Hello to all who read this blog. Big news--we're moving Between the Trees to a new, independent domain. This will allow us to do lots of nifty things in the future, so stay tuned.
The new address is www.wordsfromtheway.com/between-the-trees/, so update your bookmarks and links now!
Also, the site will take a little time to get together. All my posts have been moved, but Jake's might take a little while. In the meantime, God bless!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
An Interesting Moment of Reflection
A girl I was friends with in high school recently sent around some questions she had about peoples' experiences with high school youth ministry. I rarely pay attention to such things, but something prompted me to read and respond to it. It was an interesting chance for me to reflect on my years growing up in the church, so I thought I'd post it here.
I don't mean these answers to be overly critical; I was blessed in many ways by the local body in which I grew up. However, I do realize that there were some major issues I was left with and have since only begun to work through.
Here's the questionnaire:
Were you involved in a youth group in jr high/high school?
Yes.
For how long?
All the way through.
Was it your own church's youth group, or another youth group?
My church's
Why did you choose to participate in the youth group that you were in?
Because it's what you did in jr. high/high school if you loved Jesus and went to church.
What did you think was the purpose for your youth group (think beyond what they said to what actually happened)?
It seems to me on reflection that the essential purpose of youth group was to socialize young people into a Christian culture. My later answers will probably explain that.
What did your youth group do well?
It had a good grasp of a need for both inward and outward growth. It challenged some of the world's presuppositions that kids were exposed to.
What did your youth group do poorly?
It seems to me, both in my own growth over the last few years and interacting with my peers coming out of you ministry, that there was a basic foundational flaw in youth ministry as I experienced it. I guess I could break down its issues into three categories:
1. It lacked a foundation solidly planted in the gospel. Like much of my experience in evangelical Christianity over the years, the gospel served as a sort of "entrance mechanism" into Christianity, after which it's purpose was essentially exhausted. What came then, under the guise of Christian growth, was essentially moralism--making kids feel bad about their sin and then encourage them to make God happy by changing. This stands in stark contrast to true Christian spirituality, which encourages a pursuit of holiness out of an understanding that God is already fully pleased with us.
2. When challenging young people toward holiness and dealing with sin, it tended to take a very surface-level approach. The vast majority of time was spent on external exhortations: don't have sex, don't drink, don't masturbate, evangelize your friends, etc. However, the root sins underlying these issues were never addressed. The fear, pride, and depravity of my heart were not dealt with well; only their symptoms. Because of this, it seems to me that the pattern produced in myself and most of my peers was to trade one sin for another: I was trained to be a moralistic, self-reliant man who primarily pursued holiness out of fear of disapproval from his brothers and sisters.
3. It was essentially pragmatic, rather than spirit-reliant. The question asked was "what works" when it came to things like growth, prayer, and outreach. Because of this, both in evangelism and discipleship I feel that a huge number of unbiblical, manipulative tools were used to try to force faith and growth upon hearts which had neither.
What would be your suggestions for improvement?Jesus Christ is the absolute center of everything we talk about. Make your sole concern with giving people a compelling view of his beauty and supremacy, his sovereign grace and absolute holiness. There will be more benefit for a young person if they get a single glimpse of the glory of God than they can find in all the emotionally-coerced, flesh-dependent methodologies men can come up with.
After graduation, have you still been involved in church and to what extent?
Yes, I am a member of Grace Chapel in Lincoln.
What do you think [has] helped you to stay involved in church?
The unfailing faithfulness of my gracious Father.
Did your youth group involve you with the rest of the church/adults? (forming adult relationships/mentorships)
Not really, although I was blessed outside of youth group with independent relationships with several godly adults in my church growing up.
Any other input that would be helpful:
Read "The Discipline of Grace" by Jerry Bridges, "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction" by Eugene Peterson, and "Grow in Grace" by Sinclair Fergusen. If you're feeling really ambitious, I would also commend to you "The Mortification of Sin" by John Owen, "Grace Abounding" by John Bunyan, and "The Doctrine of Repentance" by Thomas Watson.
I don't mean these answers to be overly critical; I was blessed in many ways by the local body in which I grew up. However, I do realize that there were some major issues I was left with and have since only begun to work through.
Here's the questionnaire:
Were you involved in a youth group in jr high/high school?
Yes.
For how long?
All the way through.
Was it your own church's youth group, or another youth group?
My church's
Why did you choose to participate in the youth group that you were in?
Because it's what you did in jr. high/high school if you loved Jesus and went to church.
What did you think was the purpose for your youth group (think beyond what they said to what actually happened)?
It seems to me on reflection that the essential purpose of youth group was to socialize young people into a Christian culture. My later answers will probably explain that.
What did your youth group do well?
It had a good grasp of a need for both inward and outward growth. It challenged some of the world's presuppositions that kids were exposed to.
What did your youth group do poorly?
It seems to me, both in my own growth over the last few years and interacting with my peers coming out of you ministry, that there was a basic foundational flaw in youth ministry as I experienced it. I guess I could break down its issues into three categories:
1. It lacked a foundation solidly planted in the gospel. Like much of my experience in evangelical Christianity over the years, the gospel served as a sort of "entrance mechanism" into Christianity, after which it's purpose was essentially exhausted. What came then, under the guise of Christian growth, was essentially moralism--making kids feel bad about their sin and then encourage them to make God happy by changing. This stands in stark contrast to true Christian spirituality, which encourages a pursuit of holiness out of an understanding that God is already fully pleased with us.
2. When challenging young people toward holiness and dealing with sin, it tended to take a very surface-level approach. The vast majority of time was spent on external exhortations: don't have sex, don't drink, don't masturbate, evangelize your friends, etc. However, the root sins underlying these issues were never addressed. The fear, pride, and depravity of my heart were not dealt with well; only their symptoms. Because of this, it seems to me that the pattern produced in myself and most of my peers was to trade one sin for another: I was trained to be a moralistic, self-reliant man who primarily pursued holiness out of fear of disapproval from his brothers and sisters.
3. It was essentially pragmatic, rather than spirit-reliant. The question asked was "what works" when it came to things like growth, prayer, and outreach. Because of this, both in evangelism and discipleship I feel that a huge number of unbiblical, manipulative tools were used to try to force faith and growth upon hearts which had neither.
What would be your suggestions for improvement?Jesus Christ is the absolute center of everything we talk about. Make your sole concern with giving people a compelling view of his beauty and supremacy, his sovereign grace and absolute holiness. There will be more benefit for a young person if they get a single glimpse of the glory of God than they can find in all the emotionally-coerced, flesh-dependent methodologies men can come up with.
After graduation, have you still been involved in church and to what extent?
Yes, I am a member of Grace Chapel in Lincoln.
What do you think [has] helped you to stay involved in church?
The unfailing faithfulness of my gracious Father.
Did your youth group involve you with the rest of the church/adults? (forming adult relationships/mentorships)
Not really, although I was blessed outside of youth group with independent relationships with several godly adults in my church growing up.
Any other input that would be helpful:
Read "The Discipline of Grace" by Jerry Bridges, "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction" by Eugene Peterson, and "Grow in Grace" by Sinclair Fergusen. If you're feeling really ambitious, I would also commend to you "The Mortification of Sin" by John Owen, "Grace Abounding" by John Bunyan, and "The Doctrine of Repentance" by Thomas Watson.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Peace War
On a less personal note, here's something I've been pondering. Through a plethora of means, I have had resurrected for me a topic of discussion which I've pondered off and on for years, that of Christian non-violence and "pacifism."
It seems to me that the problem with this discussion is how completely unwilling people are to have a view more nuanced than "violence is evil" or "violence is fine." Most evangelicals are unable to dialogue about the issue because with a knee-jerk predictability they plead extreme situations. By saying "well, if someone was raping my wife and daughter I could defend them with violence," they then presume that war, self-defense, and lethal force are all perfectly permissible in almost every situation. Meanwhile, advocated of peace tend to make the entire issue political, about war and law enforcement, and often are prone to cause divisions in Christ's body which are antithetical to their position.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the topic, some aimed at each side, as I process through it all:
1. Peace is good. This seems to me to be obvious, but I'm shocked at how often it gets missed. In an argument about what is permissible, many Christians totally miss the question of what is beneficial. We should all, regardless of our moral convictions, desire peace between people. We should never delight in war or division or violence.
2. We are to me makers of peace. Stemming out of the first topic, we are to seek to make peace in the world. "Blessed are the peacemakers." (Matthew 5) " Turn away from evil and do good;seek peace and pursue it." (Psalm 34) This is part of the calling all Christians share to be a redemptive influence in creation. I've heard it put this way: as children of the kingdom of heaven, we are to seek to manifest that kingdom which will one day come in fullness in the world now, as best as we are able. Thus, we feed the starving and care for the sick because one day there will be no more hunger and disease. In the same way, when all things are made new all wars and divisions will cease. Thus we ought to, in obedience to Scripture, seek peace in the world.
The key question this raises is: how do we fight for this peace? As I wrestle with this, I am more and more inclined to think that the answer many conservative Americans give - through superior firepower - is not biblical. Hear me out; I'll address what I would consider a possible biblical place for violence in a moment. However, the reason we use violence is not to promote peace. "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26) This is going to sound radical, but the truth of Scripture is that God gives peace as we obey Him, not as we fight for it ourselves. Think about Israel. They are promised peace not because they take up arms and fight, but because they are obedient to the Lord (Leviticus 26 is one example). "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Proverbs 16). This means that, for the Christian, we are promised peace when we "do not resist the one who is evil" (Matthew 5); when we "love our enemies and do good to those who hate us" (Luke 6). Let this sink in: violence begets violence. Peace is given as a result of the commands of God. God calls us to surrender our rights and repay evildoers with good. This means that the way to be peacemakers is not with tanks, but with self-sacrificial love.
3. There is a biblical basis for violence. A good example of this is in Genesis 14: Lot is taken prisoner, Abraham raises a raiding party and attacks his captors, Lot is rescued, Melchizedek blesses Abraham. This and numerous other examples seem to show that there is a place for violence at times for the people of God. However, this violence is not to secure peace. That, as already discussed, is given by God as a result of obedience to Him. Instead, its purpose in Scripture seems primarily to be in defending others. This means that, while perhaps not a biblical mandate, we do have to allow room for Christians to have convictions for the use of violence in similar situations. However, this is the only time it is permissible, and even then we ought to seek to use other means if possible. However, this is important, because many Christians caught up in the non-violence movement are too quick to say clearly what isn't clear from Scripture. The people of God should love and pursue peace. The people of God seemed at times to be permitted to use violence. Let us leave it at that and, withing the parameters Scripture does give, allow some room for conscience and personal conviction.
4. The primary way Scripture addresses peace is in the body of Christ. Christians should definately desire peace politically in the world. However, it would be a huge error of interpretation to read many New Testament texts as primarily pointing towards this. Instead, their first concern is that we have peace with our brothers and sisters in the church (Romans 14, 2 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 12, etc.). This should be a high calling to all, but particularly to those in the Christian Pacifism camp who tend to look down on and ridicule other believers with different, perhaps even wrong, convictions. We must not speak about loving peace in the world until we have gone to the brothers we have offended and been reconciled with them.
This also means that we must seek to be united with our brothers around the world. Our first allegiance should not be between America and Arab, but between those who love Christ in both nations and those that don't. We must strive for peace with all, but particularly within the body. "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God" (Eph 2:19). We should never view our nations' enemies as our own, lest we end up in doing so hating those who share with us as members of Christ's bride.
Obviously, I'm still processing a lot. Any thoughts would be welcome. However, I would exhort us of one thing: to live by what Scripture clearly teaches. To truly seek to love peace, whatever precisely that looks like. "Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war!" (Psalm 120)
It seems to me that the problem with this discussion is how completely unwilling people are to have a view more nuanced than "violence is evil" or "violence is fine." Most evangelicals are unable to dialogue about the issue because with a knee-jerk predictability they plead extreme situations. By saying "well, if someone was raping my wife and daughter I could defend them with violence," they then presume that war, self-defense, and lethal force are all perfectly permissible in almost every situation. Meanwhile, advocated of peace tend to make the entire issue political, about war and law enforcement, and often are prone to cause divisions in Christ's body which are antithetical to their position.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the topic, some aimed at each side, as I process through it all:
1. Peace is good. This seems to me to be obvious, but I'm shocked at how often it gets missed. In an argument about what is permissible, many Christians totally miss the question of what is beneficial. We should all, regardless of our moral convictions, desire peace between people. We should never delight in war or division or violence.
2. We are to me makers of peace. Stemming out of the first topic, we are to seek to make peace in the world. "Blessed are the peacemakers." (Matthew 5) " Turn away from evil and do good;seek peace and pursue it." (Psalm 34) This is part of the calling all Christians share to be a redemptive influence in creation. I've heard it put this way: as children of the kingdom of heaven, we are to seek to manifest that kingdom which will one day come in fullness in the world now, as best as we are able. Thus, we feed the starving and care for the sick because one day there will be no more hunger and disease. In the same way, when all things are made new all wars and divisions will cease. Thus we ought to, in obedience to Scripture, seek peace in the world.
The key question this raises is: how do we fight for this peace? As I wrestle with this, I am more and more inclined to think that the answer many conservative Americans give - through superior firepower - is not biblical. Hear me out; I'll address what I would consider a possible biblical place for violence in a moment. However, the reason we use violence is not to promote peace. "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26) This is going to sound radical, but the truth of Scripture is that God gives peace as we obey Him, not as we fight for it ourselves. Think about Israel. They are promised peace not because they take up arms and fight, but because they are obedient to the Lord (Leviticus 26 is one example). "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Proverbs 16). This means that, for the Christian, we are promised peace when we "do not resist the one who is evil" (Matthew 5); when we "love our enemies and do good to those who hate us" (Luke 6). Let this sink in: violence begets violence. Peace is given as a result of the commands of God. God calls us to surrender our rights and repay evildoers with good. This means that the way to be peacemakers is not with tanks, but with self-sacrificial love.
3. There is a biblical basis for violence. A good example of this is in Genesis 14: Lot is taken prisoner, Abraham raises a raiding party and attacks his captors, Lot is rescued, Melchizedek blesses Abraham. This and numerous other examples seem to show that there is a place for violence at times for the people of God. However, this violence is not to secure peace. That, as already discussed, is given by God as a result of obedience to Him. Instead, its purpose in Scripture seems primarily to be in defending others. This means that, while perhaps not a biblical mandate, we do have to allow room for Christians to have convictions for the use of violence in similar situations. However, this is the only time it is permissible, and even then we ought to seek to use other means if possible. However, this is important, because many Christians caught up in the non-violence movement are too quick to say clearly what isn't clear from Scripture. The people of God should love and pursue peace. The people of God seemed at times to be permitted to use violence. Let us leave it at that and, withing the parameters Scripture does give, allow some room for conscience and personal conviction.
4. The primary way Scripture addresses peace is in the body of Christ. Christians should definately desire peace politically in the world. However, it would be a huge error of interpretation to read many New Testament texts as primarily pointing towards this. Instead, their first concern is that we have peace with our brothers and sisters in the church (Romans 14, 2 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 12, etc.). This should be a high calling to all, but particularly to those in the Christian Pacifism camp who tend to look down on and ridicule other believers with different, perhaps even wrong, convictions. We must not speak about loving peace in the world until we have gone to the brothers we have offended and been reconciled with them.
This also means that we must seek to be united with our brothers around the world. Our first allegiance should not be between America and Arab, but between those who love Christ in both nations and those that don't. We must strive for peace with all, but particularly within the body. "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God" (Eph 2:19). We should never view our nations' enemies as our own, lest we end up in doing so hating those who share with us as members of Christ's bride.
Obviously, I'm still processing a lot. Any thoughts would be welcome. However, I would exhort us of one thing: to live by what Scripture clearly teaches. To truly seek to love peace, whatever precisely that looks like. "Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war!" (Psalm 120)
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Thank you Dr. Witherington
I don't know much about Ben Witherington, from what I've heard he sounds like an American Tom Wright who evangelicals find a little more acceptable since he's not as into the New Perspective on Paul as Wright is.
In any event, I am now a fan. I didn't know much about him but I've read two posts of his on Rob Bell and absolutely loved both of them. (Post 1 and Post 2)
Witherington is an example to all Christians of how to graciously offer criticism. And honestly, this is the first criticism of Bell I've come across that is gracious, edifying, and critical all at once. If you're interested in Rob Bell or the emergent church, read Witherington's posts to get a good, balanced perspective on Bell, and to some extent, the larger ECM. But even if you aren't, read Witherington's post as an example of how to lovingly offer criticism, which is an area in which we can all probably improve a great deal.
In any event, I am now a fan. I didn't know much about him but I've read two posts of his on Rob Bell and absolutely loved both of them. (Post 1 and Post 2)
Witherington is an example to all Christians of how to graciously offer criticism. And honestly, this is the first criticism of Bell I've come across that is gracious, edifying, and critical all at once. If you're interested in Rob Bell or the emergent church, read Witherington's posts to get a good, balanced perspective on Bell, and to some extent, the larger ECM. But even if you aren't, read Witherington's post as an example of how to lovingly offer criticism, which is an area in which we can all probably improve a great deal.
Piper on marriage
John Piper is doing a series on marriage at Bethlehem right now that is outstanding, if you haven't already, head on over to Desiring God and look through his recent sermons, whether your married, dating, or single, I think you'll find the advice helpful. It's solid advice for all our relationships, but especially marriage.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Squeezing My Camel Through the Needle's Eye
"Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD ?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God."
-Proverbs 30:8b-9
As I have been processing through a number of things and looking toward the future, I have been thinking a lot about money and possessions and how Christianity should shape our approach to these things. Increasingly, I am being convicted that I am deeply sinful about such matters, and am quite frankly largely unwilling to actually let Scripture speak to the suppositions my culture have left me with.
In meditating on this passage, I have been thinking a great deal on the truth of scripture that it is not good to be rich. That in asking for our "daily bread", we ought not only to mean no less, but also no more. The true testament is that riches, while they may be blessings from God, are also a snare of the devil. I more and more realize that my easy life sounds much like this:
"And as for [the seeds which] fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature."
Think with me on all the things we trust in and take for granted, the things we expect as our due, which are in truth signs of exorbitant wealth. In the West, we believe that it's okay to buy new things just because they're new. We see nothing wrong with buying things like clothes not because our old ones have worn out, but because the new ones are fashionable-or even just fun to buy. It seems perfectly normal for us to go on vacations all over the world, at least once a year, and live there in luxury. The same with the assumption that its natural to remodel our homes or apartments because we're tired of the way they are. Nobody blinks at the thought that its fine to purchase high-definition television, or video game platforms, or $200 cell phones. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that because we are surrounded by excess and gross affluence, we are unable to see it for what it is. I know this in my own life. Its easy for me to say "I'm not rich-look at that guy over there." But the truth is that we are all incredibly wasteful of what God has given us, and that this makes it extremely hard for us to follow Him.
Just bemoaning the problem is easy for me. But the challenge is actually living it. I'm not proposing that we live in huts in jungles. But what I am seeking to make my aim is something almost as revolutionary. Imagine if we Christians all lived in houses no larger than we needed, drove cars until they broke, and only bought clothes when our old ones were unwearable. If we stopped paying exorbitant amounts of money for cable television, golf course memberships and mp3 players. If we didn't lavish money on landscaping and interior decorating. If the church lived this way-really did it, seeking to have no more than the cultural equivalent of their "daily bread"-the world would be indelibly marked by it. It would rock our society to its very core.
And now my prayer is that I would not only think on this, but do it. That I would stop wasting money on my own entertainment and comfort, and instead use it in the service of the Lord. That these words would haunt me:
"But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs."
-Proverbs 30:8b-9
As I have been processing through a number of things and looking toward the future, I have been thinking a lot about money and possessions and how Christianity should shape our approach to these things. Increasingly, I am being convicted that I am deeply sinful about such matters, and am quite frankly largely unwilling to actually let Scripture speak to the suppositions my culture have left me with.
In meditating on this passage, I have been thinking a great deal on the truth of scripture that it is not good to be rich. That in asking for our "daily bread", we ought not only to mean no less, but also no more. The true testament is that riches, while they may be blessings from God, are also a snare of the devil. I more and more realize that my easy life sounds much like this:
"And as for [the seeds which] fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature."
Think with me on all the things we trust in and take for granted, the things we expect as our due, which are in truth signs of exorbitant wealth. In the West, we believe that it's okay to buy new things just because they're new. We see nothing wrong with buying things like clothes not because our old ones have worn out, but because the new ones are fashionable-or even just fun to buy. It seems perfectly normal for us to go on vacations all over the world, at least once a year, and live there in luxury. The same with the assumption that its natural to remodel our homes or apartments because we're tired of the way they are. Nobody blinks at the thought that its fine to purchase high-definition television, or video game platforms, or $200 cell phones. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that because we are surrounded by excess and gross affluence, we are unable to see it for what it is. I know this in my own life. Its easy for me to say "I'm not rich-look at that guy over there." But the truth is that we are all incredibly wasteful of what God has given us, and that this makes it extremely hard for us to follow Him.
Just bemoaning the problem is easy for me. But the challenge is actually living it. I'm not proposing that we live in huts in jungles. But what I am seeking to make my aim is something almost as revolutionary. Imagine if we Christians all lived in houses no larger than we needed, drove cars until they broke, and only bought clothes when our old ones were unwearable. If we stopped paying exorbitant amounts of money for cable television, golf course memberships and mp3 players. If we didn't lavish money on landscaping and interior decorating. If the church lived this way-really did it, seeking to have no more than the cultural equivalent of their "daily bread"-the world would be indelibly marked by it. It would rock our society to its very core.
And now my prayer is that I would not only think on this, but do it. That I would stop wasting money on my own entertainment and comfort, and instead use it in the service of the Lord. That these words would haunt me:
"But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs."
Monday, February 19, 2007
The problem with worldview thinking...
One of the buzzwords in Christian culture today is "world-view," in fact, I'm seeing that word in lots of places, and I can see why. It's a very nice simple way of describing a person's life philosophy. It's also free of the philosophic and religious jargon that our generation finds so unappealing due to it's sometimes-obscure jargon and the connotations related to authority that is so repulsive to our generation. The church has jumped on the world-view bandwagon too. Books like Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth, D.A. Carson's The Gagging of God, and earlier works like The Universe Next Door by James Sire, the books of Francis Schaeffer, Os Guiness, and Chuck Colson (all of which are excellent) have all discussed the importance of a Christian world-view whose message impacts all of life.
I think it's a good thing for Christians to be thinking about, it's good for us to see our beliefs as having a larger impact than exclusively personal or political issues. It's also helpful to have an understanding of other world-views and the ideas behind them when you're dialogging with non-Christians.
But I'm starting to think that world-view thinking has the potential to be very dangerous. As more and more churches are offering classes discussing world-views- Christianity, naturalism, existentialism, nihilism, deism, etc.- I fear we're doing a poor job of equipping Christians to enter the market place and express their ideas to individuals.
While it is good for Christians to understand what existentialism, nihilism, naturalism, post-modernism, modernism, and deconstructionism are, it is equally important to understand that you will not find many people who label themselves as such. And if you impose such a label on them based on one or two comments they make then you're likely to begin thinking, "OK, how'd my class teach me to talk to nihilists?" rather than, "What are the needs of this individual in this moment?" I grew up in a church that labeled everyone outside as "unbeliever/sinner" and drew up a memorized program to use in addressing them. I'm glad we're moving away from that unbiblical, unloving, and anti-the-way-of-Jesus idea. But is it really that much of an improvement if we simply shift to having several different labels to use for those outside the church and then memorize speeches for each of those labels? It's still mechanical and impersonal. Granted, it's better than the "they're a sinner, bash 'em with the bible," approach, but it still isn't the biblical approach that sees each individual as an image-bearer with their own specific questions that need to be addressed and prejudices to the gospel that need be eliminated.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Christians are trying to see their faith as all-encompassing, and I'm grateful for the greater interest in the philosophies of others so that we may more effectively address them, but I fear that, with the church's tendency to label and over-simplify, that we're simply trading one error for a slightly less dehumanizing (though equally unbiblical) error.
Thoughts?
I think it's a good thing for Christians to be thinking about, it's good for us to see our beliefs as having a larger impact than exclusively personal or political issues. It's also helpful to have an understanding of other world-views and the ideas behind them when you're dialogging with non-Christians.
But I'm starting to think that world-view thinking has the potential to be very dangerous. As more and more churches are offering classes discussing world-views- Christianity, naturalism, existentialism, nihilism, deism, etc.- I fear we're doing a poor job of equipping Christians to enter the market place and express their ideas to individuals.
While it is good for Christians to understand what existentialism, nihilism, naturalism, post-modernism, modernism, and deconstructionism are, it is equally important to understand that you will not find many people who label themselves as such. And if you impose such a label on them based on one or two comments they make then you're likely to begin thinking, "OK, how'd my class teach me to talk to nihilists?" rather than, "What are the needs of this individual in this moment?" I grew up in a church that labeled everyone outside as "unbeliever/sinner" and drew up a memorized program to use in addressing them. I'm glad we're moving away from that unbiblical, unloving, and anti-the-way-of-Jesus idea. But is it really that much of an improvement if we simply shift to having several different labels to use for those outside the church and then memorize speeches for each of those labels? It's still mechanical and impersonal. Granted, it's better than the "they're a sinner, bash 'em with the bible," approach, but it still isn't the biblical approach that sees each individual as an image-bearer with their own specific questions that need to be addressed and prejudices to the gospel that need be eliminated.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Christians are trying to see their faith as all-encompassing, and I'm grateful for the greater interest in the philosophies of others so that we may more effectively address them, but I fear that, with the church's tendency to label and over-simplify, that we're simply trading one error for a slightly less dehumanizing (though equally unbiblical) error.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
