Archive for the ‘Mission’ Category:
Confessions of A Christian
2 Peter 1:3-11
“Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”
This short confessional statement makes it clear that the realization that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior produces a life change. So when this confession is made, what does it mean? Most Christians hear these words so often that we can repeat them without considering their implications. As a result, I am going to attempt to define each of these loaded terms with regard to their Biblical context and describe which aspects we as a culture tend to omit or elaborate. Read more »
The Value of Risk in a Risk-Averse Culture
When I was in high school, my Dad encouraged me to pursue a career in financial planning. I really did like the idea of helping people get out of debt, invest wisely, and build wealth. But the career I really wanted was in law enforcement. While my Dad wanted me safely behind a desk from 8-5, I wanted the freedom of keeping the peace in a roaming patrol car at all hours of the night.
I’ve learned over the last several years that I’m a bit of a closet adrenaline junky, and thrive in stressful or risk-inherent environments. But I’ve also learned that this is not necessarily the norm for our culture.
Read more »
the allure of separation
It’d be nice to get away and stay away, wouldn’t it?
Definitely. That really sounds sweet right now. Some distance. Getting away. Running away. Why not?
Since the inception of the Christian church, movements within Christianity have advocated, at one time or another, a separation from society as a standing way of life. The corruption is rampant, they’ve basically said, and we must cut ourselves off to save ourselves, our children, our faith.
The “Country Club” Church Is Crap.
Say that ten times fast…
Danielle recently made a comment concerning a post comparing Jack Bauer of the TV Series 24 with Jesus Christ:
And I think there’s a comparison to the church in there. Because although the suspense is pretty cool (as in what will happen here on earth, as well as after we die), it is the human parts of the story that compel people to keep reading/listening/feeling/believing perhaps. And the church has been nothing if not revolutionary in history. Jesus’ story is a prime example.
It instantly reminded me of a couple quotes that generally make me want to pick up sword and shield to charge headlong into this cosmic revolution. This is an axe I gring almost continually. Having not grown up in the church, paradigm for what church should be is not as convoluted by tradition and/or fundamentalism. I am perhaps more able to read how the church is portrayed in scripture without the baggage of moralistic rules and cultural taboos. Of course, I do have other things that cloud my judgment, and there are people who have grown up in the church and are able to see through much of that. But this is something that is particularly close to my heart because of my experiences.
For your reading pleasure, here are two of my favorite quotes Read more »
Jesus Christ and… Jack Bauer?
This post makes me smile. Mark Driscoll, a Seattle Pastor often criticized for being “overly macho” and dudely (to which he will gladly admit to the latter and deny the former as even being possible) wrote an article last year that I keep coming back to for some valuable perspective and laughs.
While I am not nearly as outgoing in my “dudeliness,” or advocation thereof, I certainly appreciate the perspective and agree that a responsible, biblical, and moral masculinity is sorely lacking in our culture. Neither he nor I are advocating misogyny, subjugation of women, or anything else that would disagree with the heart and spirit of equality between the sexes. Rather, we both see a need to redeem men in our culture to values like responsibility, fatherhood, loyalty, faithfulness, sacrifice and selflessness service. Driscoll’s article uses humor to connect biblical masculinity as lived out by Jesus to similar parallels in culture. In this instance, we have the pleasure of giving you Jack Bauer.
Enjoy!
Read more »
Individualism or Community
As I continue to work through the doubt of my faith, I am drawn by the love of a community around me. When I found myself in my hardest moments of doubt, I do not need someone to give me the “quick answers.” I don’t believe there are any easy answers to most hard questions. Although discussion is key, sometimes community is just a friend with an open ear, an open mind, and a loving heart. Unfortunately this idea of community is undermined by the individualism of our culture.
“No Christian is an island” as the saying goes. Yet it is hard to be in community in our society. American individualism is the dominant view of our culture. Each person must live for himself. At best we can unite as a family, city, or a patriotic nation. Many encouraged me to keep some distance from my family after I moved back in with my parents due to their probable adoption of a 19-month-old baby. To many a family member’s primary duty is not to the family, but to his or her self.
Apologetic Approaches
In my last post, Extreme Apologetic Approaches, I began to explore how much neutral ground Christians and non-Christians have. After reading more, I think putting Van Til as an extreme was incorrect. Chuck Beem’s comment really challenged me to explore this, and I found Colin Brown’s view of Van Til not wrong in as much as unbalanced. Van Til did believe a Christian apologist could, and should use extrabiblical evidence. I would like to explore two apologists, Francis Schaeffer and John Frame, who may provide better approaches than natural theology or Barth.
Much could be said (and has been said) about Francis Schaeffer, but I will limit myself to a few ideas of his. Francis Schaeffer believed that God and nature must not be divorced when discussing apologetics. He saw this as the problem with natural theology and supernaturalism. Natural theology holds to nature and seems to unduly elevate philosophy and reason. Furthermore, the God proven in this system of thought is quite impersonal. However the use of only the supernatural seems to deny God’s immanence (His closeness, interaction with, and presence in creation) and leaves no place to dialog with the nonbeliever. Schaeffer’s approach may be summarized as a series of hypotheses from the Bible, the observable world, and a sufficient explanation of the world. These hypotheses form Schaeffer’s Christian worldview.
Schaeffer believed God is necessary as a basis for morality, law, and truth, but common ground exists for the Christian and Non-Christian. The non-Christian will always have some flaw in their worldview. It may be that their worldview does not provide a sufficient explanation of a given issue, or it may be that the worldview flatly contradicts itself. This is because all truth is a part of God. Thus to try to explain the world without God is to argue without a basis for truth. Non-Christians can experience things like love and beauty, thanks to the common grace of God. Non-Christians also understand the tenets of logic. The non-Christian and the Christian can cheerfully dialogue on such topics, because of a shared understanding.
I have been reading John Frame’s book Apologetics to the Glory of God. In the area of neutrality, Frame argues that an apologist “may use extrabiblical data in apologetics, but not as independent criteria to which Scripture must measure up” (21). Furthermore, Frame says
“the use of extrascriptural evidence…may be seen as part of a godly use of Scripture itself. It is an obedient response to Scripture’s own view of the world. In Scripture’s teaching, nature points to God; so the obedient Christian apologist will show the unbeliever the various ways in which nature reveals God, without claiming neutrality and without allowing the use of non-Christian criteria of truth” (25).
Frame believes the apologist should argue from agreed upon presuppositions, but should not be limited by them. Frame believes that the non-Christian has a flawed view of nature.
To ask anyone to step outside of his or her worldview and defend their worldview is an impossibility. Would an empiricist ask a rationalist to empirically prove rationalism? The idea is absurd. I cannot step outside of my presuppositions, but I can focus on the presuppositions where a Christian worldview and another worldview agree. On of the foremost goals of any two distinct worldviews should be first to find commonality on which they can interact.
Suggested Reading:
Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame
The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer
