I think it has literally taken me a few years to adjust to Sunday being a work day, and I have grown to absolutely love late Sunday afternoons after all the services and meetings are over. It’s one of those few times during the week I get (usually) a few quiet uninterrupted hours to spend with Deborah watching a game or to read. A while back on the recommendation from Piper on the Role of Poetry in the Christian Life I picked up the book A Sacrifice of Praise, An Anthology of Christian Poetry in English from Caedmon to the Mid-Twentieth Century (yes, I seem to just find books with long titles). I came across this poem by Chesterton, with a short title, called The World State I thought I would share below.
The World State
Oh, how I love Humanity,
With love so pure and pringlish,
And how I hate the horrid French,
Who never will be English!The International Idea,
The largest and the clearest,
Is welding all the nations now,
Except the one that’s nearest.The compromise has long been known,
This scheme of partial pardons,
In ethical societies
And small suburban gardens—The villas and the chapels where
I learned with little labour
The way to love my fellow-man
And hate my next-door neighbour.
I love the subtle in your face presentation of the “second greatest commandment” here found in Matthew 22. There is just something about the Brits and the French that make me laugh and I can hear this poem being read aloud in a British pub somewhere like The Eagle and the Child in that awesome British accent. Chesterton was a poet, writer, and literary critic in the very early 1900′s and was friends with H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, and others. He also wrote, among many other things, Saint Francis of Assisi.
Posts Related to This Topic:
I love this shot of Jason, Eddie (our driver in Uganda), and myself. If you are holding a machete in the middle of the woods-jungle I think it’s a rule, you have to stop to have a photo taken. Jason and I were attempting to clear a few branches away for a lady who lived on the property and to say thanks she gave Eddie these awesome avocados (you can just see her in the photo in the upper right background). Actually, we both thought it would be really cool to get to use a machete to do some actual real work, and I ended up with the machete and Jason the axe pipe thing (sorry Jason).
I know I have said it before but it still amazes me. The speed and priorities of life in Bulboa where this lady lives is so extremely different from the west, even different from just up the road in Kampala. Life down in Buloba isn’t really run by a clock on a wall like we know it, and no one seems to be in a hurry to do anything, it’s just TIA (this is Africa). I didn’t really hear that said too much while I was over there, but I did hear it a few times, which generally refers to “whenever”. I personally loved that and enjoyed the down time, especially since that pretty much doesn’t exist at all on this side of the world. I fight for it every week but it’s certainly not the norm no matter how hard you try to slow things down. The little wood we chopped up was supposed to last her about a month, although I’m not sure how, the same bit of wood wouldn’t have been enough to start a fire to me. We did spend about an hour or two walking around this neighborhood while others in our group worked on some painting. It was very low key, very laid back, very TIA.
Over here this week life moved along at our normal breakneck speed. Nothing inherently wrong with that but every minute of every day is packed full and it didn’t take me any time at all to fall back into life at hyper-speed where you have to fight for margin. Margin is where life happens, where we meet with God and remember why we do what we do.
Posts Related to This Topic:
It’s Friday, and since we didn’t go anywhere exciting today other than to drive over to Columbus, my Friday Feet pic is rather boring, but there were some “great” church signs along the way as usual.
I have a pretty additive habit-hobby of church sign reading, sometimes it’s just like train wreck TV, you just can’t turn away. It is, at least in the south, a method of communication for local churches, and for Christianity in general (a very very broad range version of general). Since we spend so much time contemplating, discussing, and meeting about communication in our staff meetings at my own church I have no doubt that many of the church signs I see and read are not accidental. Church signs represent as broad a range of Christianity as their are Christians, and it shows. I just wonder if they at least think about the greater message they are presenting to the drive-by sign reader. I’m sure not everyone reads every single church sign they drive by like I do, but still, what message are you trying to communicate to the casual non-church-goer reading your sign? I have nothing against any of these churches of course, I’m sure their all great churches… but the last 2-3 weeks I have driven by this one church they have had two different, negative signs, which drives me nuts, but I’m not on their communication team, so oh well.
Posts Related to This Topic:
One of the things I love about our particular church is that we are always talking about reaching the unreached… reaching deeper into the community of Auburn and Opelika trying to find ways to bring the Gospel to those who haven’t heard the Good News (a command throughout the New Testament I might add).
One of the ways we do that is once a month the entire staff gets together and walks through the various issues that are the church. Yesterday we discussed the “status quo” of doing church in our culture today and the above image was one page of my notebook where I took notes as we all discussed the topic. I love being a part of these discussions and talking about what the church body looks like in 2012. Since my job is generally on the administrative side of ministry and not that of a pastor, (sometimes it’s hard to remember Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, the Church needs everyone’s gifts and talents to reach the unreached) but God’s church needs everyone to be involved, not just staff members and volunteers, but everyone.
Will Our Generation Respond to Scripture?
In one of John Piper’s books I’m just finishing up called Jesus: The Only Way to God – Must You Hear the Gospel to Be Saved? he makes this conclusion for the church today.
The question for the church in every generation is: Will we submit gladly to the Scriptures? Will we devote ourselves to understanding them truly, valuing them supremely (under God himself), applying them properly, obeying them wholeheartedly, and speaking them courageously and publicly?
I think this is a great challenge for the American church today. We have built a culture around consumerism church instead of our worship services being a joyous celebration of what God has done the previous week. This is the status quo of “church” is something that takes place for one hour on Sunday morning where we get to hear some good music and an encouraging 17 minute message.
If we truly believe Paul’s words in Romans 10:13-17, then we have a great responsibility to reach at least those unreached people in our immediate community and then beyond.
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Do We Continue to “Sit and Soak”
Question is, how will this play out in our churches in 2012? How does the “sit and soak” mentality of the American church leave Romans 10 unfulfilled (among many other verses as well), and how will we reach those people right here in our own community? Fulfilling the status quo is the most comfortable thing to do, but it’s not very productive for reaching new people for Christ.
The church today should not be about a specific building, or a specific cultural group, or time frame, or a set format. Yes, scripture, orthodoxy, sound doctrine, and at some level, traditions of the early church, are very important and should be a strong foundation, but buildings, times, formats, and everything that goes along with all that, should not be a barrier to those seeking to know the Lord.
Posts Related to This Topic:
After months of looking at “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream” by David Platt, i finally decided i had to go ahead and read this book. Having read and studied several books and/or articles that discuss the concepts and failings of what we call the “American Dream”, I already had my own opinion about the topic, but still think it’s a worthy topic today. Radical ended up not really being focused so much on the American Dream as it was to focus away from the concept.
Whether we acknowledge it or not we are probably influenced by this concept in one way or another, and much of the time it tends to be a self-focused concept, how do I maximize my 401k, get that house, car, computer, whatever. Radical attempted to remove that self-focused concept and replace it with a global evangelistic focus that Jesus calls for in Matthew 28.
The book is a compilation of a sermon series given by the pastor of The Church at Brook Hills, Dr. David Platt, after he returned from several international missional type trips a few years ago. i have read a few other reviews that have also suggested listening to the complete sermon series in addition to reading the book. Many have said it takes the book even deeper, so eventually I hope to listen to those as well. After a longer introduction period of a few chapters, Platt goes through seven truths, which are the premise for the text and lead to Platt’s conclusion, and eventually to his call to action. The truth statements come from this evaluating proclamation…
If people are dying and going to hell without ever even knowing there is a gospel, then we clearly have no time to waste our lives on an American dream.
The Seven Truth’s of Radical:
- TRUTH 1 : All People Have Knowledge of God
- TRUTH 2 : All People Reject God
- TRUTH 3 : All People are Guilty Before God
- TRUTH 4 : All People are Condemned for Rejecting God
- TRUTH 5 : God Has Made a Way of Salvation For the Lost
- TRUTH 6 : People Cannot Come to God Apart From Faith in Christ
- TRUTH 7 : Christ Commands the Church to Make the Gospel Known to All Peoples
With each explained in detail, Radical proceeds into the final call to action with, what I read as the ultimate conclusion of the text.
…that means there is only one potential breakdown in this progression [of truths] —when servants of God do not preach the gospel to all peoples
This leads into Platt’s call to action. A one year plan, in five steps (or points), that intend to bring the believer into closer alignment to the truths in the Gospel message instead of continuing on a path towards the elusive American Dream.
Concluding Critique About Radical
For those with an evangelical background Radical will be a hard but familiar call to constantly evaluate our lives against the truths of the Gospel. Not only does it cause us to examine our lives more closely but it gives specific, tangible examples (or points) which are easy to evaluate, like reading the bible completely in one year (either you did or you didn’t).
Some may see this as works, or a process or program, but I don’t believe that is Platt’s message to believers at all. The Gospel is a call to live a radical life unlike that of the world, and Radical confirms this. It isn’t about a program to do this or that, it is about a life changed, and living a lifestyle for God not for self.
For those with a more liberal theology, or those who view some sermons as annoying guilt trips, Radical will probably be seen more as another radical pastor calling on people to give up all their worldly possessions, give them to the “poor” and go somewhere overseas to spread Christianity (which actually is in the bible too, but no doubt some will find it annoying to say the least). While they will appreciate the social consciousness aspect to Radical’s call, some will see it as an “evils of riches” guilt trip.
It is not a book that is going to answer all the questions, but it will stretch the believer into thinking beyond ourselves and the small boxes we tent to live in, especially here in the United States. Some questions that came to mind were:
- How much is enough?
- What can we live without for the sake of the Gospel?
- Where do we spend our time and is it worth our time?
- What do we see in ourselves when examining our life against scripture?
- What will we do with the five action items in Radical?
It is always interesting to see if a book stands the test of time. One way I look at the effectiveness of a book is how well does the author make their arguments, and will the book survive the initial pop culture publication. In other words, does the author make convincing enough arguments to make the book either (1) entertaining, (2) does it make you change or examine the way you think, or (3) does it even change your actions and how you live. In short, does the book shape you in some way or form.
Since I rarely read books for their entertainment value, I hope for one of the latter points, and that is where Radical lands. It made me think, it changed the way I do a few things, and it caused me to take a hard look at my long term calling. I would highly recommend Radical to anyone who has a teachable spirit and is willing to take a new look at old ways of doing Christianity beyond Sunday morning.
Posts Related to This Topic:
After recent comments on my blog lately I once again was reminded how so many people in this world are actually seeking a reality of their own making, not the real truths that are actually real. This post-modern time we live in lends itself more and more to an absolute void of real objective truth and more to the relative nature of truth, which means truth is really just what you make it out to be. So below is part of how we studied “truth” in seminary, with something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is almost better illustrated by the graphic above. If this doesn’t interest you then please head over to The Fillmer Photo Daily blog where I post mostly pictures (and few words), there is always something new to see there as well.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is actually a tiny little worldly example at the bottom of this post so we have something to compare to what really is the way we get to Biblical truth, but you get the idea.
How Do We Arrive at What is True
This isn’t something new to us, even though we love to think it is with all our modern computer equipment and knowledge. Ling before we appeared, Pilate asked Jesus the rhetorical question, “What is Truth?”
Truth appears to be a property, that is an aspect of certain statements. 2+2=4 is obviously true. 7×5=15 is obviously not. Giraffes have long necks is obviously true. Hippos have red spots is not. The question though for the Correspondence Theory of Truth is, what is truth a property? In this case, there are three candidates: Truth is a property of sentences. Truth is a property of statements. Truth is a property of propositions.
What’s the difference between these?
A sentence is a group of written words, that contain a subject and a verb.
A statement is the occasion of the use of a sentence by someone.
A proposition is what is asserted when a statement is made, the content of the statement.
One may assert the same proposition with two different statements:
- George is a fine fellow who can be trusted.
- Mr. Shannon is a man of integrity who can be relied upon.
Both statements are about George Shannon, and both are true because they assert the same proposition.
One may use the same sentence to assert two different propositions:
- This is really cool!
- This is really cool!
In this instance the same sentence refers once to a dish of ice cream and then to a new car.
We also speak of beliefs as being true or false. Beliefs are basically propositions. They may be stated in sentences. Again the same belief may be stated in different sentences stating the same proposition:
Christ died for our sins.
- Jesus Saves.
- We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
- There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Every truth may be represented as a proposition. Don’t be misled by those (postmodernists) who speak of “non-propositional truth.” If it is a truth it may be stated in a proposition—that is as a sentence which expresses the truth. Some thinkers see truth as a property of representations, linguistic representations or mental ones. They are mistaken. Others see truth as a property of propositions which are represented or expressed in thought or speech.
The best known theory of truth is the Correspondence theory of truth goes something like this: Whether what is said about the world is true or not depends on how the world is. In other words, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the way things really are.
Let’s label a proposition with the letter P. P may stand for any proposition you want. Under the correspondence theory of truth, P is true if two conditions are met:
- It is a fact that P
- The proposition corresponds to that fact.
For each true proposition, there must be a fact.
The association of truth with fact entails the association of words with world. In other words, it is possible to use words in ways that accurately describe the way the world is, even if some this this is impossible. This is absolutely essential if the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God” is to have any meaning at all. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians assert that the Bible gives, in words, an accurate, inerrant, description of the way the world is, of what has happened, and of what will happen. The sentences in the Bible, understood in context, accurately portray reality. That is, the propositions expressed in the Bible correspond to the way the world really is.
The Correspondence theory of Truth
This is the “scientific” definition, which serves less of a purpose here but it does have an important place.
The coherence theory of truth states the following: A statement is true if it coheres with other statements. The test of truth is internal. The system of statements one makes must cohere, must be consistent. If one proposition in a group is not consistent with the others, we know that the whole system is not true.
Propositions are truth-bearers. Those who hold to the coherence theory say that truth cannot consist in the relationship between truth-bearers and that which is not a truth bearer (such as a fact). Here is a problem with the theory already. It divorces truth from facts. Truth, these theorists say, consists in the relationship which truth-bearers have to one another. This may be a relation of mutual support among a set of beliefs or non-contradiction between them, or they may together support an overall concept..
We should point out that this theory leads to a relativism, since contradictory systems may be internally consistent. Moral relativists say that there is no external morality, nothing for moral statements to correspond to. If a moral standard makes sense to you that is all that we need.
Religious pluralists—those who believe that all religions are equally valid, that all of them lead to God, depend on the coherence theory of truth. Since all the different religions make sense in terms of their own system, then all are equally true. (It may be argued, however, that not all religions are even coherent within their own system, but this is another matter.
The important thing for us to remember is that the coherence theory separates “truth” from “facts” and seeks only internal consistency. Postmodernists like this theory.
Is the coherence theory of truth useless then for Christians? Not at all. God is consistent and rational. He has created a consistent world for us to live in. Coherence is helpful to us as a negative test—no set of propositions can be true if there is a contradiction within them. The truth will always be internally consistent. By itself, however, that is not enough. True propositions must be consistent with other true propositions, and together, all true propositions must correspond to the way the world is.
Some who defend the Christian faith do so on the basis that the Bible offers a coherent view of reality, and that it corresponds to the world as we actually live in it. No other religion or philosophy offers the same kind of benefit. Even coherent philosophies break down when we try to actually live by them. They just don’t correspond to the way the world really is. Francis Schaefer (The God Who is There) defends the truth of Christianity on this basis.
In conclusion the graph at the top really says it all. There actually are truths in this world, but they are surrounded by false propositions and we only gain knowledge when our beliefs overlap the truth.
Posts Related to This Topic:
Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.
The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).
Brief Explanation of Exclusivism
Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.
Brief Explanation of Pluralism
Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.
Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.
One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.
The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .
Brief Explanation of Inclusivism
This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.
Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.
An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:
It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.
Reflections on Religious Pluralism
Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church. My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well. One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.
Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life. Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp. Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:
“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith. It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]
And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying
If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life. But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.
These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be. In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “
The media views what is or is not fair in two ways. One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today). Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.
A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14. In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part). The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference. Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.
Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.
[1] Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savoir (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonervan Publishing, 1994), 69-92.
