Science . . . and Other Avenues

The other day, I was listening to a man who was commenting on some political issue. In defense of his views, he claimed to be a scientist. He was implying, I suppose, that his views were more liable to accuracy than, say, a non-scientist. I suppose we were supposed to believe that His rationalistic approach, his “just the facts, Mam” way of looking at things carried more weight than other approaches.

Science, of course, can be a wonderful thing. Who can count the many improvements that have come about through scientific research? We reap the benefits each day. It is obvious, in other words, that science is a potentially wonderful tool. When we use the minds that God gave us, we are much, much better off than when we fail to use them; that much is abundantly clear.

What struck me about what this man’s claims, however, was the naive way he expected his hearers to respond to him. Perhaps, he himself is naive, simply assuming the superiority of his own views. Or, it may be that he has taken a reductionistic approach, squeezing everything into his personal paradigm, even when his views are inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it could be that he doesn’t recognize his own biases, failing to understand that not all claims to being “scientific” are equally valid. At any rate, it’s stuff like this that frustrates me.+

To begin with, it is important to admit that the assertions of scientists are not of equal value. In fact some assumptions, though based on the best reading of the data available at a given time, must be altered or even abandoned. I think the best scientists already know this, for they are not out to wave a flag so much as they are on an on-going mission to uncover and make best sense of what is available to them. Theories, hypotheses, hunches–even the best of them–must take a back seat to truth.

Of course it is here that scientists, like all people, are just as liable to bias and susceptible to error. Science, in other words, is not some pristine field with no skeletons in its closet. Scientists easily confuse theories with facts or laws. Likewise, they can sometimes go about their research with mixed motives. Does the funding one receives for a given project ever hinge on the manner in which a scientist reports the facts? Does the prestige one might receive for a scientific breakthrough ever influence the way one conducts research? Hmm, I wonder. :-)

But there is something just as sinister here, which is the tendency for people to assume that science is the only valid (or at least the best) way to gain understanding. Thus, scientific proof is the only sure thing. Indeed, if it’s not observable or repeatable, we should always view it–whatever it is–with suspicion. The implication is that the (so-called) rationalistic use of our brains is the only pathway to truth. But, is it? I wonder if the scientist mentioned above does research before choosing an outfit to wear. Does he conduct research on the medicine he takes when he is ill, or does he trust on the research of others? Does he fail to express his love for his wife and children because he cannot prove that love scientifically? I hope not! The point is that science is not the only valid path to knowing, and everyday we give expression to this reality.

Please, don’t label me anti-scientific, for nothing could be more untrue. The bad scientists are all out to corrupt us and lead us astray mentality is something I truly despise. Indeed, it is often the religionists who are much more adept at deception. It’s just that we need to understand that we operate every day in spheres other than the scientific. Much of every day life is based on things like experience, faith, personal preference, intuition, cultural mores, practicality, what feels right, and a whole host of other things that are never–and indeed shouldn't/couldn't be–sifted through a scientific paradigm. That does not depreciate science. Not at all. But it should convince us that we all need to operate with more humility.

So, let’s keep up the scientific research. By all means, we must make use of science and remain leery of that which flies in the face of current findings. But, along side of science, we should remain alert to other factors, other avenues, other ways of coming to understand and properly interpret reality. Let the truth reign in any field. And let us make use of any legitimate pathways to understanding. Indeed, why not let various realities– scientific, intuitive, experiential, etc.–flow freely together? Why not allow truth in any given domain inform the other domains? What, you might ask, keeps them all together? What is the impetus behind our searching, thinking, and wondering? What is the all-permeating environment and the chief (spoken or unspoken) motivation in our efforts? A good starting point, I think, is faith. We operate in all of these realms by faith–informed or uninformed, demonstrated or mysterious–faith in some grandeur purpose. Christians merely locate this, ultimately, in a person, who is the object of faith and the embodiment of truth. In fact He is the way, the truth, and the life; we’d be wise, in all of our pursuits, to follow him.

+ This is why some make a distinction between science and scientism. Science investigates and seeks answers, while scientism exaggerates its claims and often imposes its presuppositions (which, by the way, are often philosophical in nature) on everyone else.

Wisdom and Human Sexuality

Recently, there has been a lot of talk in my town about a proposal to open up a strip club. Hopefully, this request will be turned down. Time will tell. In the meantime, I just today wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Instead of going on a tirade against the club (perhaps that will come later :-) ), I decided to address the subject of human sexually generally. Whether or not it is published, here it is.

Let’s be clear: Sex is a good thing, the body can be beautiful, and human sexuality should be embraced as a part of what it means to be a member of the human family. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes appears like we are offered only extreme versions of the way to approach such topics.

Some are afraid to broach the subject and leave the impression, intentionally or not, that sex really is a dirty thing. While many of these people are well-meaning, upstanding individuals, their rants are often interpreted, accurately or not, as the outdated opinions of a bygone era.

Then again, others move in the opposite direction, treating sexuality as a game and offering up young women as objects of meaningless attention. These promoters of sexual liberation consider sex something to be exploited, and ironically produce a kind of enslavement to otherwise natural desires.

Recently, there has been much talk of opening a strip club in town. While I do not know the man who hopes to operate this establishment, I suspect that he is merely one of many who capitalize on the human tendency to pervert that which is good. Though there is certainly a place for legal actions (and something should be done to forestall this recent "business" proposal), the greatest way to put a halt to such activities, the best way to insulate ourselves from the misuse of good things, is to operate–individually, as families, among friends, and as a community–in ways that both promote the goodness of human sexuality and recognize the parameters for its healthy use. Much of our moral confusion would disappear if we were to consistently practice and give approval to such long held ideals as marriage, unconditional love, and fidelity.

Human sexuality is obviously a matter of impulse; this impulse is normal and certainly ought not be treated as an embarrassment to civility. Human sexuality also requires knowledge, which allows us to understand the mechanics of the sexual act, the consequences of our decisions, and the best and most healthy ways to give expression to our God-given inclinations. But, human sexuality really ought to involve more than urges and facts. If we truly want to facilitate healthy relationships, prepare our children for the real world, and guard ourselves from inappropriate choices, we also need to be wise.

Sexual desire is normal, so let’s not stigmatize its proper use. Knowledge is valuable, so let’s not underestimate the need for accurate information and education. But it is our wisdom, or lack thereof, that will ultimately determine the appropriateness of the choices we make. An old sage once wrote, "God gives out wisdom for free." We could all use a healthy dose of that wisdom.

Non-Traditional Education (Some Personal Reflections)

I earned my M.Div. (Apologetics) and DTS (Doctor of Theological Studies) degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES). CES is a non-traditional, long distance school, offering course work through mentorship study. The school follows something of a British educational model, for students work with scholars to construct their academic programs. As with traditional education, there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to the non-traditional scheme, and each person must decide for him/herself which avenue is best. The important thing to remember–as some traditional schools are only now beginning to recognize–is that the non-traditional, long distance paradigm is a legitimate alternative to the conventional model. Well, some time ago, a man wrote to me, inquiring about the benefits of CES. What follows are my off-the-cuff remarks.

The benefits are numerous. Besides acquiring a degree from home at a reasonable cost, the following factors were central in my thinking:

(1) Personally Relevant - I had taken classes through secular and Christian schools, and all too often the requirements and courses were overly predictable. Sometimes, the material was not as personally significant as I had hoped. Other times, the course work was, frankly, less than demanding. I cannot speak for others, of course, and I have taken a few courses that were both difficult and relevant. Most often, however, these ideals were not central. With CES, on the other hand, I was allowed to work with my mentor/advisor to craft as program that was important to me. There are, of course, limits on these matters, which is part of the reason mentors are involved in the first place. But generally, I was able to work under the guidance of a scholar to craft courses that I cared about. By the time I had heard of CES, I had a BS from Penn State, had taught in a public school for 14 years, had pastored for a decade or so, and had done course work through both secular and religious institutions. By that time, I was not interested in some prefab, predictable degree. I wanted to plunge into work that mattered to me. CES provided the opportunity to do just that.

(2) Academically Challenging - As mentioned above, I have done work through various schools. Generally speaking, these courses were not all that difficult, and the demands were not that great. I had written numerous papers and easily coasted through the various courses. Under the tutelage of Dr. Walston, however, I quickly found myself challenged. The writing requirements were comparable (and beyond) to traditional school, but it was the practical demands that made this process immensely helpful, though sometimes, frankly, frustrating. The reason for this occasional frustration, of course, is that it can be difficult being academically stretched. I can assure you, however, that it was well worth the effort. Again, I can't speak for everyone's experience, but with Rick Walston I was always challenged to think and write in a consistent, proper, and coherent way. (Aside: I have been writing for years, but I have to say that my skills were honed through CES. Thus, in part due to my experience with CES, I published Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith, and just recently I had another manuscript accepted for publication [Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil]. Both works are published with Wipf & Stock publishers. )

On top of these benefits, and perhaps outweighing all of them, my friendship with my mentor/advisor was immensely helpful. Occasionally, we would disagree, but most often we were on the same page and after the same goals. At least in my case, I actually had a much closer relationship with Rick than I have with any other teacher. This resulted in a constant give-and-take, a camaraderie, a friendship that has only deepened over the years.

There are, of course, some "negative" features to this type of program. You aren't actually sitting in a classroom, which some people enjoy. Also, you are perhaps somewhat limited by the fact that you normally work with a single scholar (or two) instead of with the myriad of instructors offered through a traditional program. That being said, I don't think these are necessarily that significant. In my view, non-traditional education is not better or worse than traditional education; rather, it is simply different. In some ways it excels (at least it did for me), while in other ways it may lack some of the benefits of the typical classroom. All said and done, however, I honestly don't feel that long distance programs are a Plan B alternative to traditional schemes. Rather, I see them as different ways of achieving desired academic goals. I think a lot of traditional schools are just beginning to catch on and see the benefits of long distance education. There may be a tendency, however, to minimize these for obvious financial reasons. I'm not saying that secular schools are only "in it for the money," for there are clearly many fine traditional institutions. I'm merely pointing out the financial constraints/pressures of any school that wishes to continue offering its programs. At any rate, CES was a wonderful experience for me. There are still some, unfortunately, who would frown on the lack of accreditation. But, I think at least some people are beginning to see that the ultimate value of an educational model is not the size of the library or the beauty of the campus, as good as these might be, but the actual education that it provides.

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Please feel free to write back.

Passages in Romans and Divine Sovereignty (Part 2 of an Email Discussion)

In this email, I was seeking to respond to some (not all) of the issues raised when reading portions of Romans 9 and 11.

The Romans texts are not the only passages to consider, but they are important ones.

At the very beginning of Romans 9, Paul shows his intense concern for his people, even willing to be "cut off" for the sake of those he loves. Whatever Paul’s version of divine sovereignty, it included a healthy dose of compassion (1-5).

Then, of course, Paul writes about the difference between a work of God on the heart and a merely outward profession. Privileges are fine; in fact they’re gifts from God. But they, by themselves, are not the center issue (6ff); God’s love governed promise is.

Next, of course, we come to the difficult verses (14ff), where it seems that God’s choice is the issue. Whatever the order of these things, however, note the way Paul describes it. These are not merely theoretical moves on God’s part. No, they are acts of mercy and compassion. So, whatever God’s sovereignty entails, it is a merciful and compassionate sovereignty.

I take the hardening process (18) to be God’s way of saying, "Hey, if you don’t want me, then you can have your way." It’s kind of like his giving people what they want.

Verse 19 picks up on the implications of such a divine choice. There are a few things to consider here:

(1) The imaginary objector is apparently getting cocky with God, being arrogant and basically accusatory. There are times in Scripture when questioning and complaining are valid expressions of an honest faith. Here, obviously, that’s not the case. Therefore, the questions are of a rebellious sort.

(2) The response that Paul provides is aimed, I think, at showing the imaginary objector (and any who would accuse God) that His ways are far above our own. Who are we, mere creatures, to question the Creator? Can a house complain against the one who built the house? Of course not. The point here is that God is, ultimately, a different category of being, and the objector here has failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in an almost escalating argument, Paul basically confronts God’s imaginary accuser with an "in the face" challenge. God is God, is He not? If so, He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t have to first gain permission from His creatures.

(3) The Romans 11 passage is another tough one. Calvin seems to take the entire passage in a rather positive way. If God has had mercy on us, then He is just as likely to have mercy on others. We all require mercy because we’re all disobedient, Jews and Gentile alike. "Paul makes the Jews equal in guilt to the Gentiles, in order that both may understand that access to salvation lies open to others as much as to themselves" (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Romans, 258). If Calvin is correct, the purpose of this passage is to state emphatically that all are shown to be disobedient and in need of rescue. That way, they are all forced to partake of the offer provided by the only Savior. The context that follows also seems to fit this interpretation. God has shown that we are all disobedient, but He has done so in order to provide the only path of salvation. If this is true, it makes sense that Paul would cry out, "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God" (33)!

(4) All that being said, there are still some very hard passages and some difficult to swallow truths. What can any of us say? God is truly sovereign. He calls the shots and runs the show. At the same time, we are still responsible for our choices. The best way to handle these matters, I think, is to do our best to retain this tension. We might think that human responsibility contradicts any notion of divine control. Then again, we might be led to believe that divine sovereignty utterly destroys any sense of human freedom and divine fairness. Somehow, and I’m not sure how, both of these truths are compatible. The temptation is to allow one of these ideas to suck the meaning out of the other. A better, more biblical, yet clearly very puzzling alternative is to seek to allow both text types to have their sway in our lives and our theology. Easier said than done! :-)

The Fall of Adam and the Problem of Evil (Part 1 of an Email Discussion)

Recently, I received an email from a man who was asking questions about the problem of evil. Among other things, he inquired about God's purpose in creating Adam, knowing that he would sin. Did God want what happened to happen? Is there another way to enter into a relationship with creatures other than creating a race that would fall? These are good (though difficult to answer) questions. In part, I offered the following:

My perspective says that God did in fact know all that would happen in creating Adam and permitting him to sin. Theologians sometimes make a distinction between the descriptive and the decretive wills of God. In one sense, God describes what he wants for human beings, that they should be holy, etc. In another sense, however, he allows his creatures to choose what they want, including both our prope and imporper choices. God in His wisdom decrees that good and bad, righteousness and rebellion, will be permitted as a part of His overall scheme.

To repeat, the descriptive will of God is what God, in keeping with His own character, commands us to be and do, while the decretive will is what actually takes place, the beauty and ugliness of it, in human history. God's descriptive will says, "Do what is right, and follow Me?" God's decretive will is what you see every day and read in the newspaper; it is what God actually allows to take place.

In answer to your question of did God want Adam to sin, I think–to be fair to all of the biblical data–we have to answer "yes" and "no." As far as His own righteous standards are concerned, God certainly wanted Adam to be righteous and not to rebel. Then again, as far as His overall plan, including the plan to rescue sinners, God "wanted" or permitted the fall in order to accomplish other things.

Of course these terms merely highlight what is occurring biblically. They do not answer every question for us. Indeed, they often raise more questions than they answer! This is why the bad we observe is often referred to as the problem of evil. God is sovereign and good, yet bad things take place all of the time. How do we account for these things in God's world?

I honestly believe there are partial answers to the questions you raise, and categories such as "the greater-good" and "free will" are helpful. That is, God accomplishes at least some measure of greater good by allowing for evil. For instance the presence of evil allowed God the opportunity to display the supreme measure of love in sending His Son to rescue us. Likewise, a good amount of the evil we encounter is explainable in terms of human rebellion; if we choose that which is wrong, we may have to pay the consequences for it.

Still, also to be honest, I think we can only scratch the surface on these matters. I do not believe that a flawless theodicy is available to us at this time. In fact I'm not certain that we'll ever grasp these difficult matters comprehensively, though I'm confident that we'll know a lot more than we do now. I'm also confident that, eventually, these matters won't bother us.

When Job experienced his various troubles, the "solution" to his problem was related primarily to God, shall we say, showing up. When God appears in a whirlwind, questioning Job about what he truly knows, Job is somehow satisfied. It seems, then, that evil is an amazingly large problem, but God is an even larger Solution.

When we approach Scripture, we have to recognize that there is a "knowing/not knowing" tension within much of what we discover (see Deut 29:29). We know things about God and His ways; this provides a basis for our identifying Him, etc. On the other hand, there are many things about God that defy our ability to grasp. He is, after all, God!

If we possessed no access to the things of God, we'd be taking a blind leap in the dark, and our faith would be irrational at best. But if we possessed all knowledge of God, if we pretty much had him figured out, He would hardly inspire awe and worship. So–and this is an important point–the fact that we don't have all of the answers is–how shall I say it?–an intentional and necessary part of our relationship with our Maker. The point is not that there are no answers to these baffling questions but that God has chosen not to reveal all of them to us. Amazingly, He does have answers to questions we cannot begin to fathom. Thus, there are times when what God does or allows surely seems impossible to make sense of. The key term here is seems, for God actually does have answers to these dilemmas but hasn't given us all of them. We are left to trust and to marvel that these insuperable problems actually make sense to a good and wise God.

If you were to read my manuscript, you'd discover that one of my chief strategies, if you can call it that, is to allow ample room for mystery. I'm not saying that we have nothing to say about these strange subjects, for we do. But, and this is very relevant, our best approach is to recognize up front that we are talking about an all-powerful deity, a being who created out of nothing, a God who is both imminent (with us and responding to us) and transcendent (above us and governing our lives). So, we seek whatever answers we can locate, but we do so with faith (however weak) and humility (however inconsistent).

By the way, lest you think that God doesn't have solutions to the problem of evil, remember for a moment what God did at the cross. God was (and is) holy; thus, no amount of un holiness could remain in His presence. At the same time, God is also loving, desiring to befriend His creatures. But, and here's the rub, how can a holy God allow unholy people into fellowship? If He just allows is into heaven and ignores our rebellion, God compromises His own purity. To take this route would strip God of His very character, His very "Godness." So, how can the unrighteous have a relationship with the Righteous One? How can purity embrace impurity? In what way is it possible for a flawless God to befriend the very flawed? Answer: Jesus. In Jesus, sin is absorbed and its penalty swallowed. Thus, as Scripture teaches, God is "just and the justifier" of the one who believes in Jesus." We aren't good enough to access our Creator. Indeed, we are worthy of judgment. But God's Son is good enough, and He's taken our wrongs and made a way for us. So far as our discussion is concerned, here's the point: God was able to solve this amazing dilemma, although no one would have guessed that He would have taken this route. Thus, iff He was able to provide an answer to such puzzling issues then, we can and must trust that He can do the same with our questions and doubts now.

Okay, I'm getting a bit tired–its 2 am here; I was out at a friend's house until a short while ago. Thus, my comments might not be entirely coherent. I do hope, though, that they help point you in a good direction.

Could God have done things differently? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing He could have. What we must grapple with, however, is that this is the world He's given to us, and in this world there are many difficulties and questions. My suggestion, Jeremy, is that you keep on asking them, and that you do not fear taking even your hardest questions and doubts to God. Complain, if you want, but take your complaints to the One who is not only truly mysterious but also completely good.

Here are a few suggestions for reading:

Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981.

________. How Long, O Lord?-Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990.

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1994.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Publishers, 1962.

Plantinga, Cornelius. Not The Way It's Supposed To Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Stackhouse, John G. Jr. Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Tiessen, Terrance. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Always a Kid!

Kids are great! Just today, I was looking out our front door, watching my youngest boy play football with the kids across the street. The energy, the enthusiasm, the zeal, the excitement, the fun–all of these characteristics and more were evident as my eight year old played. My thirteen year-old is the same way. They are both overflowing with exuberance, thrilled at the opportunity to give expression to their inward vitality.

It is often said that we are to retain a certain type of childlikeness. Indeed, some would gladly exclaim, “I’m a kid at heart.” There is, in their view, an “inner child” in each of us. To be honest, I think they are right and that this reflects a truly biblical theme. We are to be like children.

But, wait a minute. What does it mean to be a child? Well, it certainly does not mean that we are to remain utterly naive or ignorant. Lord knows, we have enough of that going around. Also, this childlikeness is not a reference to immaturity or to the all-to-common tendency of young ones to throw temper tantrums. Again, there is already too much of that in all of our lives. What’s more, we’re not talking about a perpetual sense of self-centeredness. Some adults, like children, are self-absorbed.

What I have in mind, instead, is the childlike enthusiasm mentioned above. We are to live our lives, in other words, with enthusiasm and energy. If we are God’s image-bearers, if we live in God’s world, if we are blessed by him in countless ways, if he is truly with us–if these things are true, we ought to be truly engaged in daily affairs. This does not mean, of course, that we make-believe that everything is fine, for sometimes, frankly, it is not. Neither should we wear a false smile, pretending to be perpetually “happy.” Tears are just as valid an expression as are bouts of laughter, and pain is clearly a part of our existence. So, let’s not confuse this childlike spirit with the counterfeit spirituality that results from inauthentic attitudes or behavior.

The childlikeness in view here is simply the inner joy we can experience as we recognize the wonder and beauty of the life God has given. Many of us have countless opportunities to manifest this child within. It can happen when we feel the warmth of the sun, throw a snowball, run across a field, jump up and down at a sporting event, attend a concert, or converse with a close friend. It is perhaps most powerful when we authentically relate to the people God brings our way, be they family, friends, strangers, or even enemies.

“Lord, open our eyes to the wonder and beauty of it all. We know there is a lot of ugly out there. We realize that part of our duty is to weep amid the struggles of everyday existence. But please, Lord, help us not to miss the good stuff–the relationships, the opportunities to interact with other divine image-bearers, the chance to appreciate the demonstrations of your handiwork and love.”

Jesus had something to say about this subject. At one point, in fact, he said that only those who are like children will enter the kingdom of heaven. Pretty heavy stuff! Of course there are a number of ways to interpret Jesus’ words. Some argue that children is a reference to those child-like individuals who are willing to admit that they are needy; just like a child will instinctively cry out for mom or dad, so we should do the same with God. Other interpreters like to point to the basic innocence of children; we, like children, are to be unencumbered by the worries of the world. These and other interpretations are frequently found among interpreters of Jesus’ words, and I think there is much wisdom in what they say. My point in this blog, simply, is that, drawing from the overall emphasis of Scripture, believers should embody this attitide, this perspective, this outlook of child-like wonder!

WFD in a PM World

The following is reproduced from the October 2006 edition of Next Wave.

Christians have long recognized that there is opposition in this life to the ways of God, hindrances to the walk of faith. Typically, these have been delineated as the World, the Flesh, and the Devil (WFD). "The world" is a term used by Jesus and the biblical writers to describe the prevalent anti-God atmosphere that permeates human society (John 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 John 5:4). The trends that mislead, the attitudes that run contrary to divine wisdom, the choices that fly in the face of God’s will, these are said to be of "the world."

Next, there is "the flesh," which refers to the inner human inclinations to violate God’s commands, the tendency within us all to ignore our created purpose. Everything that is wrong about us is a related to our fallen nature and character. This is why Peter, for example, can write of those who "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (2 Peter 2:10).

Finally, there is the devil, who, according to Scripture, is a personal being of rebellion, the ally and instigator of evil. Whatever one’s view of the paranormal, the Bible clearly teaches that nefarious forces, living unseen entities, vie for our attention and seek to lead us astray. In fact the world is said to "lie in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

The World, the Flesh, and Devil. We need not enter into detailed discussion of this three-pronged attack to spiritual well-being. It is enough to acknowledge that people make bad choices, wrong philosophies allure the unsuspecting, deception is an inescapable reality within any age, even a PostModern one.

The purpose here is simply to remind those of us who seek to postmodernize the faith, who desire to be on the cutting edge of what God is doing in our day, that we are not immune from falsehood. Indeed, it is often the case that harmful influences show up at precisely the time when God is most active. We should be aware, therefore, that ungodliness can show up during a revival, and pride is never far from even the humblest servant. But, what about now? Where might the demonic appear today? In what ways is the emerging church particularly prone to the temptations of the WFD?

Of course, from the perspective of the emerging church, it is precisely the traditionalists who went astray, having been duped by the WFD (though they might not state it exactly this way). Having succumbed to some of the more questionable presuppositions of the enlightenment, modern Christianity confused cultural ideals with biblical ones. Indeed, the emergence of an alternative (postmodern) view is due, in great part, to an increased perception of (and frustration over) these faulty ways. Postmoderns, in other words, are of the opinion that the traditional church has, on many points, been misled.

But how ironic it would be if, in criticizing others, we failed to see our own shortcomings. For this reason, it is all the more important for postmoderns to be cognizant of their own negative tendencies. What follows is a short list of ways in which the emerging church opens itself up to imbalance and, worse, deception.

When modern hubris is (rightly) condemned but is done so in a condescending way, something is amiss. Pride is something that no age can completely avoid.

Similarly, when dogmatism is opposed dogmatically, we are clearly off target. Sometimes, as mentioned above, this is evidence that we postmoderns cannot escape our worst qualities. Other times, it simply demonstrates that a certain kind of dogmatism still has a place in the emerging church.

Likewise, when postmodern humility (a potentially wonderful commodity) starts to sound like naivete, it’s time to reevaluate. We need more caution and discernment, but foolishness and an unwillingness to stand for the ways of God is never good.

When reason is minimized through the use of reasoned argumentation, perhaps we have "thrown out the baby with the bath water." Reason as the sole arbiter of truth is a modern myth, but reason as one facet of the image of God is an unavoidable (and potentially healthy) thing.

When the significance of narrative is stated in propositional form ("Thou shalt preach the narrative portions of Scripture"), one wonders how postmoderns miss the fact that, as meaningful as the stories of Scripture are, propositions deserve more than lip service (after all, Jesus is lord). Stories must be returned to their proper place in the life of the church, but propositions (especially when tied to these stories!) mustn’t be forgotten.

When community (a much needed emphasis) becomes so nebulous that it actually interferes with the needs of the individual, it might be time to take a closer look at what we are promoting. While there is something special and refreshing about community, the noble effort to embody this corporate concept must never interfere with personal accountability and the life of each individual believer.

When the quest for an experiential faith doesn’t recognize that experience should be fostered through truth ("sound doctrine"), perhaps we have failed to provide the proper (biblically oriented) contexts for these experiences.

When the written word is treated as passe through the medium of print, one wonders if some postmoderns even notice the inconsistency. The emerging church can still learn via books.

When image is emphasized with hardly a thought about the possibility of idolatry (visible or conceptual), it may be time to sit up and take notice.

Please don’t misunderstand. The purpose of these illustrations is not to "throw a wet blanket" on the postmodern motifs mentioned above, and I am certainly not advocating a "three steps forward, two steps back" approach. Indeed, it is my contention that we must consciously highlight such notions as community, mystery, humility, experience, and creativity. God, keep us from getting in the way of the wonderful things God is doing in this postmodern era.

At the same time, though, it is good to occasionally pause and look at ourselves. In our quest to catch the wave of God’s new dealings, amid the rejuvenated feeling of being in on something that is truly grand and wonderful, let us never think that we have arrived. Though God is providing a renewal of church, our hearts are still deceitful. While the Lord of history is actively leading us to embrace certain cultural trends, the world is still a dangerous place. Though our hearts resonate with Spirit-driven topics, the heart can still be a factory of idols, the inner chamber where half-truths sap the very life out of us.

WFD–the world, the flesh, and the devil–they still compete for our attention, seeking to take God’s people captive through the misuse of opportunities, and by means of the simplistic belief that these nemeses of the faith have little impact in today’s world. May the Lord preserve us from error, and may we learn to journey together through this world, excited by what God is doing but also cognizant that, in the end, what will matter most is not our ability to postmodernize the faith but that we faithfully serve the Rock of (all) ages, postmodern and beyond.

Bad Religion vs. the Truth ( another response to a skeptic)

At one point, my conversation partner briefly mentioned how Christians have used their belief structures to justify some pretty horrible behavior (prejudice, close-mindedness, meanness, etc.). Here’s my response:

It is true that many seek to prove their own belief structure. This, by itself, is understandable, for it is comfortable. Still, this does not rule out the possibility that God can choose to reveal himself to whomever he pleased. The Jews, for instance, are an interesting choice for God's revelatory work. In one place, in fact, Scripture records God's saying that he has chosen the Jews not because they were bigger or better, for they were the contrary at the time. Rather, he chose them because he chose them. In other words, God has reasons that he has chosen not to disclose, or perhaps we can't comprehend them at this time. In this case, ironically, God's revelation entails the reality that there are some things that he hasn't revealed. Weird stuff!

I agree that prejudices can be fostered when each group thinks it has a perfect grip on the truth. On the other hand, there are probably times when “prejudices” are good. I am prejudice when it comes to the safety of my family. I am certainly in favor of opposing mass murder. I have a prejudice against those who steal, and against those who seek to do harm to others. Etc.

Now, having said all of this, that God chose to reveal himself to the nation of Israel, this does not at all minimize the fact that he has also chosen to reveal himself to all people, albeit in somewhat different ways. God speaks to all people through nature, the human spirit (since we are made in his image, this makes sense), and to all who will look to Jesus. In fact I feel comfortable saying that God can speak through various religions; I say this because the people who comprise these groups are divine image-bearers. Thus, it makes sense that the image of God would seep through in most of them.

I believe that the ultimate truth is a person, and Jesus said as much (John 14:6). God is the truth. However, this God of truth is certainly capable of displaying various facets of his truth to those, as Scripture puts it, “who have ears to hear.” In other words, if anyone has been given access to the voice of God, he/she ought to pay attention to that voice. Again, this voice can be heard in various places, from philosophies and poetry to sacred texts and movies. It is embedded, as it were, in God's creation. From a Christian reading, however, this revelation becomes clearest in and through the person of Jesus. He is the apex of God's revelation, the embodiment of the God of truth, the expression of divine love in human form.

There is a wealth of evidence to support the Christian contention that Jesus existed, made unique claims, died via Roman execution, and then was seen alive from the dead. Interestingly, Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, recently changed his view on God's existence. While he is by no stretch a Christian, he did say that “the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity . . . .” This is quite an admission from someone who has spent his life denying such matters. The point, of course, is not that we have a film clip of Jesus walking out of the tomb. In fact even if we did it might be interpreted as a clever technological hoax. The real point is that the resurrection of Jesus is no fairy tale, created long after the fact. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was raised, and there is solid historical support (not proof, per se) for that contention. The changed lives of millions are merely a fruit of this divine act. Of course I'm getting a bit off track. Sorry.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing anti-human, immoral, arrogant, suppressing, or unbelievable about the fact that God can choose to reveal himself as he deems fit. In fact for me to say that he cannot do such things is tantamount to saying that I have access to information that others don't. After all, who am I to pretend to speak for God or to tell him what he can or cannot do? The truly Christian view is that God reaches down to us feeble creatures, thus unveiling facets of his being. These are the things about which we can speak with a measure of confidence.

If Jesus is truly God’s unique Son, if he actually conquered the grave, then–whatever else is true about others–he, Jesus, is certainly in a class by himself. This isn’t always a case of Jesus being good and all others being bad (though this certainly is true at certain points) but rather that Jesus alone is equipped to, as it were, “carry us to heaven.” Others may instruct, guide, give advice, etc., and much of it may be wonderful. But, if only Jesus is “genetically related” to God, then he would be special. I feel confident that, however goofy we Christians can tend to be, that Christ himself is such a person. Historically, philosophically, archeologically, “religiously,” he is unique. There might be, to use an illustration, many people who would be willing to speak or act in my name, but only my kids are genetically related to me and have the same DNA. Jesus has “God's DNA,” at least that’s what we claim. It is unfortunate when well-meaning Christians take this clearly biblical claim and stretch it to mean that everything else is evil. This negative approach has harmed the church’s cause for many years.

Is there such a thing as truth? (response to a skeptic)

Over the years, I've had some rich correspondence with many people. Some of these have been skeptics, those who resist anything that looks or sounds too orthodox. To one such friend–an agnostic type who is keenly aware of the dark side of religious conviction–I wrote the following:

I agree that religion can be a real pain in the ____, if you know what I mean! And people often try to justify all kinds of stuff.

Jesus, interestingly enough, didn't go this route, and much more often than not he attacked the religious people of his day.

Of course a lot of this also depends on how one defines religion. One definition (among others) says that it entails man’s efforts to reach God, or some such thing. In one sense, this can only lead to belief systems that are, at best, human! On the other hand, since we are all human, it is impossible to escape our humanity. Thus, in this sense, we are all inescapably religious.

A lot of this is also derived from one’s presuppositions (and we can’t escape these). Is it possible that God could have revealed himself to human beings? Is there reasonable evidence that he has? Is life interpretable in the first place, or are we all so trapped by our own biases that we cannot speak with any measure of confidence about much of anything? Many moderns (those impacted by the worldview of the enlightenment, those who think that life is easy and who believe that human reason can provide most any answer) have sometimes treated this whole issue in simplistic ways. But life isn’t always easy, and we all have biases, etc. On the other hand, postmoderns (of which I would call myself one, generally speaking) can sometimes go too far the other way. Life can still be deciphered. Many things can be known with a good sense of reasonable certainty. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 (and even if we object on some theoretical grounds, we act like this is a universal mathematical fact). We intuitively react against rape or the pillage of our property. We typically defend our loved ones. We search, in one way or another, for the transcendent. We at least act like communication is possible (This doesn't mean it is always easy; it doesn't mean that misunderstanding never occurs, for it often does. Yet, at the end of the day, we expect to be able to come to reasonable conclusions about various matters). Also, we tend to argue our points (loudly or softly), which points to the intuitive sense that there must be some universal “standard” (known or not) to which we appeal in the first place. If I say something, and you think that my views are in need of improvement, the assumption is that you might be interpreting reality better than I am, at least in your own opinion. I think this is an appeal, though most often hidden and unspoken, to something transcendent.

We can’t escape who we are, but this might simply be another way of saying that we can’t escape what God has made us to be. Also, we can’t avoid his world and the way he has constructed it. The fact that people will argue, get upset with whatever, put forward different views, cry out against things that they believe to be wrong, etc. all points to some universal factor. The fact that children are generally treated as precious, and that those who harm them are considered immoral, is an indication that there is this transcendent impulse in us all.

We can, of course, act like differences of opinion indicates that no one opinion can possibly be universally right. But this is an assumption, not an overarching and unavoidable conclusion. In fact if this conclusion is correct–if it is true that there is no universal view–then it is self-contradictory. Indeed, the only way that this relativistic view could be correct would be if one universal maxim is smuggled into the argument, namely, that there is no universal view. :-)

What is amazing to me is the fact that those who decry absolutes cannot escape them. What has happened, I think, is that many people have rightly reacted against the hubris of modern Christianity. In the process, however, it is all too tempting to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”After all, if nothing is universally true, if no one has the right to say that their view is applicable to others, if our imperfections and wrong interpretations indicate that no opinion or interpretation can ever possibly be right or better than someone else’s, then one is left in the uncomfortable place of maintaining these things and yet somehow assuming that we–those of us who are offended by the universal claims of others–must somehow have escaped the problems faced by others. After all, we believe that these universal claims and those who advocate them are wrong (or not as good as ours). But how can we maintain this opinion if our opinion itself is self-defeating?

In other words, if my opinion is that it is wrong to believe in truth, and if it rubs me the wrong way to hear those who make such claims, what has rendered me exempt from the failures I observe in others? If my opinion is that there is no universally applicable truth, either: (1) I am wrong and universal truth can be located, or (2) Truth cannot be located. If it cannot, then I have to admit that, in my opinion, there is no universal truth except one, which is that there is no universal truth. This, I maintain, leaves me with a self-contradicting opinion, an opinion that, even if it is correct, is also wrong, for it sneaks in one absolute truth. Of course if it is possible that there is indeed one absolute truth, then there might be others. Christians, among others, maintain that this inclination is a part of the divine image in human beings. Okay, I’m rambling!

When it comes to differences of opinion, there is another option. These differences might tell us at least the following:

(1) Not everything is clear. Many Christians don’t get this!

(2) We ought to be humble and careful in making universalistic claims. Again, many good people miss this point!

(3) But the impulse to make such claims might be an indication that God has in fact put it in us the desire to search for and, at some level at least, discover truth. This might take some effort, though, and a delineation ought to be made between the really important stuff and lesser things. Some confuse these two.

(4) We have been built with a sense–an imperfect sense, a handicapped sense, a humanly flawed sense–that there exists truth, the transcendent . . . the true God. Even when we deny this, we affirm it in every day life.

(5) The true God is able to get through our biases and shortcomings and enable us to grasp at least the essentials, the big-picture, of what he wants us to embrace. This is what we’re looking for, and what believers presuppose (on solid grounds, I think).

(6) We are intended to follow the truth where it leads. Again, we need humility but also a willingness to receive the truth as it comes to us.

(7) God never planned that we would know the truth flawlessly, perhaps because to do so would put us in a place where we might imagine that we no longer need him! We can know the truth sufficiently, but the imperfections of our current views aren’t intended to yield outright skepticism but rather a personal dependance on the personal being who created us. In other words we can know the truth, but we will know it best when we connect with God himself, seeking to build a relationship with him. We look for the truth and for the one who is the Truth!

A Christian worldview maintains these things, even if Christians sometimes don’t. I’m probably as turned off by the many things done “in the name of religion” as anyone could be. But I have encountered them as one of its supposed proponents. This leads to a lot of tension. Of course in the process I don’t want to dismiss the good that I find in the traditional church either. Where I recognize hubris (and I do!!!!), I want to identify it. But if I only notice the hubris of others, I might be opening myself up to a subtle type of hubris in myself (and, unfortunately, I sometimes have!!!!).

Just some random thoughts! :-)

Niceness - Plus

Some people are hard to get along with, consistently miserable, and just plain mean. In my worst moments I’d call them (or myself, when I fit this depiction) jerks. Boy, we could use a lot more nice people, people who say hello to you, who hold the door, who show genuine interest in others, who do the right thing. Some days, it appears the good guys are hiding. Someone called for a gathering of kind individuals, and I wasn’t invited. So, I’m stuck with the unkind and, I suppose, I’m one of them. Though I exaggerate to some degree, it is certainly refreshing to meet people who are just plain nice.

On the other hand, we probably shouldn’t be too quick to commend every person who wears a smile or speaks cordially. Sometimes, in fact, the very people who initially look and sound so impressive are the worst kind of jerks. I mean, some “kind and gentle” neighbors end up flying airplanes into buildings. Other “nice guys” end up making the evening news as perverts. Indeed, sometimes the worst culprits are the very ones who make the grand claims about morality and religiosity. Let’s not confuse an attractive outward demeanor with genuine niceness. Lots of jerks masquerade as the upholders of righteousness. Whatever your smile frequency, however many times you’ve been cordial, none of these makes up for a mean-spirit, a flawed sense of ethics, or an obvious lack of personal authenticity.

So, there you have my rant on niceness. I’m all in favor of being nice, good, kind, cordial, and the like. Lord, save us from an uncaring mean-spirited attitude. On the other hand, keep those plastic smiles away from me, too. Disingenuous people-pleasing is not what I'm after in anyone, including myself. Okay, then, what am I seeking? Hmm. I guess, I’m looking for people who are both nice and real. Niceness plus authenticity, niceness plus a willingness to by-pass the cordial when a situation demands it, niceness plus an commitment to speaking the truth even when it hurts, niceness plus boldness, niceness plus an appropriate emotional fervor, niceness plus all that is sacred and right. That’s it! I’m searching for (and praying for) niceness-plus!