RSS
 

Why I Don’t Preach the Law

25 Jan

A man recently asked me why I did not preach more about sins and their consequences. Why, for example, did I not talk more about what he called “obvious” sins, and about how they would bring pain and punishment.

Now, perhaps this is an area where I need to be challenged. It is possible that I am reacting to the absurd preaching I heard in my youth, that centered on long hair on men, pants on women, and other evils such as movies, rock music, and mixed bathing (they meant swimming with both genders).

But then again, I am not so sure that my list of “obvious” sins would look the same as my questioner’s.  As I have grown, it seems to me that sins of the mind and heart (pride, resentment, lack of love) are much more deadly than the sins of the flesh.  But there is a deeper reason that, though I will talk of sin, I will not make it the focus of my preaching. And that reason has nothing to do with the reason of some churches today (that talking of sin is unpopular and does not help reaching out to the lost).

I don’t focus on law (hereby defined as an focus on getting people to sin less, with emphasis on pain and punishment for disobedience) for the following reason: It can never make a person godly. Never. Not in a million years, not if I was the best preacher on the planet.

The reason, I think, is not hard to see. Think of the reasons a person motivated by law (or any other external force) has for any moral reform they might perform:

  • The avoidance of punishment or discipline
  • The avoidance of the natural consequences of sin
  • A desire to enjoy life without guilt
  • A desire for a good reputation
  • A desire to live up to a certain view of themselves
  • A desire for their life to “work” better.

    Now, except for the third item, none of these are BAD reasons. In fact, they are wise, in one sense of the term anyway. We can’t go against the grain of the universe without getting splinters.  But in the end, they still leave this person helplessly locked up in self.  They do not change the person’s heart; they confirm and deepen the heart’s pride and self-focus.

    The better way is marked out by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:4 and 12:1, where he points out that it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance, and that we should seek to honor God because of His mercy.  It is when my heart, ravished and overwhelmed with God’s kindness and love for me, desires to follow God in order to please Him that I grow more into what God wants me to be. And that, if it comes at all, comes only by preaching the grace of God over the pain of sin.

    The Lutheran theologian Walther gets it just right:

    An enforcer of laws, like a jailer, is not concerned about the condition of the heart of the person with whom he must deal, but only about enforcing that person’s obedience. He stands before his victim with a scourge and tells him that the scourge will come down on his back if he does not obey. The jailer is not concerned about godly motives among his prisoners. The prisoners, on the other hand, while they are fast in stocks and in their cells and are forced to obey, are revolving plans in their minds how to avoid being caught at their next theft. That is what a preacher of the law does to the members of a Christian congregation: he puts them in stocks and fetters them.

    Let no minister think that he cannot induce the unwilling to do God’s will by preaching the Gospel to them and that he must rather preach the Law and proclaim the threatenings of God to them. If that is all he can do, he will only lead his people to perdition.

     
    6 Comments

    Posted in Christian Living, Church

     

    The Tools of The Almighty

    24 Jan

    I don’t normally post stuff from other blogs, but today I had to make an exception.  Mike Mercer at Internet Monk recently published something I wish I wrote, and something sorely needed in today’s church culture. You can find the original post here if you want to see the comments about it.  Otherwise, I post it here for you, and endorse it 100 percent.

    A Letter for the Church Today (2)
    A Study of 2 Corinthians 10-13

    Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.

    • 2Cor 10:3-5, NRSV

    • • •

    I am not a “handy” person. It’s not that I’m incapable (or so I imagine), but rather that I’ve never taken the time to learn and practice the art of making or fixing things. As a result, I have also never invested a lot of money in tools beyond the basic items needed for general tasks. On several occasions, this has caused me headaches, because a project presented itself that required something beyond a basic tool. When possible, I procured what was needed, but at other times I made the foolish mistake of trying to make do with the wrong instruments. The outcome usually wasn’t pretty. Something that could have been made or fixed easily (and correctly) with the proper tool ended up being butchered by a “hack job.”

    In 2Corinthians 10-13, Paul is warning the Corinthian church that some “hack” Christian leaders whom he calls “super-apostles” (11:5) are working on them. He is frightened for their spiritual well being, “afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, [their] thoughts [would] be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (11:3).

    Every generation is troubled by preachers and teachers who take advantage of the opportunities for corruption that church culture affords. In this part of his epistle, Paul reminds us that both leaders and congregations are responsible to settle for nothing less than true pastoral leadership.

    …individual Christians and local churches alike must take responsibility for the styles of leadership they follow. If it is true that Christian leaders are responsible before God for the teaching they provide, the models they display, and the directions they take, it is no less true that Christians and Christian assemblies are responsible for choosing what and whom they will emulate. The problems at Corinth depicted in 2Corinthians 10-13 would never have arisen if the Corinthian church had handled the intruders in a mature and biblical fashion in the first place. That they failed to do so reflects their spiritual immaturity, their unsettling inability to perceive that the norms of their own society were deeply pagan and not to be nurtured in the church.

    • D.A. Carson, A Model of Christian Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13

    Carson notes that there were three inappropriate cultural models that shaped the approach of these “super-apostles”:

    • Judaizing Christianity, which sought to prove its spiritual superiority by emphasizing its Jewish covenant status,
    • Hellenistic Philosophy, which emphasized forms of polished rhetoric and skillful oratorical presentation, and the ability to attract big audiences and command high fees for imparted wisdom,
    • Visionary Enthusiasm, which stressed a leader’s esoteric spiritual visions and experiences.

    Paul confronts these “super-apostles” who are troubling the Corinthians by “leading” them with the wrong tools. In 2Cor 10:1-6, he notes that these teachers have accused him of“acting according to human standards.” In other words, they have dismissed the Apostle and his approach as inferior and common, not up to their spiritual standards.

    Paul responds by saying, “Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds.” In other words, yes, we’re common human beings alright, but it’s not human standards that define our ministry. We no longer conduct ourselves “according to the flesh” — the ways of the world system are not the ways by which we operate any longer.

    Christian leaders are called to use different tools.

    Is it necessary to list the ways in which the American church has become enthralled with the“tools of the flesh”? Much of contemporary church culture glories in its spectacular worship “shows,” polished preachers, professional corporate organization, along with emphases on spiritual enthusiasm, prosperity teaching, “vision” and unmediated spiritual experience, as well as triumphalistic attitudes and approaches in “culture war” confrontations. We tend to like big, loud, and impressive.

    In contrast, note what Paul writes in this passage: “I myself, Paul, appeal to you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ…” (2Cor 10:1)

    In contrast to the prevailing methods of the “super-apostles” of his day, and the “mega-church” culture of ours, note the concepts and words in this first sentence that describe the tools Paul uses as a true pastoral leader:

    • Personal Touch (“I myself, Paul…”): Paul believed in personal communication, not just public teaching and reliance upon rhetoric. One senses he would have felt uncomfortable on a big stage or seeing his face on a big screen. He could talk to crowds, of course, but the evidence suggests he did best in face-to-face situations when possible. His letters are remarkably personal, and when he was really concerned about his friends and could not visit them personally, he sent coworkers to represent him.
    • Respectful Appeal: The “super-apostles” had commanding presence and used their credentials to put themselves in positions of power over others. Paul, on the other hand, sought to influence by lovingly appealing to the hearts and minds of his fellow believers. He eschewed control and treated his brothers and sisters with dignity, recognizing their ability to respond to God’s Spirit and make decisions themselves.
    • The Meekness and Gentleness of Christ: One is immediately reminded of Matthew 11:28-30 — “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Like his Master, Paul humbled himself to serve rather than exalting himself to lord it over his friends. Don Carson writes: “Meekness and gentleness…taken together, suggest that the person characterized by such virtues will be generous in his estimates of others, slow to take offense, well able to bear reproach, consistently above self-interest.”

    With those kinds of tools, one can build a church.

    Try to use the inadequate tools of “the flesh,” and you’ll have a hack job on your hands.

     
    1 Comment

    Posted in Bible Studies

     

    Why Pastors Get Depressed

    16 Jan

    I’m a pastor. And I get depressed sometimes. Are you OK with that admission?

    I’m told it is something of an occupational hazard for clergy.  One well-publicized study reported that 70 percent of Pastors said depression haunted them. 70 percent! Another study followed seminary graduates into their careers, and found less than 10 percent were still pastoring 10 years after their graduation. This study did not examine all the reasons why they left, but apparently most did not find the career pleasant. Presumably, their vacancies are often filled by others who are not seminary-trained.

    Why is this?  This is more than an academic question to me, obviously.  I never had times of depression before stepping into the role as a pastor of a church. Why is this? Based on a little reading and a lot of thinking and reflecting (as my own times of depression have lessened in the last year) these are my observations.

    First, pastors get depressed because they are lonely.  Over half the churches in this country have only one pastor on staff.  Even if a pastor has other staff, if he is “over them” then he does not have co-workers in the normal use of the term.  Much of the pastor’s time will be spent alone, in his office, not interacting with peers.

    Now, of course, the pastor does interact with many people during the day.  But most of these are people he is trying to help, or who want something from him.  This is not the same as working with true colleagues.

    The second reason pastors get depressed is related to the above: He is always a pastor.  Even when he is sharing a meal with a parishioner or simply talking after church, he is in a role.  It never gets turned off.  He is expected to be warm, empathetic, not too critical or negative, loving, moral, and occasionally profound.  He knows that his congregation (and the world) have expectations that he will act in certain ways, no matter the context.

    Personally speaking, this is both good and bad. But the bad part is that most of the time I am unsure whether I can be me.  I always have in the back of my mind, “is this helpful or appropriate as a pastor?”

    Thirdly, pastors get depressed because most of the time they simply do not see the results of their work and effort.  Malcolm Gladwell lists three characteristics of a career if it is going be fulfilling. One of those three was a correlation between effort and results (and being able to see that).  Sometimes pastors see this.  For example, a  couple whose marriage has been helped is happy and grateful, say.  But mostly any “results” are both hidden and long-term.  Perhaps this is the reason so many pastors look to attendance and other numbers to validate their work.

    Finally, pastors get depressed because they realize the great gulf between who they are and who they are called to be, and the great gulf between their desire to help people and their actual ability to do so.  The modern pastor is expected (by some slice of the congregation at least) to be skilled in scholarship, public speaking, counseling, administration, and leadership, as well as having a consistent and exemplary spiritual walk, being free from pride, aloofness, laziness or any sins of the flesh, and while also keeping his family life together.  How many people do you know really have strengths in all these areas?

    For me, this is I think the greatest factor in my own times as depression.  I have an image of myself living a certain way, filling a certain role, and I fail to meet that image nine times out of ten. The sense of being a failure at something you regard as exceedingly important is not a source of joy.

    As I mentioned, this depression has lessened in the last year. Though I have no intention of giving others advice in this regard, perhaps it would be worthwhile to describe what has helped me.

    Primarily, it is a deepening understanding of  God’s grace and sovereignty. I have come to the conclusion that I will never be a successful pastor, at least in the way this religious culture defines success. And that is OK. In fact, more than OK. God doesn’t need me or my ministry. Nothing of God fails when I do. My weaknesses are part of His wise plan, and have no bearing on His acceptance of me.  And His acceptance, His grace, are all that matter. In addition, I have this huge blessing: His graceful acceptance of me has a face. In the eyes of my wife, I see that her unwavering love and acceptance have their source in His.

    When I remember this, it takes my eyes of those things that otherwise depress me. It gives me thankfulness and an inner tranquility that lead way to joy. Now, I am not saying this is my constant state. I still have times when my feelings seem not to have gotten the grace memo. But this alone stops me from despondency most days.

    God loves me. Even when I am depressed. Even when I fail. He loves me.  And that is all that matters.

     
    4 Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    Save the Nuba

    12 Jan

    No, the title of the post does not refer to the name of a new rock band, nor a video game.  It is actually a serious issue.

    About a month ago I agreed to something I did not think I would ever do: use this blog to send out an occasional post written by someone else. The only reason I agreed was that the incredible cause they are promoting is extremely under-played in the mainstream media, including the online media.  This cause is to give voice to the voiceless: the persecuted minorities around the world, including religious minorities.

    I received the first post today. It is about the Nuba people in the northern Sudan.  So, just to be clear, everything after this sentence is not written by me, but is a cause I desperately believe in.

    Have you ever wondered what you would have done had you been alive in 1940 and was one of those who knew about the Holocaust?

    Would you have been a person of action or a person of silence?

    It is perhaps one of the most important issues to wrestle with. More than once in our lifetime we will find ourselves at a crossroad, one where the decision we make will reveal as much about our character as our convictions.

    There is a genocide happening right now in Northern Sudan. The government is eradicating their own people. If we don’t speak up and help, no one else will. Each time North Sudan launches an attack to kill their own people, and we in the Western world remain silent, we give our permission to continue.

    It is easier to overlook what is happening to our brothers and sisters in Sudan because the task feels overwhelming and thinking about it can make us feel helpless.

    The truth of the matter is that one person alone cannot save the Nuba People. But a community of people acting in unison can.

    One of the most extraordinary acts found in mankind is when a member of the human race deliberately goes out of his way to help another. It is love in action. It is loving your neighbor. It is doing unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

    This month, The Persecution Project Foundation has launched a campaign called Save the Nuba. In order to prevent another genocide, they need the help that only a community can offer.

    For those who can afford it, the need for food and medicine is desperate.

    For those who have little to give, they’re asking for petitions signed, for awareness to

    be spread through social media (Facebook, Twitter and blogs.)

    For those who are passionate about this cause, they need your help raising awareness.

    Will you join us in speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves?

    Please visit www.SavetheNuba.com to learn ways you can help

     
    No Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    How I Became non-political

    09 Jan

    I see the presidential election season is heating up.  Soon, it will be a two-man race, Obama versus a candidate to be named later.

    I find I care less each election cycle.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I still vote, and I do so after a good deal of reading about the candidate’s positions.  But I have a hard time getting too emotionally worked up about the outcome.  I don’t claim this as a virtue. Maybe (as perhaps you are thinking right now) it is a great fault. This post is not to defend my apathy, but to explain it.

    First, let me stress that “twas not always so”. The month after I turned 18, I walked into a cold January night to take part in the Iowa caucuses.  That same election I was allowed to ask a question during the “audience participation” part of the only GOP debate of the Iowa campaign.  That was my fifteen minutes of fame (it was run on all three networks, and yes I am dating myself terribly by putting it that way).  I recall that same season walking up and down the streets of Des Moines hanging GOP campaign material on people’s doorknob.  I hated abortion (still do), resented the welfare state, and was suspicious of ‘socialized medicine” and soft-hearted judges. I was a full-throttled, red-blooded young republican, and I rejoiced at the start of the Reagan Revolution.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the revolution.  It never happened. Reagan and the rest of the GOP talked about social issues all day long, but acted on very few of them. Despite 12 years of Reagan/Bush, Roe v. Wade was still securely on the books, welfare reform was still a dream, and most of the promises made to the religious righters like myself were unfulfilled.  Yes the economy improved under Reagan, but I learned not to give the President too much credit for the ups and downs of something as complicated and multi-faceted as the economy.

    When Clinton ran for office, I was still imbibing at the cool-aid well, and agreed that slick Willy was, if not the anti-christ, at least married to her.  His general sleaziness during the Lewinsky affair only confirmed my animus.  But again, funny facts were messing with my mind and creating some disturbing cognitive dissonance.  Not only had the economy rocketed up (see above paragraph) but the social life of America had not fallen apart.  The rates of abortion, teen pregnancy and violent crime all declined from 1992-2000 (see graphs at the end). I was kerpuzzled (family neologism). Could it be, I began to wonder, that the party of the president and congress had little bearing on the social issues I cared about so deeply?  Could it be that society usually reacts against the crusades of the president more than it joins those crusades?

    I voted for Bush in 2000, but deeply regretted his decision to invade Iraq on what (to me anyway) were patently false (or at least un-proven) grounds: Iraq’s alleged link with 9/11 and supposed stockpiling of WMDs. To be clear, in my opinion, the war in Afghanistan was probably in line with ‘just war” theory, while that in Iraq was not (and was a dangerous and deadly diversion from the Afghanistan war).  Now, you don’t have to agree with this, and I am not trying to prove my position right now.  My point is this: I liked Bush personally and agreed with his stance on many issues on the home front. But not only did he (like his father and Reagan) fail to deliver on most of these, I viewed his foreign policy as a disaster.  And, here is the important part, I never saw it coming.  Not once during the campaign did he strike me more fundamentally different than Dukakis on foreign policy grounds, especially in the Middle East.  Maybe I just didn’t pay attention enough.  But I never saw it coming.  I learned again the hard lessons: you can’t judge a president’s effect on the country too much until he is actually in office.

    Why? The following is only a partial list.  Add your own reasons:

    • They campaign differently than they govern
    • They face immovable obstacles to their goals
    • They create opposition to their policies just because those policies come from a position of authority
    • Their judicial appointments are blocked (or vote differently than was foreseen),
    • Even their policies that get through often make things worse by their unintended consequences (No Child Left Behind being the classic example)

    Again, we must vote. It is our duty and privilege.  As for myself, I refuse to get wrapped up in the politics of the culture wars.  I take abortion very seriously, but I am no longer under a delusion that its scourge will be removed by which party occupies the White House.

    I look now for three things in who I will vote for: Which candidate has the personal integrity to handle the incredible power of the presidency well?  And which candidate seems to have the sanest foreign policy?   And thirdly, which candidate comes closes to my views on domestic issues. These three are in order. The checks and balances on the president’s domestic policy are substantial and varied, while the modern president has almost carte blanche in foreign policy, even to the point of starting a war.

    So I will vote, and I will pray. But the nights staying up till dawn watching election returns, with either raucous joy or bitter disappointment, are gone.  God is on His throne. His plans will be accomplished. I will try to vote wisely, but I will remember His words: “Do not put your trust in princes”.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    click on the graphs to enlarge

    

    Source:

    Source:

    Source:

     
    2 Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    The White Stone

    02 Jan

    The following is an excerpt from a sermon by the great George McDonald.  For some reason, it speaks to me powerfully, and gives me great comfort and encouragement. May it do the same for you.

    To him that overcometh, I will give a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.– Rev. ii. 17

    …I say, in brief, the giving of the white stone with the new name is the communication of what God thinks about the man to the man. It is the divine judgment, the solemn holy doom of the righteous man, the “Come, thou blessed,” spoken to the individual.

    A name of the ordinary kind in this world, has nothing essential in it. It is but a label by which one man and a scrap of his external history may be known from another man and a scrap of his history.

    The true name is one which expresses the character, the nature, the being, the meaning of the person who bears it. It is the man’s own symbol,–his soul’s picture, in a word,–the sign which belongs to him and to no one else. Who can give a man this, his own name? God alone. For no one but God sees what the man is, or even, seeing what he is, could express in a name-word the sum and harmony of what he sees. To whom is this name given? To him that overcometh. When is it given? When he has overcome. Does God then not know what a man is going to become? As surely as he sees the oak which he put there lying in the heart of the acorn. Why then does he wait till the man has become by overcoming ere he settles what his name shall be? He does not wait; he knows his name from the first. But as–although repentance comes because God pardons–yet the man becomes aware of the pardon only in the repentance; so it is only when the man has become his name that God gives him the stone with the name upon it, for then first can he understand what his name signifies. It is the blossom, the perfection, the completion, that determines the name; and God foresees that from the first, because he made it so; but the tree of the soul, before its blossom comes, cannot understand what blossom it is to bear, and could not know what the word meant, which, in representing its own unarrived completeness, named itself. Such a name cannot be given until the man is the name.

    God’s name for a man must then be the expression in a mystical word–a word of that language which all who have overcome understand–of his own idea of the man, that being whom he had in his thought when he began to make the child, and whom he kept in his thought through the long process of creation that went to realize the idea. To tell the name is to seal the success–to say, “In thee also I am well pleased.”

    He is to God a peculiar being, made after his own fashion, and that of no one else; for when he is perfected he shall receive the new name which no one else can understand. Hence he can worship God as no man else can worship him,– can understand God as no man else can understand him. …As the fir-tree lifts up itself with a far different need from the need of the palm-tree, so does each man stand before God, and lift up a different humanity to the common Father. And for each God has a different response.

    See, now, what a significance the symbolism of our text assumes. Each of us is a distinct flower or tree in the spiritual garden of God,– precious, each for his own sake, in the eyes of him who is even now making us,… Every moment that he is true to his true self, some new shine of the white stone breaks on his inward eye, some fresh channel is opened upward for the coming glory of the flower, the conscious offering of his whole being in beauty to the Maker. Each man, then, is in God’s sight worth. Life and action, thought and intent, are sacred. And what an end lies before us! To have a consciousness of our own ideal being flashed into us from the thought of God! Surely for this may well give way all our paltry self-consciousnesses, our self-admirations and self-worships! Surely to know what he thinks about us will pale out of our souls all our thoughts about ourselves! and we may well hold them loosely now, and be ready to let them go. Towards this result St Paul had already drawn near, when he who had begun the race with a bitter cry for deliverance from the body of his death, was able to say that he judged his own self no longer.

    Gone then will be all anxiety as to what his neighbour may think about him. It is enough that God thinks about him. To be something to God–is not that praise enough? To be a thing that God cares for and would have complete for himself, because it is worth caring for–is not that life enough?

     
    4 Comments

    Posted in Bible Studies, Book of Revelation

     

    The Tomb or the Womb

    23 Dec

    I have sometimes wondered, dear Christ
    Which was the greater sacrifice
    Was it the tomb or the womb?

    Dark death held you inside
    Three days, and nights beside
    Imprisoned in the world you had framed

    But nine months did You face
    There in Mary’s dark place
    Growing in the woman you had made

    Did You know even then
    You were the Savior of men
    Or were your thoughts in darkness as well?

    And as Your mind came to life
    Could you sense of the strife
    You would endure on Calvary’s Hill?

    I have sometimes wondered, dear Christ
    Which was the greater sacrifice
    Was it the tomb or the womb?

    DJ

     
    1 Comment

    Posted in Poetry

     

    Newt Gingrich, the Religious Right, and Rank Hypocrisy

    21 Dec

    I am not a political person. Though there was a time when I felt very adamantly that one party was right, and the other wrong, three decades of adulthood have taught me the wisdom of the biblical admonition, “Don’t put your trust in men”.  Frankly, I don’t care as much about politics as I used to because I don’t think politicians can solve our deepest problems.

    I am a little hacked off right now, however.  I just read that the American Family Association’s founder and chairman, Rev. Don Wildmon,  has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president, and will be campaining for him.   The AFA is one of the most hardline religious right organizations in the country.  Their webiste lists their mission statement as, The mission of the American Family Association is to inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture, and give aid to the church here and abroad in its task of fulfilling the Great Commission. Beneath this they list action steps, the first two of which are:

    (1) restrain evil by exposing the works of darkness;
    (2) promote virtue by upholding in culture that which is right, true and good according to Scripture;

    This group has now endorsed as our country’s leader a man who has perhaps the worst record of personal sexual morality of any presidential candidate in the last 50 years (and yes, I am including Slick Willy). And the AFA is far from alone. A recent CBS News poll shows Gingrich has the support of 34 percent of white evangelicals in Iowa, while the next highest candidate is at 17 percent.

    If you are unfamiliar with Newt’s (not-so-distant) past, here is a brief summary.  It is taken from The Politial Guide, and I don’t think the facts listed are disputed by anyone:

    Congressman Newt Gingrich has been married three times. His first and second marriages ended because he began relationships with the women who would later become his second and third wives. He has been accused of having multiple additional affairs. While Congressman Gingrich was leading this private lifestyle, he publicly campaigned on family values, publicly shamed other representatives who were caught in similar behavior, and led the charge to impeach President Clinton for matters relating to his affairs.

    Newt began a relationship with his first wife, Jackie, when he was 16 and she was his geometry teacher. He married her after high school, they had children shortly thereafter, and were married for roughly 18 years. During that time Jackie supported Newt while in College and during two unsuccessful Congressional campaigns. His campaign staff has stated that Newt carried out multiple affairs during this time. After a successful 1978 campaign, Congressman Gingrich moved to D.C..

    In 1980, Newt began a relationship with a woman he met at a political fundraiser, Marianne. Newt divorced Jackie in February of 1981 and married Marianne in August. Congressman Gingrich was accused of negotiating divorce details while his wife was recovering from surgery, and then refusing to pay child support and alimony to speed up the divorce process.

    Although she was active in his political career, Newt and Marianne separated from his second wife around 1988 and then reconciled around 1994. At that time, Congressman Gingrich became Speaker of the House and began a relationship with a congressional intern, Calista. After a six year affair, Congressman Gingrich divorced his second wife and months later married Calista in 2000. Newt was 57 and Calista was 34. During the divorce proceedings, Congressman Gingrich refused to participate in the discovery process and finally claimed that he and Marianne had an “understanding” about his affairs. Marianne denied this claim, and in a subsequent interview stated that she could end Newt’s political career in a single interview.

    At the end of both his marriages, Congressman Gingrich proposed to his new wife before asking his current wife for a divorce. Marianne stated that this was very telling of Congressman Gingrich’s character. Before marrying Calista, Congressman Gingrich asked the Catholic Church to annul his 18 year marriage to Marianne.

    There have been numerous accussations of additional affairs during all phases of Congressman Gingrich’s life, including a woman who claimed she had a relationship in the 1970′s with Gingrich before he was a Congressman. Strangley enough, this woman states that Gingrich sought oral sex only so that he could later deny sexual relations if they were discovered. This was the same tactic used by President Clinton when he was accused of adultery.

    As Speaker of the House, Congressman Gingrich led the charge to impeach President Clinton. He has acknowledged that while he was doing this, he was carrying out an affair with his current wife. When asked about the hypocrisy of these actions, he has noted that President Clinton committed perjury to cover the affair and this was what he was impeached for and not the affair itself.

    You can read a more detailed description of this history here, which includes quotes and footnotes.

    This is the man the American Family Association Chairman has endorsed.  What is his rationale?

    “Newt Gingrich recognizes the threat to our country posed by judges and lawyers imposing values upon the country inconsistent with our religious heritage, and has proposed constitutional steps to bring the courts back in balance under the constitution,” Wildmon said in a statement. “We need someone in the White House who can balance the budget and get the economy moving again. Newt has done it before and I believe he can do it again.”

    In other words, Wildmon believes he would appoint good judges and help the economy.

    So, that’s it? As long as a person is a skilled advocate of small government and a certain judicial view we should let him off the hook for abandoning two wives (in their illnesses) and for a lifetime of immorality? Even if Newt had the mind and mouth of Lincoln we cannot overlook such things. The president is not simply another government official. He is the face of the country, the symbol of our aspirations, an exemplar for our youth. In a democratic society, executive authority depends to a great degree on moral authority.
     
    I realize many will say that these things are in the past, and that Newt has sought forgiveness. Therefore, it may be argued, should forgive him fully, for that is what the cross is for. I have two responses to this.

    First, Newt was in his fifties when having the six-year affair with Callista. We are not talking of “youthful indescretions” here.  Secondly, and more importantly, we must guard ourselves against sloppy thinking that would equate “forgiveness” with “supporting and voting for him as President”.  Yes, we are called to forgive, and as a pastor I would certainly welcome someone with Newt’s past and repentance as a full member of my church.  But that does not mean I would trust his character to lead, especially with these stakes.  If I ever cheated on my wife, I would hope that my church would fully forgive me (assuming my repentence), but they should not keep me as their pastor. Forgiveness is a personal virtue, but does not remove the consequences of the action for a leader, nor does it magically erase the character flaws which led to the immorality.  Those character flaws are deeply ingrained in a man by his late 50′s, and only hopeless naivety would lead one to think they will not appear in the pressure cauldron of the presidency.
     

    Rev. Wildmon has lost my respect.  He cannot head an organization dedicated to promoting personal morality while endorsing and campaigning for Newt Gingrich.  To do so is to expose himself, his organization, and even the Religious Right as a whole to charges of rank hypocrisy.

     

     
    15 Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    Climbing the Superstition Mountains

    19 Dec

    A couple weeks ago I had a real treat: a hike with my brother Derrick. This was a treat because I so rarely get to spend time with him (He lives in Arizona, I in Indiana) and also because we went to my favorite trail: The Siphon Draw trail to the top of the Superstitions mountains.  The trail is about 15 miles east of Mesa. The projection you see to the right  is called the Flatiron, because it juts out in the shape of an upside-down iron.  It commands an incredible view of the valley, and from here you can see not only Mesa but even downtown Phoenix.  The elevation of the Flatiron is just under 5000 feet, so it is actually a very difficult climb. The last third is akin to climbing 1500 stairs.

    Anyway, we made it, and here are some pics from one of my favorite days of the last year. I notice that if you are using the some web browsers, the pics are compressed horizontally on this page. Just click on one to see it with a better aspect ratio.

    This is approaching the superstition mountains from Mesa. The Flatiron is the peak directly above the lane we are driving in.

    Derrick looking cool about a third of the way up.

    Some of the landscape on the hike.

    Taking a break about half-way up.

    Derrick working on his tan. Did I mention the temp was in the low 50′s?

    Snow in southern Arizona. At least a little snow.

    approaching the Flatiron. I wasn’t trying to get the cool lighting effects; it just happened.

    Derrick at the top of the Flatiron.

    Me at the top. The camera is facing north.

    part of the Phoenix valley. Looks a lot cooler in person, of course.

    On top of the Flatiron. The rocks in the background are the actual peak of the Superstitions.  We didn’t have time to hike them. I would guess they were another 300 feet up or so.

    Closer view of the summit rocks. The ones on the right are blackened by a recent, tragic small plane crash.

    Derrick getting ready for the trip back down.

    Good view of the Flatiron from the way down.  Derrick is saying, “I Can’t believe we actually climbed that”.

    Almost at the bottom, the setting sun shines on the lower peaks of the Superstition mountains.

    One more of the same.

     
    No Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    The First Church Service I Ever Walked out of

    16 Dec

    I’m not much of a protester.  Too easy going and all that.  I did walk out of a movie once, but it was so long ago I forget why.

    I have certainly never walked out of a church service in anger. Until this month.  Two weeks ago I walked out during the middle of the pastor’s “sermon”. Here is why.

    The church in question is Living Word Bible Church, in Mesa, Arizona.  I was staying with my elderly mother for a week, and she lives a couple miles from the church.  She goes to a different church, but that morning (long story) I did not go with her.  I really did desire to go to church, however, especially since it was the second Sunday of advent. But since I had no car with me, this meant a good Sunday morning walk.  I picked out two likely candidates on my phone’s web browser, then headed off to one of them. I soon realized I would not get there in time, so I detoured and walked to Living Word Bible Church instead.  I knew little about it, but I figured since they had both “word” and “bible” in their name that they would at least try to be a teaching church (unfortunately, by this logic Grapenuts would have both grape and nuts).

    I made my way in from a side street, and the first thing I noticed was that the congregation was very racially diverse.  Score one for them.  I was quite disconcerted, however, at the name of the bookstore which dominated one corner of the massive foyer: “Winner’s Bookstore”.  Major red flag.  The most common heresy of the modern American church is the idea that God’s design in salvation is to make us successful in earthly categories like success and wealth.  Ever an optimist, I hoped this was an aberration, and made my way into the sanctuary.

    The service began with the pastor of the church, one C. Thomas Anderson, announcing that this was going to be a special miracle service.  Okaaaayyyy.  To me, the idea of “planning” miracles is as ludicrous as “planning” revivals.  But I had walked two miles to be in church and worship, and was not going to leave.  Or so I thought.

    The band then belted out three songs.  Though all three had words on the screens, I don’t think the first two were really intended to be congregationally sung. They were too fast and the timing too odd to work as corporate worship songs. In any case, neither was about God at all. The first asked the question, “Are you ready?” and answered it with the repeated refrain, “I’m as ready as can be”.  The second was about me living a miraculous, blessed life.  Both songs basically functioned like the music of pep rally, and indeed the whole service brought back to mind the forced enthusiasm of my high school assemblies before the big game.  The third song was actually quite good (or maybe my expectations were so low that any song actually about Jesus would strike a cord).  I hadn’t heard it before, but it was about Jesus meeting my needs.  Yes, even though it was a Jesus song, it was exalting him primarily for how he helps me in this life (which I don’t find a bad thing as long as it is balanced by more objective worship songs).

    The pastor comes back on stage.  He begins talking about how the church needs to get out of debt.  I notice before the service they showed a video about planning for a new building “three times the size of our present one, with ten thousand seats”, so apparently the goal is to get out of debt so we can get back in debt. This especially struck me as odd, since the service (one of three that morning) was less than 40 percent full.

    Pastor Anderson then launches into several minutes describing the greatness of the church and its strategic place (somehow Mesa is the epicenter of the country).  At this point I am a little distressed.  More than twenty minutes into the service, and I have heard almost nothing about Jesus or even God, but a good deal about the church and the pastor.

    The Pastor transitions to talking about how much greater the church could be if it was out of debt. I look again at the pledge sheets handed out before the service.  He tells us that they will create a permanent landscape on one of the walls. If you give a certain amount, you will get a place on the landscape. 250 bucks will buy you a bronze tulip with your name, while $250,000 will place you on a silver eagle in the sky, and for only a million dollars you get a piece of the rainbow.  Pastor Anderson takes pains to point out how your children and grandchildren (and, of course, everyone else) will always be able to see how much you gave. I couldn’t help wondering about the words of Jesus regarding giving: “don’t let your right hand know what you are doing, so that your giving may be in secret” (Matthew 6:3-4).

    This transitions into Pastor Anderson holding his wife and himself up as examples.  Three times, we are told, they agreed to give God “everything”.  And of course God rewarded them for this.  “God gave us a mansion. If you have ever been to my house, you know it is a mansion. And God gave it to us at cost”.  This was spoken so arrogantly that I began to feel queasy.  He goes on, “And you should see all my cars!”

    And here, I could take it no longer.  It was well past the half-way part of the service, and it was apparent there would be no bible teaching.  The cross of Christ had not been mentioned one time, nor had Jesus himself been mentioned except almost in passing.  I will claim no great gift of discernment, but I was pretty sure any “miracles” generated in this man-glorifying pep rally were not going to be from the Holy Spirit.

    I walked out.  I wept for a minute outside, then began the walk home.

     
    7 Comments

    Posted in Christian Living, Church

     

    R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens

    16 Dec

    I first came across Christopher Hitchens when he started writing for the Atlantic, a magazine I have subscribed to for most of the last 25 years.  Three traits distinguished his writing.

    The first was an obsession to show off his immense vocabulary. Hitchens was the only writer in any mainstream magazine I read where I actually had to look up words.  This was at times annoying, when he used an obscure word when a more common one would have sufficed, but it was also intellectually satisfying to look up and learn new terms.

    Second, Hitchens had a depth of reading almost unseen anymore.  They were few writers, especially English and American writers of the last century, which he was not familiar with.  Of course, being a Brit, he was especially immersed in the mid-century writings of that country, and was invaluable in opening my eyes to figures I would not know otherwise.

    Third, and most thankfully, Hitchens constantly surprised me on where he would side on a given issue.  He was a socialist, of course, but also a foreign policy hawk, and this mixture enriched his thoughts rather than diluting them.  I came to greatly appreciate his columns, especially in the Atlantic.

    Hitchens’s later writings sometimes dismayed me, however, especially when he began his polemics against religion.  I purchased his book, “God is not Great” and found it to be a rather terrible mess.  The book had two great problems. First, Hitchens made so many factual errors (for example, he repeated the outdated calumny that Jewish couples made love through a hole in the sheet, so afraid they were of nudity) that one suspected he really did not have more than a Sunday School knowledge of most of the religions he was bashing.  The second problem was that he consistently conflated the sundry religions whenever doing so would allow a weakness of one of them to discredit religion in general.  In short, the book was more of an insult than an argument, and a great discredit to such a wonderful mind.

    Hitchens passed away yesterday of throat cancer, and it is a profound loss to the English literary world.  Though I grew annoyed with some of his later writings, I always maintained a fondness for the man’s broad and lively mind.

    RIP, Christopher Hitchens. You will be missed.

     
    1 Comment

    Posted in Apologetics

     

    A New Look at the Nativity

    09 Dec

     
    No Comments

    Posted in Uncategorized

     

    Welcome to this World (atheist remix)

    15 Nov

    A video produced by an atheist organization has been quite popular lately.  It is called, Welcome to this World, and is a satirical presentation of the Christian faith.  You can see the video here, and be sure to read the point by point rebuttal.

    While I think the rebuttal is great, I also think this is a good chance for Christians to go on the offensive, and show the absurdities of the atheist worldview. So I took the liberty of creating an alternative narration.  This is not “answering a straw man with a straw man” because I have taken these ideas from the atheists I have read, and they are for the most part either from Nietzsche (the most consistent atheist) or the members of what is called the New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennet, and others).

    By the way, Internet Monk was kind enough to publish my remix, and you can see the comments for that here.

    My child, welcome to this world. Before you grow up, there are a few things we must tell you.

    First, you are the chance, random result of certain biological processes, and nothing more.  Your father and I were inborn with a desire to spread our own genes and thus, you are here.  This is why we “love” you. In turn, we are also solely the result of the same impersonal drive of our ancestors to competitively reproduce their own DNA.  In truth, just as a chicken is an egg’s way of making more eggs, you are your gene’s way of making more genes.

    Oh, you will have false, deluded people who insist on making up stories about life having a purpose beyond this, but they lie. The cosmos is a closed system of matter. There is nothing outside it. Nothing.  The universe simply is. It has no purpose. And your own life, as part of this material universe, likewise simply is. It has no purpose.

    Again, because there is nothing outside the universe (or at least nothing that could conceivably affect the universe), then matter is all there is.   You may someday wonder about the “why” of this.  “Where did the matter come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?” But there is no answer to that. The matter simply always existed.  There is no reason why.

    Matter exploded into order not through the design or plan of anyone or anything, but solely through an impersonal explosion (again, don’t ask about the who or why of the explosion).  As the matter cooled, it formed itself into galaxies, stars and planets, and then somehow (we haven’t figured this part out yet) it changed into life.  That life evolved without help or design from anyone, and, in time, single cells of bacteria turned into ants, dogs and humans (including you of course).  Life is simply organized matter.

    As your young mind learns logic, it will also see the implications of this truth.  You will see, for example, that your sense of free will is an illusion.  Just as we can tell the occurrence of the next comet, we could, if we had all the data, tell the next occurrence of everything, for everything in a closed universe must operate according to the laws of physics working out the results of the big bang.  Of course, you may feel you can do as you desire.  But you forget that your desires themselves must have a previous material explanation in a closed, material universe.  As one of our great prophets, Nietzsche, said,

    If one were omniscient, one would be able to calculate each individual action in advance, each step in the progress of knowledge, each error, each act of malice. To be sure, the acting man is caught in his illusion of volition . . . this assumption that free will exists, is also part of the calculable mechanism.

    In other word, my child, your free will is an illusion.  Your own mind will convince you of this if you think through it: in a material world, where your mind itself is simply molecules colliding without reason or purpose, what could the concept of “free will” possibly mean? As another prophet, Skinner, has said, “A person does not act on the world, the world acts on him”.

    Since this is so, it follows that no actions can be “good” or “evil”. They simply are.  The Prophet Nietzsche again:

    We don’t accuse nature of immorality when it sends us a thunderstorm, and makes us wet: why do we call the injurious man immoral? Because in the first case, we assume necessity, and in the second a voluntarily governing free will. But this distinction is in error.

    Therefore, we will not punish you for being “bad” nor reward you for being “good”, for you had no choice in the matter. In any case, who are we to say what is “good” or “bad”?  We are simply pre-determined bodies of organized molecules like yourself. The only thing we have chosen by free will is to believe in a closed, materialistic universe that makes free will impossible.

    As your mind grows, you will also need to make sure to not be deluded by the idea of “truth.”  Certainly, some things will seem true.  But remember your origins! Your mind is simply your brain, a physical organ, and it, like the rest of your body, has evolved from non-thinking matter.  And no-one and nothing is there to guide this evolving, other than the unreflective desire to reproduce.  Therefore, your mind evolved, not to find truth, but to reproduce your DNA.  Simply put, we have no reason to believe your mind has any other purpose than your genitals have, and thus no reason to think the idea of truth (if there is such a thing) matters to the mind.  The Apostle Steven Pinker puts it well:

    We are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking.

    Exactly. The question to ask is not whether an idea is “true” but whether it is “useful” to spreading your DNA.  (You may wonder if this makes our worldview self-defeating; it’s is best not to think too much about that. It is not useful).

    This is the glorious world you have been born into.  Do not be deceived by those claiming you have value because you are human, or made in the image of some imaginary god.  The only difference between yourself and a fly is that your genetic information is more organized, just as a car is more complex and organized than a bike. In reality, they are both just matter. To be sure, sometimes one is more helpful than the other to get around in, but that all depends on whether you live in the Texas countryside or in downtown Hong Kong.  In reality, the matter in you (and thus, you yourself) is not more valuable than the matter in a corpse or a stone of the same size.  Of course, this applies to the other people you will meet also. Everyone and everything is the same: simply matter. And when you die, nothing will remain of you except a few memories in a few other bodies of soon-to-be dead matter.

    My child, in keeping all these things in your mind from the start, you will be one of the few to rise above the herd and see clearly.  Even some of our fellow atheists still cling stubbornly and inconsistently to foolish notions of human freedom, human meaning, absolute truth, and all the accompanying nonsense of morality, justice and purpose.  BE CONSISTENT! Then you can end up like our great martyr Nietzsche, who bravely endured the insane asylum for his consistency. Yes, you will find for yourself the greatness seeing the world like the wise skeptic Mark Twain did near his death:

    A myriad of men are born; they labor and sweat and struggle; … they squabble and scold and fight; they scramble for little mean advantages over each other; age creeps upon them; infirmities follow; … those they love are taken from them, and the joy of life is turned to aching grief. It (the release) comes at last—the only unpoisoned gift earth ever had for them—and they vanish from a world where they were of no consequence,…a world which will lament them a day and forget them forever.

    Yes, my child, welcome to this world!

     
    No Comments

    Posted in Apologetics

     

    Can a Good Christian be a Good Soldier?

    11 Nov

    A few weeks ago I met with some teens from my church and invited them to ask me any question they desired about the Bible or the Christian life.  The first question was from an intelligent young man considering enlisting in military service.  His question was, “is it okay for Christians to be soldiers?”

    As today is Veteran’s Day, it would be a good time to repeat this question.

    I answered in two parts. First, I noted that in the Gospel of Luke, when a group of soldiers asked Jesus about what it meant to follow him in their life situation, His answer was, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” In other words, don’t abuse your power for personal gain.  He noticeably did not tell them to seek civilian life. 

    Secondly, I tried to point out that the real question here (as is almost always the case) is motive.  It is certain that some men and women join the military out of a desire to serve their countrymen by protecting them from the violence of others.  In doing so, they are fulfilling the highest ideal of the Christian life: love.  Military service of this kind, like law enforcement, is the form love takes in view of violent enemies and criminals.  It is at least as noble as any other profession, and more noble than most because this kind of love involves risk and sacrifice.

    Of course, a person can also join the military for lesser reasons: economic necessity, a desire to pay for college, a hope for excitement or even simply out of a desire to inflict violence on others.  Most of these would not be examples of Christian virtue (and the last would be vice).  In this, the position of the prospective enlistee is similar to the position of the prospective doctor, lawyer or pastor: the virtue comes not from the position, but from the motive.

    Thank God for those who have loved us by protecting us.

     
    4 Comments

    Posted in Christian Living

     

    C. S. Lewis on why God is not more Obvious

    11 Nov

    A while back I wrote a post on why God is not more obvious.  C. S. Lewis answered the same question a hundred times better and more creatively, in his book, The Screwtape Letters.  The book purports to be a series of letters from Screwtape, a senior demon, to Wormwood, a recent graduate of Hell’s Training College. In these letters, Screwtape gives advice on how to tempt and destroy a human soul.

    One such letter follows.  I put it here because it is a superb piece of writing, and may help some of us who have wondered why God is not felt or seen more in our everyday lives, or why, when we have been growing in the knowledge of God, we do not seem to always possess a growing “feeling” of His presence. 

    The emphasis is mine.

     

    My dear Wormwood,

      So you ‘have great hopes that the patient’s religious phase is dying away’, have you? I always thought the Training College had gone to pieces since they put old Subgob at the head of it, and now I am sure. Has no one every told you about the law of Undulation?
       Humans are amphibians– half spirit and half animal. (The Enemy’s determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined Our Father to withdraw his support from Him.) As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for as to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation– the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks. If you had watched your patient carefully you would have seen this undulation in every department of his life– his interest in his work, his affection for his friends, his physical appetites, all go up and down. As long as he lives on earth periods of emotional and bodily richness and liveliness will alternate with periods of numbness and poverty. The dryness and dullness through which your patient is now going are not, as you fondly suppose, your workmanship; they are merely a natural phenomenon which will do us no good unless you make a good use of it.
       To decide what the best use of it is, you must ask what use the Enemy wants to make of it, and then do the opposite. Now it may surprise you to learn that in His efforts to get permanent possession of a soul, He relies on the troughs even more than on the peaks; some of His special favourites have gone through longer and deeper troughs than anyone else. The reason is this. To us a human is primarily food; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself– creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because he has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in,, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.
       And that is where the troughs come in. You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little overriding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs– to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot ‘tempt’ to virtual as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

    You affectionate uncle
    Screwtape

     
    No Comments

    Posted in Apologetics, Christian Living

     
    « Older Entries
     
    Random thoughts on life, the universe and everything