Eternal Perspectives

Jollyblogger has written an informative and typically reasonable post about Halloween and the Christian response to it. What follows is a comment I started to post there but thought it not considerate: better that I should defile my own blog instead of his. Here’s what I was thinking:

You know, there’s a difference between being fools for Christ and just being stupid. There are people in the United States, in your town (likely), and in your church (perhaps) that live in poverty, can’t make ends meet, can’t afford medications for things like – this is a fact – chemotherapy, and we sit around a whine and debate the pros and cons of Halloween, wondering if we should take our $50,000 SUV to run our sugar-crazed kids around the upscale neighborhoods or put on our $150 running shoes and get a little aerobic exercise instead.

“To use the old sermon illustration, most Christians don’t give a shit that other believers are living in deplorable conditions – and the proof that most don’t care is that they’re more upset that I said “shit” on a Christian blog than they are that people live like that.

“We – and I include myself – need either to stop playing around and calling ourselves Christians or to get serious about living in a way that people will recognize that we’re Christians – without bumper sticks, asinine fish emblems, expensive crosses on gold chains, tee shirts, or anything else to let the world know that we’re God’s chosen people. I suspect many nonbelievers are happy to have us display such visible identifiers: it’s like belling the cat. The fact that we have to have such trinkets is evidence of our decadence and our failure to embody Christ.

“For Christ’s sake, a lot of us need to get back in the closet and not come out until we’re ready to live a life that glorifies our Savior. And maybe Halloween will take care of itself.”

As though it were a new thing, there has been a lot of blogtalk and books written recently about why men don’t seem to like church very much. Perhaps some of the best insights I’ve encountered came from a 1991 book entitled Uneasy Manhood, written by Robert Hicks, who at the time was Professor of Pastoral Theology at the Seminary of the East.

Hicks’ book covers a lot of different aspects of a man’s life and offers some insights as to why men aren’t very comfortable in some of our roles. Here’s a few of the chapters:

Uneasy Boyhood
Uneasy Paycheck
Uneasy Solitude
Uneasy Fathering
Uneasy Spirituality

It’s a very good read – I’d tell you to buy it, but you can’t find it: Hicks used the word “phallic” in the same sentence with “Jesus” and thus was literarily castrated – but I’ll glean some of his words from his chapter “Uneasy Sundays”:

First, most men compare themselves to the image of the minister. The media’s portrayal of the minister is one of the most often perpetuated exercises in systematic brainwashing. The clergyman is usually a priest or a priest type dressed in distinct garb, and of course, the producers choose an innocuous-looking, effeminate man for the part . . . To the average viewer, the minister lives in anonymity, on the fringe of life; he shows up only for cameo appearances at weddings, funerals, and presidential invocations.

“But the real problem lies in the fact that this life-on-the-fringe phantom (minister) becomes the model of both spirituality and masculinity for wives and women in general. The pastor is the perfect man, the spiritual man personified, the man a wife wishes her husband were like.

“This is a terrifying aspect about the ministry – knowing that women in the congregations are constantly comparing men like me to their husbands! . . . The man in the pulpit becomes a subtle enemy to most men. There is nothing appealing about his life to other men.”

Dr. Donald Joy speaks of ‘the deformed male as the norm in our society,’ which has taken two forms. One is the macho man who deals with his deformity by compensating for his insecurity through ‘acting’ manly rather than being manly. The other is the feminized deformed male who has given up on being a man and runs away from his manhood; he feels more comfortable on the feminine side of life . . .

“The minister holds a pivotal position in our culture to model both realistic manhood and more realistic spirituality. For this to happen, however, a change of thinking on both sides of the pulpit or altar must occur. The average man asks, ‘What do I have in common with this man, and why should I listen to him?’ The new males, the postwar babies who have been educated, if not brainwashed, into thinking that integrity is related more to vulnerability than to performability, ask, ‘Are you for real? Do you struggle where I struggle? Are you going to shoot straight with me about your inner life?’ . . .

“To do what needs to be done to reach and win men for the church, the leaders must figure out whether they want the appearance of perfection or honesty in their ministers.”

Another reason Sundays are uneasy for men is that they don’t understand the game. Men appreciate having clear leadership and knowing the rules of the game being played. In their absence, every man must figure out what in the world the pastor is trying to do and what the church is all about. A minister needs at least three years of study to figure it out, and then he spends the rest of his life trying to implement it. The man off the street doesn’t have a clue, especially if he is a convert late in life. One man told me when he first started attending the church, he though the Epistles were the apostles wives! . . .

“In preparation for one of the Lausanne conferences on evangelism, Dallas businessman Ford Madison was asked to speak on the role of the layman in world evangelization. He surveyed various men who were actively involved in their churches to get a feel for what they thought their pastors really expected of them. He asked, ‘What do you think your pastor expects of you as a layman?’ Ford said he was surprised by the results. The number one expectation was for men to give money. The number two perceived expectation was to attend and support all the church programs. The third, in Ford’s words, was, ‘Don’t rock the boat.’ . . .

“Men perceive the church a certain way and then act in accordance with their perceptions. If the perceptions are off, their actions will be, too . . . Once men see what the church is all about and have a personal share in its ministry, they feel at home there . . .

Until men look upon ministry as more than attending a meeting or making decisions, we will continue to lose the best men. In a little book he wrote in 1947, Elton Trueblood asked, ‘Why is it that the church is not getting the best men?’ His question intrigued me, and his answer continues to haunt me. He replied, ‘Because they are the best men . . . the best men are not interested in trivial things’ . . .

“Christianity is no trivial pursuit. As C.S. Lewis concluded, if it is true we should not sleep at night. But the way Christianity is presented and lived out in the church, it is often reduced to the most insignificant trivia. It’s no wonder men want no part in it . . . If we do not call men to true Christianity and challenge them to invest their lives personally, not institutionally, I fear we will continue to lose the best men . . .

“I have seen too many good men leave the church or church leadership because they were tired of playing the games and they saw a lot of what the church was doing as a waste of time. We must recapture the church for men, defeminize it, and make our appeals to men where it will cost them something more than their money or their time. Christ wants their lives.”

How do we reclaim men for the kingdom of God and get them into the doors of the church? I wish I knew a surefire answer. But two images come to my mind . . . one is the image [of] the sterile, cold, formal, flowery image of church with over half its audience women. The other image is the most recent Flyers hockey game I experienced, and I do mean experienced! I looked at the audience, by far more men than women. What were they wearing? Anything! Some were dressed for the stock exchange; others for the Philly meat market. How did they behave? Were they passive, quiet, unemotional, refined gentlemen? Hardly. They were involved, vocal, upset, yelling, celebrating.

“I thought to myself, ‘Here is a man’s world, a place where he can let it all out, be himself, wear anything he desires, and they still let him in. And he actually pays to come!’ But what about the church? No, there a man can’t be himself: he has to watch what he says, act appropriately, and wear a neatly pressed and coordinated suit and tie. Then it hit me: We’re all dressed the way our mommies always wanted us to dress. We’re all nice, clean little boys, sitting quietly so we won’t get into trouble with our mothers!

“Am I suggesting we turn the church into a hockey game? Of course not . . . But I do know that men will come to something and pay for it when we identify with it. It’s obvious we don’t feel that way about church . . .”

To be continued . . .

My mother died at 5 pm today, Oct 12th. I’ll be back sometime.

Thanks.

I am as guilty of this as anyone; my tongue is no less sharp than another’s and, if I think it might be dull, I quickly find a way to sharpen it. I write this to myself; perhaps to you, as well. But hopefully not.

My poetry is lame but all the same, with apologies to Thomas Hardy (The Man He Killed), I offer:

The Souls We Kill

Had he and I but met, I say,
In some old church or pew,
We should have sat us down to pray
As Christian brothers do!

But with our anonymity,
Remote in cyberspace,
I railed at him as he at me,
And put him in his place.

I attacked because –
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That’s clear enough; although

He thought he’d surf, perhaps,
Off-hand like — just as I –
He had some time — a cherished lapse –
No other reason why.

How dangerous our words can be!
You wound a soul in pride,
Failing at that time to see,
T’was him for whom Christ died.”

Bowden at Counseling Notes has an interesting post asking whether or not Christians have what it takes to stay married. Identifying some of the faulty reasoning that too often leads to an unbiblical divorce, he observes:

Generally, the thought process goes something like this: A) God wants me to stay married. B) If I am obedient and stay married, I will be miserable for the rest of my life. C) If I’m disobedient and divorce, God will forgive me and I can be happy for the rest of my life.

Any counselor or pastor who has done much marital counseling has run into this rationalization for sin. Some time ago I encountered it in a pastor who decided he wasn’t happy and was going to divorce. He did not quote Heinrich Heine, but his attitude was no less callused:

“God will forgive me. It’s his job.”

A passage popped into my head when I heard the flimsy rationale and I told the man,

“Yes, I suppose He will, but there are still consequences. It’s like what Jesus said about those who do their praying, fasting, and tithing in such a way as to be noticed and praised by others. He repeatedly said,

Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.” – Mt 6.2, 5, 16 (NASB)

“You might very well divorce, be forgiven, remarry, and be happy. But I hope it is unbelievably happy because it’s all the reward you’ll ever get. Forget about eternal rewards: you’ll have your reward in full, in this lifetime. But there won’t be anything in the next.”

He didn’t much care for my answer and said he didn’t believe it. To be honest, I wasn’t sure I believed it either at the time, but as I thought about it I became more convinced. In situations where there is an unbiblical divorce, the guilty party – not the innocent one – can expect to be forgiven but cannot legitimately expect for there to be eternal rewards for being a good husband or wife in the next marriage.

The decision to end a marriage for less than Scriptural reasons has consequences. The loss of future rewards – which is no small matter – is one of them. A person can choose divorce but they cannot choose the consequences of divorce, whether in this lifetime or the next.

A-

Hardly anything gets by you… You have a great memory and eagle eyes

(HT: Marla Swoffer)

[The following was originally posted at Theologica and is reproduced here for those who are too tired to click to that site.]

In an earlier post I likened some theological arguments to “gorillas thumping their chests, peacocks strutting, and bodybuilders striking a pose to look better than others.” My point was that such interactions too often turn out to be more for show and to puff ourselves up than to promote love or further the purposes of the Kingdom of God. The earlier comparisons hold but, upon reflection, I realized that the jawing of two male hippos might be more appropriate. At left is a candid photo of me looking for a fight (did you know I can open my mouth an amazing 150 degrees, i.e., enough to put my foot in it?) that illustrates my point.

Some may think it strange that on a blog devoted to theology – hence, the name Theologica – space and energy would be devoted to the manner in which we engage in in-house theological discussion. Ultimately, however, the study of theology is wasted if it does not result in changed behavior toward God, people, or both. This discussion, therefore, gets to the purpose and practice of doctrinal pursuits.

There are numerous statements that seem designed to excuse unloving or reckless words in such exchanges. Perhaps you have encountered – or used – some of them yourself. Admittedly I have far too often said such things in the past to justify my calloused comments. They appear to be reasonable and wise comments meant to take the sting out of what has been or is about to be said. The following are representative.

Don’t take it personally.”

“I’ve got to speak and defend the truth.”

“Iron shaprens iron, you know.”

Starting with the last statement, let’s explore these claims a bit.

It is true that “iron sharpens iron”: Pr 27.17 states, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (NASB). The question is whether this is true in every exchange between people or only in certain ones. It is not difficult to think of interactions in the Old Testament wherein the result was not necessarily beneficial to both. David’s confrontation with Goliath seems to have been a sharpening experience for the former but not so much the latter (1 Sam 17). The meeting of Samuel and Agag (1 Sam 15.32-33) also comes to mind. In the New Testament, Peter’s rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira seemed to be somewhat “dulling” for the deceitful couple.

Advice and commands to the contrary are also found in Scripture. Though there are many verses from the same book, i.e., Proverbs, that could be adduced, the following will suffice to dispel the universal application of 27.17:

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.” – Pr 18.2

“When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.” – Pr 29.9

Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of being a fool (i.e., one who behaves as if there were no God; see picture of me at right) but am only seeking to demonstrate that there are some interactions that do not result in a mutual benefit. Iron can sharpen iron but, as anyone who has ever sharpened a knife knows, if it is not done properly iron can actually dull iron. So slapping Pr 27.17 on an argument does not prove that all such discussions are profitable.

Second, it is also true that Christians need to speak and defend the truth. The admonitions are hard to miss, especially in the New Testament. It is no less clear, however, that Christians are called to take the high road and to do the right thing in the right way. Perhaps the most obvious and sufficient statements come from Paul:

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
“but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
“from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” – Eph 4.14-16

“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” – Col 4.16

“We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” – 1 Th 5.14

Even with the “unruly” we are commanded to be “patient.” So our discussions and disagreements are limited by behavior that is loving, gracious, and patient.

Finally, there is my personal favorite: “Don’t take it personally.” If I understand this correctly, it means that I should not have an emotional reaction to an attack on my belief system but should instead process it cognitively and dispassionately, perhaps even stoically. The problem is that this is not possible: all thought has an affective component to it. The question is whether or not we are aware of the emotional valence or not.

LeDoux and Goleman argue that it is basically impossible to have conscious thought without there being an emotional component attached to it, but that the opposite is not true. All thoughts have emotions connected to them to some degree. Emotions are basic to the brain and are either consciously or unconsciously operative in any thoughts – and therefore conversations – we might have.

Fear, in fact, might be the most basic dimension of our mind – perhaps this is why Jesus so frequently told His disciples to “Fear not”? When something is said or communicated to us, it is impossible not to respond emotionally at some level. We are far better off being aware of what that emotional reaction is than to convince ourselves that we are not emotionally involved or moved by something that is said. Emotions will push us from behind if we are not aware of how they are influencing our thoughts and subsequent behaviors.

We need to keep this in mind, therefore, when we speak or write to others. How we say things is no less important than what we say. As the body of Christ, we have a wealth of knowledge and resources that any one of us – or even any single church or denomination – lacks individually. If we are to benefit from those resources, however, we must be diligent to obey 1 Cor 16.14: “Let all that you do be done in love.”

All of us are prone to be suspicious of those who are “not like us” theologically; when such messages are couched in angry, disrespectful, or condescending tones it is especially difficult not to shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

Many of our transdenominational theological debates, I am convinced, have less to do with defending our faith and far more to do with gorillas thumping their chests, peacocks strutting, and bodybuilders striking a pose to look better than others.

Here is a typical scenario in which I find myself with some regularity: a person writes something which I consider to be unloving, graceless, unedifying, or some other offense that I – being the final judge and arbiter of all such things – deem worthy of a reply. I respond by addressing the spirit, not the letter, of the post or comment, and am then charged with ducking an argument or being afraid to engage in “honest and loving disagreement.” Here’s why I don’t take the bait and why I think we would all be better off to resist that temptation, too.

First, I just don’t have the time, and I don’t think I’m unique in this regard. I certainly enjoy theology – but not for the purpose of debating others of different convictions. I enjoy theology because it enables me to know God better: it gives me a glimpse not just into His attributes, but His character, His being. When I study theology, even as when I read and meditate upon Scripture, I feel closer to Him, as though I am seeing His heart a bit more clearly. For me, that is the highest good of theology.

Second, I avoid theological debates because I rarely know whether or not my opponent or adversary has done her homework. It is likely true that I’ve read more Reformed authors than dispensational ones, especially when it comes to commentaries. I have used more than a few of Calvin’s commentaries, as well as those by Moo, Cranfield, Fee, Bruce, Morris, Lane, and others. I’ve studied Chafer’s systematic theology, it’s true, as well as Ryrie’s extended treatise on doctine, but I’ve also read Calvin’s Institutes and systematic theologies by Lewis and Demarest (former profs), Carl Henry, Erickson, Warfield, Hodge, Murray, and others both in and out of the Reformed camp. I went to two seminaries that were more Reformed than dispensational: one, in fact, was quite antagonistic toward the latter.

I understand fairly well why Reformed people believe what they do, how they understand the Scriptures, and the hermeneutic they have employed to come to their conclusions. I deeply respect them and their tradition. If they want to learn, I would be happy to explain what I believe; I have learned much from Reformed writers and teachers who took the time to answer my questions. In return, I’m not going to waste their time by trying to change their minds about their carefully studied opinons. Personally, I am thankful for the many contributions from non-dispensationalists and respect the scholarship of the true Reformed theologians and exegetes.

I also am reluctant to argue my theology when I have reason to believe that my “opponent” doesn’t have the basic tools to do theology. I realize that this sounds quite elitist and arrogant, but I don’t mean for it to be. When a computer programmer wants to tell me why my theology is incorrect, however, I find myself wondering about his qualifications. I also wonder how he might respond if I began to tell him why his code was all wrong even though I know comparatively little about programming. It is wonderful for all Christians to read and study theology, but for those who do it parttime and/or lack exegetical skills it is somewhat presumptuous to assail biblical scholars with statements dismissing decades of study. Not that I’m a biblical scholar, but I’m not the one specifically being attacked. I’m just one of their groupies, I guess.

Again, if this were an individual who simply sought to understand the dispensational position more accurately or in more depth – even if they weren’t interested in changing their position – that would be a different matter. I’d be happy to point that individual in the direction of numerous books that can explain it far better than I might. But to engage someone whose mind is made up and seeks only to derisively rail against me – well, see my first point: I don’t have the time or energy.

Further, I avoid such debates because the internet is not the local church. If this individual were in the church of which I am a member and were saying such things in such a manner, that would be another matter. But this is the internet and that individual is someone else’s sheep – or shepherd, as the case might be. It’s not my place to try to proselytize or condemn them, even as it is not their place to do the same with me.

Finally, I stay away from these fights because they are distractions and nuisances. These are not the battles we should be fighting: other believers who adhere to different nonessential doctrines are not the enemy. The time we spend fighting one another would be more wisely spent battling against truly dangerous doctrines and beliefs that are infiltrating our local churches. Or we could focus our energies on confronting our culture and endeavoring to demonstrate the viability – and necessity – of our common faith. Or even – perish the thought! – evangelize people instead of arguing with the redeemed.

(As an excursus, I have had a personal realization: it was long my impression that, of all the denominations and traditions in Christendom, the Reformed position was the one characterized by the best scholarship among the average believer. I no longer believe that, due in no small part to the poor or absent scholarship of many Reformed believers who ignorantly attack and misrepresent other positions. This is leads me to believe that what has appeared to be depth of learning is but heavy indoctrination in a particular belief system. Not surprisingly, those Reformed believers who are diligent about their studies are rarely the ones doing the attacking or misrepresenting. In-depth study of theology produces humility and a stunning awareness of how little one truly knows.)

As I was thinking about all of this, I came across a book review by Roy Zuck in Bibliotheca Sacra of The World Is Not My Home: The Origins and Development of Dispensationalism by Michael Williams. I found the review to address some of the same concerns I have had. Zuck wrote,

“As is well known, covenant theologians and dispensational theologians differ in their views on eschatology and related matters. Scholarly discussions of those differences can be beneficial in helping each side understand the other. But it is unfortunate if propenents of one view misrepresent the opposing view. Regrettably Williams, a covenant theologian, in analyzing the dispensationalism of C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, repeatedly distorts their teachings. Williams’ scathing attacks against classic dispensationalism do not advance the cause of scholarly research…

“How can scholarly discussion be advanced when Williams twice calls dispensationalism ‘naive’ (pp. 178, 211) and says that the soteriology of Scofield and Chafer is ‘the product of fuzzy-headedness’ (p. 210)? It is unfortunate that so many unwarranted conclusions about dispensational theology have been drawn, and it is disturbing that misrepresentations abound in this book. Readers are encouraged to read Scofield’s and Chafer’s works and evaluate for themselves whether their views are faithful to God’s word.”

There is a final – and most important – point I will make on this matter, but it will be reserved for a later post since this one has already gone on much longer than I intended. For now, suffice it to say that some respect, humility, and love would be a welcome addition to such exchanges in the future. We need to build one another up, not tear down.