historical or symbolic-apocalyptic, the meaning of the story does not change; certainly the meaning of the story to us does not change. So far I have not had any challenge to this position that the meaning of the story doesn’t alter if the events are not historical or not. Whether or not Adam really existed as an individual, historic figure does not matter in terms of the meaning of the story to contemporary believers.
Second, I believe that there definitely was an individual, historic figure of Abraham. I think that the nature of the story in Genesis points to a historical narrative. But there is an older, out dated view that maintains that Abraham is not really a historical figure but rather a symbolic representation for the whole of the “tribe of Israel” during the Patriarchal times. In a moderated form, this is not an unknown idea. While the characters of Samson and Jonah are undoubtedly historical figures, the writers of their respective books use these figures to represent the whole of Israel. While the events of the figures lives as recorded in the Scriptures is historically true, the writer has arranged the story to point out the character of Israel. Now I do not hold to the view that Abraham is not a historical, individual figure but I currently do not think that the absence of such a belief is inherently important to the Christian life. I certainly do not think that it invalidates one’s faith. What is important is not whether one believes that Abraham actually existed as a historical, individual figure or rather was a symbolic representation of an elected tribal group; it is the meaning of the story and its effect upon us that is ultimately important.
But third - and this is the quandary - I have made the statement that I do not believe in Adam as a historical figure and it does not matter. I have made the statement that I do believe in Abraham as a historical figure but it does not matter. Now - and this is the crux of the matter - I believe in Christ as a historical figure (and no one doubts that he was) but would it matter to faith if we did not believe He was a historical figure but a symbolic representation of the God-Incarnate figure? I immediately say that it does matter most definitely, but why does it matter? Or does it? And, in light of my previous points, have I thought my way into a theological box?
Now at this point many of my dear friends who support Counter Reformation more commonly known as the conservative resurgence are thinking, “See! This is the slippery slope that we were talking about and battling against.” If you have read the latest work from a prominent resurgent leader on the issue of the slippery slope, you would notice that he states that the convention and its agencies were not liberal but leaning toward liberalism; they were not to the left but drifting in that direction. I won’t comment directly on this analysis but only say that my first two points and the inherent problem of the third point of my reasoning might at least validate the suspicions of those who were concerned of a slippery slope toward liberalism; i.e., the argument being, if you do not believe in a historic Adam then you’ll soon not believe in a historic Christ.
I am going to attempt to analyze this problem I have constructed for myself in the coming weeks. There are three possible conclusions that I could draw from this inquiry:
1) Believing in the historicity of both Adam and Christ is essential. You cannot have one without the other. The loss of belief in the historical Adam inevitable leads to a drift toward not believing in the historical Christ which is very essential.
2) Believing in the historicity of Christ is not as important as the existential encounter of Christ one receives from reading the Scriptures and hearing the Word. One does not have to believe in Christ’s historicity in order to have faith in God.
3) Believing in the historicity of Adam and the historicity of Christ is like comparing apples and oranges. The two are not analogous and no theological problem exists.
I hope to draw on many resources and arguments to prove or disprove the three above conclusions. I will be reading Kierkegaard, Moody, Tillich, Cullman, Bultmann and one of my current professors whose insights are extraordinary. Thankfully he is tenured and his insights cannot get him into any trouble.
Any thoughts on this subject?
Sunday, February 13, 2005
490 To Go: Updated
The number is actually 485 to go now. Today I purchased A Study Guide Commentary on Acts by Curtis Vaughn, The Broadman Bible Commentaty Volume 12, A Survey of the New Testament by Robert H. Gundry, The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, and a new Greek New Testament. Did you know that Texas doesn't require taxes on Bibles? I did not know this. I asked the girl at the checkout counter whether this exemption applies to other "Bibles" and she said that she didn't think so. So the Koran and the Upanishads are taxed. It appears that this exemption applies to any Bible whether English or Greek. I do wonder if the Hebrew Bible is exempted. Regardless, I purchased it. Also, I am anxious to read The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ. I did not like the film but I do not like any Scorsese film. But I did like what the author was attempting to do with the story. I thought I might like the book better. I'll let you know.
I haved decided to keep track of how many books I have and post/update the number here on the website. Below the Bravenet counter, at the bottom of the list of links, one can find the number of books I currently have in my personal library. You see, someone has repeatedly said that every seminary student should leave seminary owning 1500 books in his personal library (this person also said that every seminary student should read Agustine's Confessions and City of God). Now some, including myself, had taken this suggestion as an encouraging joke with a very real intention but not as a serious command. But since this person continues to make this suggestion it has occurred to me that this may not be a suggestion but a command. I have found in recent months that "joke" and "command" are not mutualy distinguishable words. In fact, when some people make a command jokingly, it is still a command and can be either cause for those receiving the command to be judged for not acting or it could be a cause for the one issuing the command to state: "it was only a joke." So you see , regardless of the outcome, the person making the command is in the clear. Now in the days and weeks following the advent of this current semester, I heard this 1500 book numuber repeated by many students. All of these students were those who are required to attend chapel. I can only assume that the command to acquire 1500 books has been a part of early chapel services; a command directed at new students.
Now I have a lot of books. My library is extensive with all the classics in both literary fiction and literary non-fiction, reference, devotion, history, theology, and Biblical studies. I consider my collection quite extensive but I do have a long way to go, specifically in the area of commentaries (Is it true that they never finished the Broadman Bible Commentary?). I have a year(?) to graduate and 490 books to own before I can say that I have met this command. Now I am not too worried about meeting this command; I am quite the bibliophile. Of course there are two caveats to the command that has been given: 1) One must read the books. What is the point of having 1500 books if one is not going to read or use them. 2) One must have good books. What is the point of claiming to have 1500 is they are all Criswell Commentaries (Have you read his commentary on Revelation? Ghastly!)? So chuck out all the Hal Lindsey, the John Piper, the Tim LaHaye, the Wayne Grudem, the Matthew Henry, the Max Lucado, the John Shelby Spong, the XXXXXXXXX, the W.A. Criswell, the Joel Osteen, and countless others. Find yourself some Moody, Stagg, Barth, Brunner, Moltmann, Lewis, Erickson, Kierkegaard, Niebuhr, Kung, Mullins, Ashcraft, Elliott, Glaze, McBeth, Bullock, Ellis, Cullman, Dodd, Smalley, Morris, Carson, Longenecker, Bauckham, Garrett, Estep, Bonhoeffer, Schleiermacher, and XXXXXXXX.
I would be interested in hearing from others how many books they currently have in their library and whether or not they will be attempting the big 1500 by their graduation.
I haved decided to keep track of how many books I have and post/update the number here on the website. Below the Bravenet counter, at the bottom of the list of links, one can find the number of books I currently have in my personal library. You see, someone has repeatedly said that every seminary student should leave seminary owning 1500 books in his personal library (this person also said that every seminary student should read Agustine's Confessions and City of God). Now some, including myself, had taken this suggestion as an encouraging joke with a very real intention but not as a serious command. But since this person continues to make this suggestion it has occurred to me that this may not be a suggestion but a command. I have found in recent months that "joke" and "command" are not mutualy distinguishable words. In fact, when some people make a command jokingly, it is still a command and can be either cause for those receiving the command to be judged for not acting or it could be a cause for the one issuing the command to state: "it was only a joke." So you see , regardless of the outcome, the person making the command is in the clear. Now in the days and weeks following the advent of this current semester, I heard this 1500 book numuber repeated by many students. All of these students were those who are required to attend chapel. I can only assume that the command to acquire 1500 books has been a part of early chapel services; a command directed at new students.
Now I have a lot of books. My library is extensive with all the classics in both literary fiction and literary non-fiction, reference, devotion, history, theology, and Biblical studies. I consider my collection quite extensive but I do have a long way to go, specifically in the area of commentaries (Is it true that they never finished the Broadman Bible Commentary?). I have a year(?) to graduate and 490 books to own before I can say that I have met this command. Now I am not too worried about meeting this command; I am quite the bibliophile. Of course there are two caveats to the command that has been given: 1) One must read the books. What is the point of having 1500 books if one is not going to read or use them. 2) One must have good books. What is the point of claiming to have 1500 is they are all Criswell Commentaries (Have you read his commentary on Revelation? Ghastly!)? So chuck out all the Hal Lindsey, the John Piper, the Tim LaHaye, the Wayne Grudem, the Matthew Henry, the Max Lucado, the John Shelby Spong, the XXXXXXXXX, the W.A. Criswell, the Joel Osteen, and countless others. Find yourself some Moody, Stagg, Barth, Brunner, Moltmann, Lewis, Erickson, Kierkegaard, Niebuhr, Kung, Mullins, Ashcraft, Elliott, Glaze, McBeth, Bullock, Ellis, Cullman, Dodd, Smalley, Morris, Carson, Longenecker, Bauckham, Garrett, Estep, Bonhoeffer, Schleiermacher, and XXXXXXXX.
I would be interested in hearing from others how many books they currently have in their library and whether or not they will be attempting the big 1500 by their graduation.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Oxford Trip 2004 X: Edinburgh Castle
I realized this weekend that I haven’t posted any Oxford 2004 pics in a few months. Not posting for months … I am starting to resemble Madison (just kidding).
So here is Edinburgh Castle finally. It took me nearly three months to get here, didn’t it?
Now I have finally entered the castle.
Inside one of the castle rooms there is a model of the entire castle. Not bad for a bunch of Scotsmen.
You can see to the lower left a model of the open square. This is where the Scottish army marches. The day we visited the Scots were constructing stadium sized bleachers for a concert. The advert mentioned James Taylor, Tom Jones, and Cliff Richards.
I like them all but I much prefer Cliff Richards.
Here is a wonderful view of the city from the castle.
And another nice view.
Here is the armaments room of the castle. I only seem to remember two things about this room: 1) Oliver Cromwell housed his troops here and 2) there was a wonderful breeze from an open window that kept me in the room long after the novelty had worn off.
I posted this pic again for the expressed purpose of playing this song. I hope I do not get kicked out of seminary for this.
Again, sorry it took so much time to get here. I’ll try to be better. Next time, my favorite place on earth.
So here is Edinburgh Castle finally. It took me nearly three months to get here, didn’t it?
Now I have finally entered the castle.
Inside one of the castle rooms there is a model of the entire castle. Not bad for a bunch of Scotsmen.
You can see to the lower left a model of the open square. This is where the Scottish army marches. The day we visited the Scots were constructing stadium sized bleachers for a concert. The advert mentioned James Taylor, Tom Jones, and Cliff Richards.
I like them all but I much prefer Cliff Richards.
Here is a wonderful view of the city from the castle.
And another nice view.
Here is the armaments room of the castle. I only seem to remember two things about this room: 1) Oliver Cromwell housed his troops here and 2) there was a wonderful breeze from an open window that kept me in the room long after the novelty had worn off.
I posted this pic again for the expressed purpose of playing this song. I hope I do not get kicked out of seminary for this.
Again, sorry it took so much time to get here. I’ll try to be better. Next time, my favorite place on earth.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
A Literal Question To Ponder Nonliterally
Here is a statement to ponder:
"Many conservative Christians strongly disagree with anyone who does not take the story of Genesis 2-3 literally even though the meaning and truth of the story is not altered by either a literal or nonliteral interpretation. On the other hand, many conservatives do not take the Sermon on the Mount as literal even though a literal or nonliteral interpretation strongly effects the meaning of Christ's teaching."
"Many conservative Christians strongly disagree with anyone who does not take the story of Genesis 2-3 literally even though the meaning and truth of the story is not altered by either a literal or nonliteral interpretation. On the other hand, many conservatives do not take the Sermon on the Mount as literal even though a literal or nonliteral interpretation strongly effects the meaning of Christ's teaching."
Friday, February 04, 2005
Chariots of Fire
This is such a wonderful film. It is uplifting, inspiring, and clean. It's also nice to see a film that treats people with religious beliefs (especially those who are Christians) with the dignity they deserve. I have always noticed that the Brits tend to respect Christianity far more that Americans. The Brits, by and large, do not believe in the faith, but they respect it far more. Here in America we believe far more but respect far less. Interesting.
Anyway, this is quite a good film. Emotional and inspiring ... it even has a Thomas More scene. This is a scene in which a man stands up for his religious beliefs despite pressure from others. Its is even more like Thomas More for me than most because I did not agree with Thomas More's religious views (he being a Catholic) and the scene in which Liddell in the position of having to explain to the peeved Prince of Wales why he could not, in conscience, run on the Sabbath, is a position I do not hold. I think one can in good conscience run on the Sabbath ... BUT although I disagree with their beliefs in their respective episodes I greatly admire their determination to hold to these beliefs because they do think they are right. I may have been a Protestant if I had lived in 16th century England but I would have whole-heartedly supported More over the threat to convert or die.
Which is an interesting thing ... in college I supported conservatives who were being mistreated and received the ire of liberals. When the time came to support a liberal who was being mistreated I caught the ire of conservatives. Here at seminary I am constantly having to defend liberals and moderates and the occasional conservative. It's easy to support someone whose views with which you agree but the rubber meets the road when it comes to defending those whose beliefs with which you disagree.
I would rather defend an innocent man who supports a disagreeable movement that might suffer if he was convicted rather than abstain from my defense in order to see that disagreable movement suffer.
If this is not the correct view then the parable of the Good Samaratin is false.
BY ROGER EBERT / January 1, 1981
This is strange. I have no interest in running and am not a partisan in the British class system. Then why should I have been so deeply moved by CHARIOTS OF FIRE, a British film that has running and class as its subjects? I've toyed with that question since I first saw this remarkable film in May 1981 at the Cannes Film Festival, and I believe the answer is rather simple: Like many great films, CHARIOTS OF FIRE takes its nominal subjects as occasions for much larger statements about human nature.
This is a movie that has a great many running scenes. It is also a movie about British class distinctions in the years after World War I, years in which the establishment was trying to piece itself back together after the carnage in France. It is about two outsidersÑa Scot who is the son of missionaries in China, and a Jew whose father is an immigrant from Lithuania. And it is about how both of them use running as a means of asserting their dignity. But it is about more than them, and a lot of this film's greatness is hard to put into words. CHARIOTS OF FIRE creates deep feelings among many members of its audiences, and it does that not so much with its story or even its characters as with particular moments that are very sharply seen and heard.
Seen, in photography that pays grave attention to the precise look of a human face during stress, pain, defeat, victory, and joy. Heard, in one of the most remarkable sound tracks of any film in a long time, with music by the Greek composer Vangelis Papathanassiou. His compositions for CHARIOTS OF FIRE are as evocative, and as suited to the material, as the different but also perfectly matched scores of such films as "The Third Man" and "Zorba the Greek." The music establishes the tone for the movie, which is one of nostalgia for a time when two young and naturally gifted British athletes ran fast enough to bring home medals from the 1924 Paris Olympics.
The nostalgia is an important aspect of the film, which opens with a 1979 memorial service for one of the men, Harold Abrahams, and then flashes back sixty years to his first day at Cambridge University. We are soon introduced to the film's other central character, the Scotsman Eric Liddell. The film's underlying point of view is a poignant one: These men were once young and fast and strong, and they won glory on the sports field, but now they are dead and we see them as figures from long ago.
The film is unabashedly and patriotically British in its regard for these two characters, but it also contains sharp jabs at the British class system, which made the Jewish Abrahams feel like an outsider who could sometimes feel the lack of sincerity in a handshake, and placed the Protestant Liddell in the position of having to explain to the peeved Prince of Wales why he could not, in conscience, run on the Sabbath. Both men are essentially proving themselves, their worth, their beliefs, on the track. But CHARIOTS OF FIRE takes an unexpected approach to many of its running scenes. It does not, until near the film's end, stage them as contests to wring cheers from the audience. Instead, it sees them as efforts, as endeavors by individual runners -- it tries to capture the exhilaration of running as a celebration of the spirit.
Two of the best moments in the movie: A moment in which Liddell defeats Abrahams, who agonizingly replays the defeat over and over in his memory. And a moment in which Abrahams' old Italian-Arabic track coach, banned from the Olympic stadium, learns who won his man's race. First he bangs his fist through his straw boater, then he sits on his bed and whispers, "My son!" All of the contributions to the film are distinguished. Neither Ben Cross, as Abrahams, nor Ian Charleson, as Liddell, are accomplished runners but they are accomplished actors, and they act the running scenes convincingly. Ian Holm, as Abrahams' coach, quietly dominates every scene he is in. There are perfectly observed cameos by John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson, as masters of Cambridge colleges, and by David Yelland, as a foppish, foolish young Prince of Wales. These parts and others make up a greater whole.
CHARIOTS OF FIRE is one of the best films of recent years, a memory of a time when men still believed you could win a race if only you wanted to badly enough.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Tangled Up In Blue
Isn't this a wonderful song?
by Bob Dyland, from the album, Blood on the Tracks.
Early one mornin' the sun was shinin',
I was layin' in bed
Wond'rin' if she'd changed at all
If her hair was still red.
Her folks they said our lives together
Sure was gonna be rough
They never did like Mama's homemade dress
Papa's bankbook wasn't big enough.
And I was standin' on the side of the road
Rain fallin' on my shoes
Heading out for the East Coast
Lord knows I've paid some dues gettin' through,
Tangled up in blue.
She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam, I guess,
But I used a little too much force.
We drove that car as far as we could
Abandoned it out West
Split up on a dark sad night
Both agreeing it was best.
She turned around to look at me
As I was walkin' away
I heard her say over my shoulder,
"We'll meet again someday on the avenue,"
Tangled up in blue.
I had a job in the great north woods
Working as a cook for a spell
But I never did like it all that much
And one day the ax just fell.
So I drifted down to New Orleans
Where I happened to be employed
Workin' for a while on a fishin' boat
Right outside of Delacroix.
But all the while I was alone
The past was close behind,
I seen a lot of women
But she never escaped my mind, and I just grew
Tangled up in blue.
She was workin' in a topless place
And I stopped in for a beer,
I just kept lookin' at the side of her face
In the spotlight so clear.
And later on as the crowd thinned out
I's just about to do the same,
She was standing there in back of my chair
Said to me, "Don't I know your name?"
I muttered somethin' underneath my breath,
She studied the lines on my face.
I must admit I felt a little uneasy
When she bent down to tie the laces of my shoe,
Tangled up in blue.
She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
"I thought you'd never say hello," she said
"You look like the silent type."
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century.
And every one of them words rang true
And glowed like burnin' coal
Pourin' off of every page
Like it was written in my soul from me to you,
Tangled up in blue.
I lived with them on Montague Street
In a basement down the stairs,
There was music in the cafes at night
And revolution in the air.
Then he started into dealing with slaves
And something inside of him died.
She had to sell everything she owned
And froze up inside.
And when finally the bottom fell out
I became withdrawn,
The only thing I knew how to do
Was to keep on keepin' on like a bird that flew,
Tangled up in blue.
So now I'm goin' back again,
I got to get to her somehow.
All the people we used to know
They're an illusion to me now.
Some are mathematicians
Some are carpenter's wives.
Don't know how it all got started,
I don't know what they're doin' with their lives.
But me, I'm still on the road
Headin' for another joint
We always did feel the same,
We just saw it from a different point of view,
Tangled up in blue.
by Bob Dyland, from the album, Blood on the Tracks.
Early one mornin' the sun was shinin',
I was layin' in bed
Wond'rin' if she'd changed at all
If her hair was still red.
Her folks they said our lives together
Sure was gonna be rough
They never did like Mama's homemade dress
Papa's bankbook wasn't big enough.
And I was standin' on the side of the road
Rain fallin' on my shoes
Heading out for the East Coast
Lord knows I've paid some dues gettin' through,
Tangled up in blue.
She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam, I guess,
But I used a little too much force.
We drove that car as far as we could
Abandoned it out West
Split up on a dark sad night
Both agreeing it was best.
She turned around to look at me
As I was walkin' away
I heard her say over my shoulder,
"We'll meet again someday on the avenue,"
Tangled up in blue.
I had a job in the great north woods
Working as a cook for a spell
But I never did like it all that much
And one day the ax just fell.
So I drifted down to New Orleans
Where I happened to be employed
Workin' for a while on a fishin' boat
Right outside of Delacroix.
But all the while I was alone
The past was close behind,
I seen a lot of women
But she never escaped my mind, and I just grew
Tangled up in blue.
She was workin' in a topless place
And I stopped in for a beer,
I just kept lookin' at the side of her face
In the spotlight so clear.
And later on as the crowd thinned out
I's just about to do the same,
She was standing there in back of my chair
Said to me, "Don't I know your name?"
I muttered somethin' underneath my breath,
She studied the lines on my face.
I must admit I felt a little uneasy
When she bent down to tie the laces of my shoe,
Tangled up in blue.
She lit a burner on the stove and offered me a pipe
"I thought you'd never say hello," she said
"You look like the silent type."
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century.
And every one of them words rang true
And glowed like burnin' coal
Pourin' off of every page
Like it was written in my soul from me to you,
Tangled up in blue.
I lived with them on Montague Street
In a basement down the stairs,
There was music in the cafes at night
And revolution in the air.
Then he started into dealing with slaves
And something inside of him died.
She had to sell everything she owned
And froze up inside.
And when finally the bottom fell out
I became withdrawn,
The only thing I knew how to do
Was to keep on keepin' on like a bird that flew,
Tangled up in blue.
So now I'm goin' back again,
I got to get to her somehow.
All the people we used to know
They're an illusion to me now.
Some are mathematicians
Some are carpenter's wives.
Don't know how it all got started,
I don't know what they're doin' with their lives.
But me, I'm still on the road
Headin' for another joint
We always did feel the same,
We just saw it from a different point of view,
Tangled up in blue.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Harpie Berthdaeye Gem's Joke
Mind your hats goan in. . .
Lest anyone forget, this is James Joyce's birthday. The writer who is the equal of Dante and Shakespeare was born on this date in 1882.
Here is a brief bio.
JAMES AUGUSTINE ALOYSIUS JOYCE (1882 - 1941), one of the most radical innovators of twentieth-century writing, was born at Rathgar, a suburb of Dublin, on Feb. 2, 1882. His father, who came from an old and substantial Cork family, had some talent as a musician, but his lounging forced the Joyce family into dire economic straits for much of James’s boyhood. Joyce’s father was an ardent supporter of Charles Stewart Parnell, the nationalist leader, and Parnell’s downfall (due to adultery) had a profound effect on the family, and Joyce’s later writings. James’s mother, the daughter of a Longford wine merchant, was a gentle, refined woman who bore thirteen children, ten of whom survived childhood (and of whom Jim was the eldest).
Joyce was sent at first to the expensive Jesuit boarding school described in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. By the time James, known as Jim, entered the Faculty of Arts in University College, Dublin, he was already struggling with the chronic poverty which followed him much of his life.
Joyce studied modern literature at university. Political and literary movements at the time, which had as their objective the freeing of Ireland from English dominance, held very little attraction for him. His instinct was for a broader European culture, and his exceptional facility for linguistic study gave him precocious access. A powerful and original intellect made him quickly intolerant of the narrow curriculum of his college and of the strict Roman Catholic orthodoxy by which it was controlled.
Unlike his fellow Irishmen, who at the time were embracing the Irish language and enthusiastic for the theater of W.B. Yeats, J.M. Synge, and Lady Gregory, Joyce greatly admired Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, and studied Dano-Norwegian to read the writer’s works in their original language. He revered Ibsen’s contempt for falsity and hypocrisy. Joyce placed Ibsen above Shakespeare as a dramatist; the Norwegian set an example for Joyce, and encouraged him, via his writings, to "walk in the light of his inner heroism". (O’Brien, 12). Ibsen encountered contention and censorship of his works, and Joyce felt a connection with him, perhaps foreseeing his own future struggles with censors and critics. When he was still an undergraduate, in 1900, his long review of Ibsen's last play was published in the "Fortnightly Review".
In 1902 he left his family and his studies and went to Paris on the premise of reading medicine. After a year of near starvation he was recalled to Dublin to the deathbed of his mother, a scene famously recreated in Ulysses. His refusal to kneel in prayer beside the dying woman marked a turning point in his life at which he formally renounced the Christian faith. In his writings, the irrevocable influences of his religion manifest with profound power.
In 1904 Joyce again departed for the Continent, this time taking with him Nora Barnacle, who became the mother of his son Georgio (1905) and daughter Lucia (1907), and whom he married in 1931. Miss Barnacle, working as a chambermaid in a Dublin hotel when they met, had little education and no understanding of Joyce's work; she thought Joyce made things difficult for himself by writing in so strange a manner. However, she shared with him a passion for music, humor, and life. Their home from 1905 to 1915 was Trieste, where Joyce taught English at the Berlitz school. In 1909 and 1912 he made his final trips to Ireland, and attempted to secure the publication of his first book, "Dubliners," which finally appeared in England in 1914. In 1915, Joyce wrote "Exiles," his only play, and went into permanent exile himself.
In 1916 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man appeared, thus establishing Joyce's reputation as a writer of genius. All the while, Joyce’s eyesight deteriorated. The family lived largely on the gifts of patrons – beginning in 1917, an English Quaker named Harriet Shaw Weaver supported Joyce financially and continued to do so until his death. He considered his reliance upon patronage as entirely honorable, due to the impediments placed upon him by society’s prejudices against him as a man of letters.
In February 1922, Ulysses was published, after many years of rejection and censorship, by Sylvia Beach’s Shakespeare & Co. in Paris, and his last work, Finnegans Wake, was published in 1939, after 17 years of work. The ban on Ulysses in the United States was not lifted until 1933. In 1940, Joyce and his family made their way to Zurich as World War II escalated. His last published letter, dated December 20, 1940, thanks the mayor for the asylum granted him. He died of a perforated duodenal ulcer in Zurich on Jan 13, 1941 and is buried there.
The challenges associated with compiling a bibliography of James Joyce seem almost insurmountable. Not only have there been numerous reprints of all his works, but there is a voluminous body of scholarship, and many of the more well known sources have been revised and reprinted many times themselves. Then one has the critical works on the critical works, which has occurred countless times in Joyce scholarship. The critical sources are often as resonant and useful as the works themselves. Often Joyce texts don’t appear at first to speak for themselves; one’s reading of Ulysses, for example, is most definitely enhanced with the use of a guide.
I selected Joyce because I admire him as a writer – as someone who pushes boundaries and makes us question convention. As a writer Joyce was merely trying to explicate life itself, to draw from it and describe the wealth of pure sadness and joy, jubilant love, and dire struggle. Joyce the man makes for a fascinating study as well, despite, or perhaps due to, his being irascible, arrogant, hard-drinking, and at times irresponsible and unkind.
In his extensive biography of Joyce, Richard Ellmann states that “for Joyce understanding is a struggle, and best when humiliating.” Joyce has definitely passed the torch to his readers in this case. It is overwhelming to get a handle on Joyce scholarship – somewhat like trying to learn to swim by being dropped into the middle of the ocean. There have been over 7,000 articles, reviews, and books written on some Joycean subject over the last 8 years alone, which can be both a positive and a negative point. For one, opinions on Joyce’s work will never cease; it is not a well that will run dry. Scholars and general readers will constantly try to fit his texts into historical, literary, sociological, and personal contexts.
Although Joyce’s standards of integrity differed from those of his contemporaries, he respected the language and manipulated it to give uncompromisingly realistic portrayals of human experience. Compiling a bibliography of a writer who had such a momentous influence on 20th century and subsequent writing was an arduous task, due to the seemingly endless body of critical work. At times, I found it hard to be as selective as I wanted to be. However, although Joyce’s moral and psychological landscapes may be intimidating to readers, there are a multitude of manageable sources on which one can rely and be amply rewarded. In Ulysses Joyce tells us that life can be affirmed but never resolved, and certainly the writings of James Joyce keep us searching for that affirmation.
Ulysses For Dummies
Links to other Online Joyce Sites
. . . Mind your boots goan out.
Groundhog Day (1993)
BY ROGER EBERT / January 30, 2005
"Groundhog Day" is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.
Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase This is like "Groundhog Day" to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something.
The movie, as everyone knows, is about a man who finds himself living the same day over and over and over again. He is the only person in his world who knows this is happening, and after going through periods of dismay and bitterness, revolt and despair, suicidal self-destruction and cynical recklessness, he begins to do something that is alien to his nature. He begins to learn.
This man is named Phil, and he is a weatherman. In a sense, he feels himself condemned to repeating the same day, anyway; the weather changes, but his on-camera shtick remains the same, and he is distant and ironic about his job. Every year on Feb. 2 he is dispatched to Punxsutawney, Pa., to cover the festivities of Groundhog Day, on which Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, is awakened from his slumbers and studied to discover if he will see his shadow. If he does, we will have another six weeks of winter. We usually have another six weeks of winter, anyway, a fact along with many others that does not escape Phil as he signals his cynicism about this transcendentally silly event.
Phil is played by Bill Murray, and Murray is indispensable; before he makes the film wonderful, he does a more difficult thing, which is to make it bearable. I can imagine a long list of actors, whose names I will charitably suppress, who could appear in this material and render it simpering, or inane. The screenplay by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis is inspired, but inspired crucially because they saw Bill Murray in it. They understood how he would be able to transform it into something sublime, while another actor might reduce it to a cloying parable. Ramis and Murray had worked together from the dawn of their careers, at Second City in Chicago, and knew each other in the ways only improvisational actors can know each other, finding their limits and strengths in nightly risks before a volatile and boozy audience. I doubt if Ramis would have had the slightest interest in directing this material with anyone else but Murray. It wasn't the story that appealed to him, but the thought of Murray in it.
The Murray persona has become familiar without becoming tiring: The world is too much with him, he is a little smarter than everyone else, he has a detached melancholy, he is deeply suspicious of joy, he sees sincerity as a weapon that can be used against him, and yet he conceals emotional needs. He is Hamlet in a sitcom world. "Lost in Translation," another film that works because Bill Murray is in it, captures these qualities. So does "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou," which doesn't work because Murray's character has nothing to push against in a world that is as detached as he is.
In "Groundhog Day" (1993), notice how easily he reveals that Phil (the weatherman, not the groundhog) is a perfect bastard. He doesn't raise his voice or signal through energetic acting that he's an insufferable jerk. He just is. He draws for his Punxsutawney assignment a patient angel of a producer named Rita (Andie MacDowell) and a good sport of a cameraman named Larry (Chris Elliott). Like television production people everywhere, they're accustomed to "talent" that treats them shabbily; they indulge the egos of the on-camera performers and get on with their jobs, reflecting perhaps that they can do without the big bucks if it means being a creep like Phil.
At 6 a.m. on Feb. 2, Phil is awakened by the clock alarm in his cozy little Punxsutawney bed-and-breakfast. It is playing "I Got You Babe," by Sonny and Cher. He goes through a series of experiences: Being greeted by an old classmate who wants to sell him insurance, stepping into an icy puddle, performing a stand-up on camera in front of the wretched groundhog, which he considers, not without reason, to be rat-like. Phil is rude to Rita and Larry, and insulting to his viewers (by implying they are idiots to be watching the segment). He has no liking for himself, his job, his colleagues or the human race.
All he wants to do is get out of town. He begins to. He doesn't quite make it. What with one thing and another, he wakes up the next morning in the same bed, with the radio playing the same song, and it gradually becomes clear to him that he is reliving precisely the same day. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, in his case, doesn't creep in at its petty pace from day to day, but gets stuck like a broken record. After the third or fourth day, the enormity of his predicament is forced upon him. He is free to change what he says and does from one Feb. 2 to the next, but it will always be Feb. 2 for everyone else in the world, and he will always start from the same place. They will repeat themselves unless he changes the script, but tomorrow they will have forgotten their new lines and be back to the first draft of Feb. 2.
One night in a bowling alley, sitting at the bar, he says almost to himself: "What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and everything that you did was the same, and nothing mattered?" The sad sack next to him at the bar overhears him and answers: "That about sums it up for me."
Slowly, inexpertly, Phil begins to learn from his trial runs through Feb. 2. Ramis and Rubin in an early draft had him living through 10,000 cycles, and Ramis calculates that in the current version he goes through about 40. During that time, Phil learns to really see himself for the first time, and to see Rita, and to learn that he loves her, and to strive to deserve her love. He astonishingly wants to become a good man.
His journey has become a parable for our materialistic age; it embodies a view of human growth that, at its heart, reflects the same spiritual view of existence Murray explored in his very personal project "The Razor's Edge." He is bound to the wheel of time, and destined to revolve until he earns his promotion to the next level. A long article in the British newspaper the Independent says "Groundhog Day" is "hailed by religious leaders as the most spiritual film of all time." Perhaps not all religious leaders have seen anything by Bergman, Bresson, Ozu and Dreyer, but never mind: They have a point, even about a film where the deepest theological observation is, "Maybe God has just been around a long time and knows everything."
What amazes me about the movie is that Murray and Ramis get away with it. They never lose their nerve. Phil undergoes his transformation but never loses his edge. He becomes a better Phil, not a different Phil. The movie doesn't get all soppy at the end. There is the dark period when he tries to kill himself, the reckless period when he crashes his car because he knows it doesn't matter, the times of despair.
We see that life is like that. Tomorrow will come, and whether or not it is always Feb. 2, all we can do about it is be the best person we know how to be. The good news is that we can learn to be better people. There is a moment when Phil tells Rita, "When you stand in the snow, you look like an angel." The point is not that he has come to love Rita. It is that he has learned to see the angel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)