Church Voices

Many Christians are turned off by apologetics, philosophy, and things of that sort because “evidence leaves no room for faith.” For example, in his popular commentary of 2 Corinthians, N. T. Wright says

“People tell us we’re stupid to go on believing [things by faith]: where is the evidence, they ask? But if everything was obvious, or at least could be proved in some way, where would faith be? We must beware of any suggestion that the Christian faith gives us the kind of ‘certainty’ that people often crave. If I have that kind of certainty, I no longer need to trust God.” (Paul for Everyone: 2 Corinthians [WJK, 2004], p. 57)

What is especially odd about this is the apologetic value characteristic of Wright’s work. For example, at the end of his massive defense of the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives, Wright himself states that the empty tomb and appearances have an historical probability which is so high as to be “virtually certain,” like the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 or the fall of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (The Resurrection of the Son of God [Fortress Press, 2003], p. 710)

Then there are those Christians who, enthusiastic about what apologetics and philosophy can show, smugly assert “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”, or that “even atheists accept things on faith.” I want to suggest both attitudes misrepresent what Biblical faith is.

Faith, in the Biblical sense, is actively placing your trust in what you have reason to believe is true. But don’t stop there. This act is essentially a response to the Holy Spirit, which in turn confers an attitude of confidence, assurance, and, I would say, certainty of what John Edward’s called “the great things of the Gospel.” The problem with both positions above is that they exclude the Spirit’s role in faith by assuming it is only a matter of evidence. Hence, Peter’s exhortation to all those who bore witness to the Spirit’s presence at Pentecost (Acts 2.36):

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified”

“Jesus did not die at the hands of muggers, rapists, or thugs. He fell into the well-scrubbed hands of deeply religious people, society’s most respected members.” -Brennan Manning

The most important issue weighing into who gets my vote in presidential elections is that of abortion. Let me just say on the onset that the legality of abortion is logically posterior the morality of abortion. Only after abortion is shown morally justified or unjustified should its legal status be determined. Furthermore, deciding the morality of abortion is fundamentally a matter of philosophical debate, not scientific (even though scientific considerations factor heavily into one’s philosophical position).

The key issue in the abortion debate is, of course, the status of the unborn; more specifically, the personhood of the fetus. Articulating and defending adequate criteria for personhood is the task of the philosopher. Indeed, the entire concept of personhood is philosophical. No scientific evidence could establish personhood per se. What scientific evidence that is relevant to the abortion debate, however, is contemporary biomedical evidence of human characteristics sufficient for personhood (brain-wave activity, complete genetic blueprint, etc).

And regarding such evidence, let me just say that no rational, sane person can now deny its overwhelming verdict. In the words of the world-famous French geneticist Jerome LeJeune, “to accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion.” Embryonic and genetic research has conclusively demonstrated human characteristics sufficient for personhood are present as early as the moment of conception itself. To say, therefore, that “the human fetus is not a human person until the morning that the mother goes into labor,” as the high court ruled in South Korea last year, is complete scientific poppycock. As one author put it, such an understanding “…is so biologically ignorant that I would call it medieval, except that would be to insult the medievals!” Rather than insult the medievals, therefore, I’ll just call such an understanding premodern, outmoded, and archaic.

In light of such evidence, the law desperately needs to be amended. The inconsistency is simply mind-boggling: In the one courtroom you have the fetus denounced as human yet, in another, you have a man convicted of double-homicide for murdering his pregnant wife. In one hospital room you have doctors vigorously trying to save a five-month old preemie yet, in another, you have them heartlessly aborting a nine-month old, full-term baby. You have someone vote to end the War in Iraq because of the number of U.S. deaths (3700 and climbing) yet, flip his ballot over and vote for abortion (number of abortions in the in U.S. since Iraq War began: 6,286,671 and climbing).

Check out some of these statistics. They’ll blow your mind.

The more we seek happiness, the more our search ends in depression. The more we pursue freedom, the more enslaved we become by our pursuit. The more we hunger for power, the more we starve by serving its limitlessness. The more pleasure we chase the more pain it engenders.

The common woes of life all result from a misguided pursuit for their respective virtues. This is because the virtues of life are necessarily byproducts of fulfillment of a deeper kind. Seeking the virtues for themselves is to put the cart before the horse. Their richest enjoyment is always incidental.

Seek the Kingdom of God above all else…. and all these things will be added to you.
Matt 6.33

“Teacher, of all the commandments, which is the most important?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and most important commandment.’
Matt 22.36-38

Paradoxically, our greatest earthly desires are only satisfiable when we no longer desire them.

Dan Goldfinch hit me with a book meme.

The rules are very straightforward and go as follows: 1. Grab the nearest book (that is at least 123 pages long).
2. Open to p. 123.
3. Go down to the 5th sentence.
4. Type in the following 3 sentences.
5. Tag five people.

This is from 1,000 Places To See Before You Die, by Patricia Schultz:

One of France’s most enchanting country hotels lies on 200-acre working ranch in the heart of the intriguing region known as the Camargue, along France’s southern coast. A microcosm of the area’s wild, rugged scenery, the ranch is both a government-protected bird sanctuary (known for its flock of pink flamingos) and the final frontier for the gardians, some of the last cowboys in Europe. you can ride out on one of the 300 snow-white Camargue horses, or help the herders gather the stocky black Camargue bulls, which are raised for races.

I’m supposed to tag five other people with this thing, but I think I’ll just hit up Christian Penrod and Chad McIntosh.

A 1980 Gallup Poll on religion concluded that

…we are having a revival of feelings but not of the knowledge of God. The church today is guided more by feelings than by convictions. We value enthusiasm more than informed commitment.

One of my favorite questions to ask Christians is “if you could summarize the message of the entire Old Testament in a sentence or two, how would you do it?” You’d be surprised by how…ludicrous some of the answers I’ve heard people give are. It makes me worry that there are a vast many Christians who have never even read the Gospels, for in them Jesus answers essentially that very question. Similarly, go up to your average congregant and ask definitions and explanations for the theological terms and concepts with which they wax eloquent, such as grace, mercy, atonement, justification, Trinity, repentance, incarnation, and most of all, faith. The inarticulate gibberish you’ll likely hear makes it seem like the 400 years of thinking the Church Fathers put into them were all for naught.

Christians treat God’s will as though it were some giant mystery or puzzle. I think there are a number of problems with this view, theological and Biblical. Most confusion about the issue of God’s will I think is due to conflating the following two questions:

(1) What is God’s will?
(2) What is God’s will for my life?

Consider the latter. It is by framing the question of God’s will only in the context of (2) it becomes shrouded in mystery. One problem with seeing God’s will thusly, for all practical purposes, is that it aids us precious little in life. Even if we think we’ve ‘figured out’ a part of God’s will for us, such wouldn’t seem to get us any closer to answering the larger question “what is God’s will for my life.” This is because you have no way of knowing how and if this smaller part even fits into the larger picture—and if you say you do, then you no longer treat God’s will as puzzling or mysterious. Knowledge of God’s will becomes arbitrary at best, more than likely resembling your own will than His. The only difference between the two is a false pretense of prostration.

Moreover, ask yourself “why would God make his will for your life puzzling and mysterious?” If he is really serious about us living accordingly, do you really think he would give it to us in the form of an enigma? If so, could we really be blamed for falling short? That’d be like entering a game without being told the rules only to be disqualified and ejected for reasons unknown to you. In short, the problem with (2) is its narcissism. Once we put the emphasis where it belongs (God) the question of God’s will is pretty straightforward:

For this is God’s will, your sanctification…
1 Thes 4.3ff

Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.
Rom 12.1-2

God’s will is not some fated course of events. God’s will for your life is the same for everyone’s life: personal sanctification. Holiness. All the rest—what college you go to, who you marry, what pair of socks you wear—I am inclined to say God doesn’t give a crap. This presents the following paradox: The more in accord you are with God’s will, the freer you become in your own will. This is, I think, the gist of Colossians 3.23: “Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men.”

Click here to listen to the interview Tim Reed conducts with XXXChurch.

From Steve:

So this really smart guy, the atheist, asks a question of the professor:

“What do you mean when you say the word ‘grace’?”

He had never really been exposed to the theological concept that is Christian grace.

I almost wanted to turn around and excitedly explain it to him myself. The professor did a decent job of defining grace in a textbook fashion, but I found it wanting because it was devoid of the personal encounter. As I think about it, I think she defined it without any reference to Jesus [which is entirely legitimate as grace was present in the Old Testament. But I’m not sure I would now converse about the topic without noting the importance of Jesus’ death].

Then again, I wondered, “if an atheist asked me, ‘what is grace?’ would I have an acceptable response?” As a minister with over a decade of theological schooling, I’m still not entirely sure how I would answer that question. This isn’t to say that I haven’t chewed on it myself; trust me, I’ve thought a lot about it. But I suggest that how we define grace ought to differ from person to person, i.e., we each view the grace of God differently in our own lives. And that’s one of the amazing aspects of the gospel message- there is no one true definition but it can be expressed in many different ways without losing it’s transformative power.

Perhaps there are times when we who are fluent in “Christianese” ought to beware that we assume people know what we’re talking about. Faith is a complex matter and it never hurts to double check to make sure you’re being understood.

Podcasting from his basement in Owosso Michigan, Tim Reed talks to Nathan Neighbour about what makes Mosaic church in LA successful.