This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on May 12, 2010
One of the things that really bothers me in some Christian circles is the hyper-defense of God’s power and sovereignty. Now, for the record, I am Lutheran in background and emphasis, and Lutherans are not typically known for being big on ‘sovereignty’ type stuff. We’re supposed to see that sort of thing among Calvinists. Actually, though, I see it within Lutherans as much as I see it anywhere else so rather than pick on my Calvinist friends allow me to illustrate it from my own home denomination. (The faithful reader knows that I rarely, rarely, rarely address denominational issues and hardly even allude to them. Stick with me here.)
Lutherans are big on being saved by grace through faith, and not by works. They make a big deal about how a person’s efforts- their own reason and strength (read: or personal decision) aids in one’s salvation. Of course, this is proper to a point. But what then would we make of a comment such as this one from the Apostle Paul? Paul says,
I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22)
Whoa. Hold the horses. Paul is saving people? Holy cats. I thought that was the work of God! The sole, and exclusive domain of the Holy Spirit! And yet here you have Paul issuing forth blasphemy!
The Lutherans that I know who ‘hyper-defend’ God seem oblivious to this passage, and numerous ones like it. There is irony in this, because Lutherans are theologically equipped to incorporate Paul’s statement in a cogent manner, talking about things like the ‘means of grace,’ the emphasis on vocation, and things of that sort. In this case we might point out that while it is God who saves, surely, he has decided to do this through certain means- and these means include the body of Christ, the Church. (They would add: ‘through the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.) Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 16, 2010
I am my child’s advocate; you aren’t.
I know my child. This child is mine. Mine to protect and mine to cherish.
You are quite convinced that Immunization X will not harm my child.
But then you send my child home. We live with the consequences. You don’t.
You say that only this few out of this many will have a reaction. This few is acceptable to you. You don’t take them home and live with them.
I may decide this few is too many because I know that if my child is part of the ‘few’ I am the one responsible.
It is my call. Back off. Show some respect.
I am my child’s advocate.
If I don’t advocate, who will?
If I won’t represent his and her best interests, who will?
My child is not a statistic. Behind ‘public health data’ are real people.
You take care of the numbers. I’ll take care of my people.
I am my child’s advocate. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 24, 2010
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 17, 2010
My ministry will be hosting an online apologetics conference this May with the theme of ‘literary apologetics.’ The general idea is to impact the culture in intentional ways to pave the way for better reception of the Gospel of Christ. So culture is on my mind.
Something I’ve been pondering for awhile is this: Is the culture war over? And did we lose it?
I part company with those who seek to Christianize the culture as though this in itself is a noble goal. It seems to me that this would in effect merely make our culture a ‘white washed tomb.’ More important than the culture are the people within it and their state of mind and eternal fates. Nonetheless, people are strongly influenced by the culture at large whether they know it or not or admit it or not. An unfriendly culture will make it harder for people to receive the Gospel.
I believe that. To an extent. I note, however, that the Christian Church itself exploded into existence within a culture that was not yet, by virtue of the fact that there wasn’t a pervasive Christianity to Christianize, Christian. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 10, 2010
I’ve been thinking about the culture wars lately. I have a real problem with Christians who seem to be driving for a change in the culture just for the sake of having a ‘holy’ culture. I think we’d have to call that a legalistic culture. I believe that the Christian church should be about something more than creating white-washed tombs.
On the other hand, the nature of ‘culture’ is that it perpetuates itself, feeds itself, fuels itself. The culture is the air we breathe and the water in which we swim. It has the ability to mold us into its image, and once so molded, we mold others in that same image. Resistance isn’t exactly futile, but it is difficult. Conformity to the culture is the path of least resistance. It would behoove us, therefore, to ensure that the culture is not toxic. If the culture is healthy, the path of least resistance will more likely result in healthy beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on November 24, 2009
Today I posted a blog entry at a companion site proposing specific ways in which churches can exhibit love. These ideas involve setting up the congregation’s property in a way that is designed to do just that.
The two ideas I mentioned are… using ‘spare’ land to grow food to give to the needy and other purposes and build low income housing right on the congregation’s premises. I discuss and to an extent defend these ideas there, and don’t worry, I’ve got more ideas coming down the pike. You may comment on those ideas here or there.
What I did dwell on there but would like to spend just a moment speaking to here is this premise: “Congregational facilities should reflect the mission of the church. Where you put your money says something about what you value. You can tell a lot about a church and the Church by looking at its buildings and where it puts its money.”
Now, I don’t think this is a controversial premise. Moreover, I don’t think it applies only to the Church. I think this is just a general truism about money and people. But I ask: if true, what message is being communicated about what the Church values in view of the property usage by many, if not most, churches in America? Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 5, 2009
This essay is long- some 2,000 words. But I think it is worth reading. Print it out if you like if that makes it easier.
————————
‘Individualism’ has a bad rap, even among Christians. To be fair, there are things in ‘individualism’ that I think are unhealthy or even immoral, too, but the key thing to remember is that any opposite of ‘individualism’ is not necessarily preferable. If we’re going to raise up ‘inter-connectedness’ (a neutral term, I hope) it must be done thoughtfully, and it cannot obliterate that which is moral or good in ‘individualism.’
The only folks that I’ve ever heard defend ‘individualism’ are the Objectivists- the offspring of Ayn Rand, that spunky atheist who escaped the clutches of communism. Rand’s views on the individual seem to be expressed most succinctly, and passionately, in her little book Anthem
, which is a favorite of mine. There is a flaw in her book however: the intrinsic value of the individual is assumed; no basis for it is provided.
And no wonder. In atheism, no basis for the value of the individual human can be provided. At best, the individual human values himself, and then out of concern for his own interests forges a social compact with other individual humans not hurt him. That is secular humanism at its core. But this can only go so far. Once ‘social compacts’ are on the table, the ‘good of society’ becomes an obvious next step. “The most good for the most people.”
I won’t explore the inevitable progression from there (“Someone must decide what that good is”) and discuss the history of abuse that consistently emerged within these systems. These are not the point of this post, but you can find comments on it on this blog and the issue is discussed in my fictional book series, Birth Pangs.
The point, here, is that within secular humanism and atheistic systems, the only thing that lasts from one generation to the next is the State. Society and the State become the ‘highest’ level organism, and the individual a mere cell within it. From the point of view of the State, the individual has as much value as a skin cell which can be scraped off and safely discarded. Naturally, more valuable cells you want to keep around- while they have utility- but the ‘brain cells’ never lose sight of the fact that the cell’s value is strictly in what it can contribute to the ‘body.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
