The Slippery Slope

I know this isn't the purpose of this site. But this is an interesting political read.

Good Company, Good Art, and a Good Laugh

Good Company, Good Art, and a Good Laugh: By William Edgar

Freedom From the Quiet Time Guilt

Freedom From Quiet Time Guilt

Forgiveness

Forgiveness
I imagine I’m watching, that ghastly event
The sky torn with blackness, the veil has been rent
A parched throaty cry barely comes from my mouth
Can this be that justice that needs to be dealt?
Vulgar, obscene, An affront to my sense
That my savior would suffer, all for my expense
No judge ruling fairly would allow such a crime
No guilt he does carry, save only my wrong
My eyes shut in horror, scarce can believe
This act of injustice, that fulfills my need
No token of fealty, nor act of remorse
Can pay back this debt, nor would it come close
A fool would not think it, to make such a bid
Rather grace shows it’s splendor, in "Father forgive!"

Lewis on Pleasure

Pleasures are shafts of glory as it strikes our sensibility. . . . But aren’t there bad, unlawful pleasures? Certainly there are. But in calling them “bad pleasures” I take it we are using a kind of shorthand. We mean “pleasures snatched by unlawful acts.” It is the stealing of the apples that is bad, not the sweetness. The sweetness is still a beam from the glory. . . . I have tried since . . . to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration. I don’t mean simply by giving thanks for it. One must of course give thanks, but I meant something different . . . Gratitude exclaims, very properly, “How good of God to give me this.” Adoration says, “What must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!” One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun. . . . If this is Hedonism, it is also a somewhat arduous discipline. But it is worth some labour.
C.S. Lewis

Provided the thing is in itself right, the more one likes it and the less one has to “try to be good,” the better. A perfect man would never act from sense of duty; he’d always want the right thing more than the wrong one. Duty is only a substitute for love (of God and of other people), like a crutch, which is a substitute for a leg. Most of us need the crutch at times; but of course it’s idiotic to use the crutch when our own legs (our own loves, tastes, habits, etc.) can do the journey on their own!
C.S. Lewis

Sage Advice

In 1945 C. S. Lewis was invited to address an assembly of Welsh Anglican priests and youth leaders on the topic of Christian apologetics.1 After humbly confessing that, as a layman, he had "little right to address either,"2 he went on offer his thoughts on the primary task of apologetics in the British Isles at that time. Defining apologetics as the defense of orthodox Christianity "the faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds, expounded by the Fathers"3 Lewis added that, though the Faith is eternal, it is imperative for the apologist to expound it in light of the cultural and spiritual environment of his audience. "Your teaching," he writes, "must be timeless at its heart and wear a modern dress."4

In Lewis' analysis, the fit and cut of Britain's "modern dress" at mid-twentieth century was essentially post-Christian. The radical secularizing tendencies of modernism had by then stripped the British public mind of its Christian memory and presented to church leaders a new social situation. According to Lewis, "a century ago our task was to edify those who had been brought up in the Faith: our present task is chiefly to convert and instruct infidels."5 The primary reality for the apologist is that the church is engaged in a missionary activity, and he must therefore adopt a missionary mind-set. "If you were sent to the Bantus you would be taught their language and traditions,"6 Lewis writes; similarly, he who intends to present a defense of Christianity in his own time and place must first consider the prejudices, experiences, and mental habits of his fellows. As Lewis concludes, "you must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular."7

Sage advice, from however humble a layman, and especially helpful for us today...

From Jack Meets Gen X: Apologetics of Longing and the Postmodern Mood, By: Gregory Dunn, July 1, 1998

Letters to Mr. Vanauken

These letters are a fascinating insight into C.S. Lewis apologetics.

Too True

sadly, too true...

Mere Amateurs

As I read No Place For Truth by David Wells I see that the state of fundamentalism is vastly different than that of evangelicalism. It's en vogue for a young man to be critical of fundamentalism in the spirit of "self criticism." Self criticism of this nature seems to quickly reveal what really is in the heart of its critic. This critic after a year or two will realize that he never was really a fundamentalist and and quickly disassociate himself. This self critic sees fundamentalism as a sinking ship because it has lost touch. Allow me to be the voice of dissent.

David Wells talks about the nature of the evangelical pastor. He constantly describes their ministry as therapeutic in contrast to a theological ministry. In this way he argues the evangelical church has followed step for step Liberalism. Liberalism sought to find the spirit of Christianity as a means of self gratification while it rejected its tenets. Evangelicalism has neglected theology thus finding itself in strangely familiar territory. When a pastor becomes a professional instead of a agent of truth he treads on very shaky footing. Our society has found theological wisdom to be the meanest type. Instead it has sought after the psychologist or psychiatrist for answers to life's problems. In correlation, evangelicalism has lost its confidence in the truth of the Word of God and turned elsewhere for answers. Pastors have become second rate counselors, mere amateurs really. What once was a position of esteem has become a target of scorn. The reason? The pastor has given up his trade in modern evangelicalism. He no longer is equipped to apportion truth to illuminate the bafflement of this life.

But I find this to be less true in fundamentalism. For all its faults, theology is king. Oh fundamentalism may be mislead, out of touch, or even a little naive. But it lives by the Book. The word of God is both the question and the answer. While a critic might find exceptions, the premium, in my experience, has been on expounders of truth within fundamentalism. There is not a group who holds Scripture in such high esteem. For this I am grateful. I thank the men who have come before me who held the gospel to be precious. It is this commitment to theology that brings with it the power of the most high God.

Being Democratic

In the book No Place For Truth David Wells has been explaining how the "revival" movements tended to push a more democratic ideal when it comes to the practice of the church and theology. He compares unfavorably the practice of the church with American "democratic" government. He says this:

The triumph of the audience, which in contemporary evangelicalism has often also been a triumph of modernity, has been effected far more radically among evangelicals than in the nation as a whole. The reason it would seem, is that the nation is encumbered by a set of immovable institutions sanctioned by the Constitution, whereas evangelical faith has almost entirely liberated itself from the inconveniences and constraints that institutions might impose upon it. If the evangelical world has its theology, it is neither codified nor dignified as is the slogans, and often serves only to define the outer parameters of faith rather than to explore and confess what that faith means. Furthermore, it is open to revision on a whim or by a strong leader. And if evangelicals have their churchly structures, they are not permanent as are the structures of the nation's government. They can be set up, taken down, moved around, or dispensed with at will. The result is that, for better or for worse, democratic assumptions in religious mass movements suffer few of the frustrations that they do in the nation at large.

His previous point is that the theology of the church has fallen to the whims of the populace. Democracy's worst has seen fulfillment in the practice of the church. Even the American government has done a better job preserving its founders' ideals.

God-Centered Mind

Consider this line of reasoning:

1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,

If I can get encouragement in my suffering for Christ (see chapter 1) and you can have the same encouragement that what he offers is joy inexpressible even in the face of negative circumstance, if we can have that encouragement, if we can have the consolation of our Saviors love, if you have a heart like Paul's and compassion (on his situation? suffering), then...

2 Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

Then, be of the same mind. How could they say no. But clearly this is very difficult. I'm not sure that the average fundamentalist church has two people that have ever been of the same mind about anything other than to criticize.

3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 But emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Now it says earlier, "intent on one purpose." What is that purpose? What should we be of one mind to? A Christlike mind is one that is God-centered. It humbly accepts it's call to obedience and loves the purposes of God. This is a battle of the mind. Thoughts and arguments are the ammunition. We seek to justify our selfishness and argue for our own interests. But if we have the blessings of Christ, then Paul urges that we make our minds intention God-focused and not self-focused.

Who Says "Let's"

Piper says:
"At the heart of masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead"
This is the essence of Biblical manhood. Piper says you can see this in a marriage by who says "let's."
"Let's look over the finances."
"Let's go out to eat."
A husband should be one who takes the initiative to lead. Many wives are frustrated by their husband's inability to lead.

The Grand Canyon

To some the thought of a God that would seek his own adoration is completely revolting. To try to draw some sense out of this John Piper used this illustration. "Why do people go to the Grand Canyon? Is it to improve their self esteem?" The truth is that there is a tremendous void of satisfaction we wish to fill. God is completely loving not by making much of us but he is completely loving by making much of himself because ultimately He is what fills the void of longing of our soul! Praise God he freely gives himself to be my joy!

"Other-Directedness"

David Wells in No Place for Truth writes a very relevant bit concerning the effects of modernity on the idividual's phyche. He borrows from David Riesman when describing the "other-directed" person.

On the whole, contemporary individualism is thoroughly emancipated, declining to draw values from the past (even the previous generation). But, paradoxically, it gives up this emancipation from the normative precedents for enslavement to a different sort of external authority -- the desire to be like others in the larger culture. This entails more than just peer pressure: we are sensitive not only to the values of close friends and admired acquaintances but also the impersonal voice of fashion, a media consensus, the views of a celluloid idol, the message of a rock star. Having turned inward in a search for meaning, we turn outward in a search for direction (emphasis mine), scanning others for the social signals they emit regarding what is in and what is out, what is desirable and what is not. This produces a new kind of conformity...

...Typically the other-directed person thinks little about career, makes few long-term commitments, seems to have no inner core of character, little conscience, and seeks approval and even affection from a surrogate family, "an amorphous and shifting, though contemporary, jury of peers," as Riesman put it. This person is oriented not to inner values but to other people. It is in the peer group that acceptance is found and outcasts are named.

...Where once people took pride in their accomplishments and in their character, other-directed individuals think only of how they stand with others. The freedom from all that formerly constrained, such as cultural and family expectations, now "contributes to his insecurity," Lasch argues -- an insecurity "which he can overcome only by seeing his 'grandiose self' reflected in the attentions of others, or by attaching himself to those who radiate celebrity, power, or charisma." Where the older type of individualist saw the world as a wilderness to be cleared and shaped in accordance with his or her will, the contemporary narcissist sees it as a mirror in which to preen him or herself; in the television era, the world is no longer hard... Once people worked to achieve tangible ends, to accomplish things. Now, such accomplishments are of far less significance than one's "image." Once people worked; now they manipulate. Once people sweated; now they seduce. Once people wished to be respected, to have their accomplishments recognized; now they wish to be envied, regardless of whether they are envied for anything they have actually accomplished.