FAQ

Frank J. Fleming explains Christianity to the uncomprehending world:

There’s a brand new thing out there that has been confusing and frightening people lately: Christians. The first prominent Christian anyone ever heard of was probably Tim Tebow, and his appearance on the national scene was quite alarming to many, as his “Christian” behavior was seen as quite odd and new. More recently, people have learned about Dan Cathy and are disturbed to discover that some businesses may possibly be owned by Christians who express Christian-type views. And then there is Olympic champion gymnast Gabby Douglas, whose constant profession of faith in God is so frightening that an extremely bewildered author wrote an article about her in Salon.

Since ignorance is what leads us to fear something (unless we’re talking about platypuses, as the more you know about them, the scarier they are — did you know they’re poisonous?), I thought I’d write an FAQ about Christians to help explain what these strange new people are, so everyone won’t be all freaked out about them. ....

For instance:

.... Why are Christians always judging others?

Because Christians are a subset of people, they share the faults all people have and tend to get judgmental at times.

No. This is something unique to bad Christians. They are all closed-minded, ignorant, hypocritical bigots who are stupid and dumb. And they judge people.

Again, these are faults all people have. Christians often fall short of their goal, but the point is they keep trying.

I’m pretty sure they’re judgmental. Like that Tim Tebow, I’m pretty sure he’s judging me.

I’m not even sure he’s aware you exist.

Yeah, but the way he lives his life all “holy” and “nice” makes me really feel like he’s judging me for not doing the same.

I’m pretty sure Tim Tebow is just trying to do his best in the eyes of God and isn’t try to make you feel bad by it.

Still, I’d really feel better if he was caught doing something really licentious. It would make me feel less bad about myself. ....

Are Christians allowed to own businesses?

Under current understanding of the law, they are in fact allowed to own businesses, and many do.

But they’re not allowed to talk about all their weird Christany stuff while owning a business, right?

Most people would consider that to fall under our First Amendment rights — those protecting both freedom of speech and religion. Thus, people should be allowed to talk about their Christian beliefs without fearing government reprisal, such as politicians trying to block them from opening businesses. ....

But what if it’s a super hateful thing the Christians say, like being against gay marriage?

While homosexuals have often been treated hatefully (and hatefulness is certainly not a Christian value), there’s nothing hateful in opposing gay marriage. Christians simply believe that the Bible clearly states what God intends a marriage to be and want to respect that and not replace it with their own wants or judgments.

No, it’s hateful. So hateful, I’m going to write NoH8 on myself and put tape on my mouth for inexplicable reasons.

If you want to believe it’s hateful, you can, but that will prevent any rational discussion on the issue.

Hate! Hateful! Hater hate hate hate!

Now you’re just… let’s move on. .... [more]

PJ Media » An FAQ on Christianity for the Unbeliever

Somebody tell Vanderbilt

"It is 'common sense, not discrimination' for a religious group to want its leaders to agree with its core beliefs" — uh, yes — someone tell Vanderbilt. From Christianity Today Liveblog:

...[T]he State University of New York at Buffalo has re-recognized InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) as an official student organization, just in time for the start of the 2012-13 school year.

After being de-recognized as a club amid a leadership scandal earlier this year, IVCF regained official status on July 27. SUNY Buffalo’s Student-Wide Judiciary ruled that it is "common sense, not discrimination” for a religious group to want its leaders to agree with its core beliefs.

According to the SUNY Student Association policy, an organization cannot exclude students from becoming members. IVCF requires its student officers to agree with the organization’s doctrinal and purpose statements, but has no restrictive membership clause. ....

Christianity Today Liveblog: InterVarsity Re-Instated As New York University Decides Leadership Policy Is "Common Sense, Not Discrimination"

The life or health of the mother

If this response in the UK House of Lords is at all comparable to the American experience, then much of the "pro-choice" argument disappears. If we eliminated all abortions except those for the life or health of the mother [and even allowed those for rape and incest] it would make up a tiny percentage of those committed each year. The question and response:

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many abortions have been performed under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by Section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) to the latest date available; and how many of those abortions were to save the life of the pregnant woman.[HL1563]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Between 1968 and 2011 (the latest year for which figures are available) there have been 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 143 (0.006%) were performed under Section 1(4), ie where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

A further 23,778 (0.37%) abortions were performed under Section 1(1)(c), ie that the continuance of pregnancy would involve the risk to the life of the woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

Via Gene Veith and Joe Carter

Lords Hansard text for 19 Jul 201219 July 2012 (pt 0001)

The itch that can't be scratched.

Christopher R. Beha writes about the “New New Atheists” among whom he places Alain de Botton, Sam Harris [who was also a "New Atheist"], and Alex Rosenberg, author of The Atheist Guide to Reality:

Rosenberg...insists that doing away with religion means doing away with most of what comes with it: a sense of order in the universe, the hope that life has some inherent meaning, even the belief in free will. If it’s true, as Rosenberg insists in contradiction of Harris and Botton, that we can’t have the benefits of belief without belief itself, this raises another question. Setting aside matters of truth and falsehood, are we not better off believing? Broadly speaking, atheists seem to fall into two camps on this matter. There are disappointed disbelievers, those who would like to believe in God but find themselves unable. Then there are those who find the very idea of such a being to be an outrage. ....

I happen to count myself among the disappointed disbelievers, which is why I was interested in the attempts of Harris and Botton to salvage some religious splendor for the secularists. So I was only more disappointed to find Rosenberg’s insistence that such efforts were hopeless far more convincing than the efforts themselves. During an email exchange with Rosenberg, I asked him which camp of atheists he fell into. His response acknowledged my impulse: “There is . . . in us all the hankering for a satisfactory narrative to make ‘life, the universe and everything’ (in Douglas Adams’s words) hang together in a meaningful way. When people disbelieve in God and see no alternative, they often find themselves wishing they could believe, since now they have an itch and no way to scratch it.”

"It's a terrible thing to have an itch you can't scratch." Leon in Blade Runner

So what are we to do about this unscratchable itch? Rosenberg’s answer in his book is basically to ignore it. The modern world offers lots of help in this effort. To begin with, there are pharmaceuticals; Rosenberg strongly encourages those depressed by the emptiness of the Godless world to avail themselves of mood-altering drugs. .... [more]

Wikipedia summarizes Pascal's Wager thus: "...there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known." But if you reject that argument there are always "mood-altering drugs" as an alternative.

The Literary Response to Radical Atheism—By Christopher R. Beha (Harper's Magazine)

"It is no small thing to turn the other cheek..."

A response by Tim Kelleher to some recent essays about Just War Theory:

I am...troubled by Christians who can ascertain divine warrant for say, capital punishment (an issue that, aside from his own death by such means, Jesus addressed at best obliquely), yet find ambiguity in such daunting Gospel moments as “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” ....

.... While it is no small feat to turn the other cheek, it is another thing when the cheek being struck is not one’s own but that of a loved one—or an innocent stranger. I like to imagine I could rise to the challenge of Gandhi and King’s model with respect to my own hide. I am decidedly less sure when met with hypotheticals, like whether my killing a dictator would spare millions suffering and death. ....

One Eternal Day: Aquinas and just war

Just War, In Theory and Practice » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Animal Farm

Via Instapundit, the 1954 animated film version of George Orwell's Animal Farm. I've seen this several times and believe I must have used it in class in my early years of teaching. It's quite well done and only departs at the end from Orwell's rather more pessimistic vision.

For the most vulnerable

Via Alex Chediak, Paul Ryan on the right to life:

Now, after America has won the last century’s hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of “choice” of one human being cannot trump the right to “life” of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings?

The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom

Honor your unbelieving parents

My parents were, and relatives are [to the best of my knowledge] all Christians, so, although I have friends whose circumstances are different, I don't share Darren Carlson's experience: "Sharing the Gospel with the People Who Changed Your Diaper":

.... When I signed up for a discipleship program out of college my Dad thought I was being brainwashed. When someone shared the gospel with my wife at UNC-Greensboro and invited her to a Baptist church, she had never seen such joy and became a believer. Her parents thought she joined a cult. A few weeks after her conversion she was part of YoungLife.

Our parents, our sisters, their husbands, and their children do not share our faith. Marriage has certainly brought out the stark contrasts in our lives, and the arrival of children even more so. We are not experts on how to share the gospel or how to relate to our families now that we have believed in Jesus and been saved. Family scenarios are diverse, and there is no one shoe that fits all situations. Still, knowing that many hold beliefs in stark contrast to their families I offer these suggestions. .... [read on]

Sharing the Gospel with the People Who Changed Your Diaper – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Liddell — after the Olympics

The Absolute Surrender site is devoted to a film project which I very much hope comes to fruition. The project's description:

The Film is based on the life story of Eric Liddell, the subject of the highly acclaimed and successful CHARIOTS OF FIRE. Following his Olympic success, he returned to China on the eve of World War II to join his family and continue his missionary work at tremendous personal sacrifice.

I previously posted about Eric Liddell here. His service as a missionary in China is — from a Christian's viewpoint — a much greater witness to faith than that brief portion of his life we know from Chariots of Fire.

The site also includes information about the film makers. The script was written by a Lutheran pastor, Eric Eichinger:

This summer, Eichinger traveled to Great Britain and Canada to interview Eric Liddell's daughters and nieces as a part of a video series launched on Absolute Surrender’s website this week. Along with conversations with family members, Eichinger provides rare footage of little known locations and facts as he follows in the footsteps of Eric Liddell. His goal is to bring awareness to the project and Liddell's remarkable legacy.

Eichinger is associated in the project with Howie Klausner whose films include Soul Surfer.

Absolute Surrender

Ratio Christi

http://ratiochristi.org

There are several good college student oriented evangelical organizations including InterVarsity and Cru [Campus Crusade]. Ratio Christi appears to be another, with the specific mission of providing students with the apologetic arguments they may need to sustain and share their convictions in a sometimes hostile secular environment. From the Ratio Christi site:

Ratio Christi (Latin for ‘The Reason of Christ’) is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ. Bringing together faith and reason in order to establish the intellectual voice of Christ in the University, Ratio Christi is placing Christian apologetics clubs at universities around the world. We unashamedly defend the veracity of God, the Bible, and Christ’s resurrection and engage in the battle for the mind.

Thanks to Tom Gilson for the reference.

Ratio Christi

"Murder before the birth"

Although modern biology has dispelled notions of "quickening" and demonstrated the continuity of human development from the point of conception, thus reinforcing the humanity of the unborn person, the Christian case against abortion has been made since the earliest days of the Church — long before such evidence was possible. Charles Pope has been compiling "Ancient Testimonies Against Abortion." Selections from his post:

The Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) ca 110 AD. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion. (2:2)…The Way of Death is filled with people who are…murderers of children and abortionists of God’s creatures. (5:1-2) ....

Athenagoras the Athenian (To Marcus Aurelius), ca 150 AD: “We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion…, [For we] regard the very fœtus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care… (# 35).

Clement of Alexandria: (circa 150 – 215 AD) Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings. Paedagogus, 2 ....

Tertullian (circa 160 – 240 AD): …we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth. Apology (9:7-8)

Tertullian (circa 160-240 AD): [John the Baptist and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits. De Aninta 26:4 ....

St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 AD) The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated. Hexaemeron”, (5, 18, 58)

St. John Chrysostom (circa 340 – 407 AD): Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? .... Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? Homily 24 on Romans

St. Jerome (circa 342-420 AD): ….Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. Letter 22:13 .... [more]

Via Gene Veith :"The early church on abortion"

Ancient Testimonies Against Abortion | Archdiocese of Washington

Religious liberty in the "Show Me" state

The citizens of Missouri decided this week to reinforce in their state constitution an interpretation of religious liberty which, until recently, would have been taken for granted. "Missouri 'Right to Pray' amendment passes with large majority":

.... About 83 percent of voters, almost 780,000 people, favored the measure while 17 percent were opposed.

Amendment 2 says that government will not impose religion on Missouri residents or force any citizen to participate in religious activity. It also secures the right of individual or corporate prayer in public or private so long as the prayer does not disturb the peace or disrupt public meetings.

It guarantees elected officials the right to pray on government premises and public property.

The amendment allows students to express their religious beliefs in schoolwork, to opt out of school requirements that conflict with those beliefs, and to exercise their beliefs in private, voluntary and non-disruptive ways. ....

The amendment was, of course, opposed by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and a spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of Missouri and Southern Illinois said that the amendment is "“possibly unconstitutional in its application, so now we’re headed for the courts.” They really do seem committed to restricting religious liberty in the public sphere. Will the federal courts find this amendment to Missouri's constitution consistent with the First Amendment?

The amendment [pdf].

From Christianity Today

.... Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have questioned how disturbance or disruption would later be defined. What if one person's "right to pray" intrudes on another's right to abstain from prayer, or to pray according to the tenets of his or her own faith? ....

I don't think I will ever understand how hearing a prayer forces anyone to pray any more than hearing the President speak can force me to be a liberal.

Missouri 'Right to Pray' amendment passes with large majority :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

"After strange gods"

R.R. Reno observes that "many, many influential writers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries harbored anti-Semitic sentiments," among them T.S. Eliot:

.... Eliot believed that human beings flourish best when subject to the authority of a specific tradition. It’s an idea he gave the most forceful expression to in AFTER STRANGE GODS, a series of lectures he gave in 1933. In those lectures, “tradition” has blood and soil connotations, and in a passing comment Eliot expresses the concern that “free-thinking Jews” undermine organic communities and their authoritative traditions.

The charge that Eliot’s entire poetic and critical project is implicated in anti-Semitism reflects a much larger modern liberal syllogism. Commitments to authority leads to authoritarianism, which gets expressed politically in Fascism, and leads to the gas chambers. Put in less dire terms: a commitment to authority necessarily involves drawing lines. Some things are “orthodox,” to use Eliot’s term, and some “heretical.” This is inherently “discriminatory,” and reinforces our malign tendency toward ethnocentrism, and etc. In this way of thinking, the charge of anti-Semitism is meant as a synecdoche. It points to the authoritarian consequences of a larger commitment to authority. The same often holds for charges of patriarchy, colonialism, and homophobia. To assert a normative claim–this is good, that is evil–that’s the fundamental crime.

Put in these broad terms the modern liberal outlook seems crazy, because it denies any strong moral claims. It’s a denial we saw in literary studies when the very idea of a canon was criticized and rejected. But modern conservatism, which Eliot represented and tried to theorize, really does present a problem. Where does the “free-thinking Jew” (or for that matter any heterodox person) fit into a world organized around orthodoxy? ....

Russell Kirk, who wrote a book about Eliot, addressed the question of Eliot, After Strange Gods, anti-Semitism, and tradition in a Touchstone essay from 1991:

.... Fifteen hundred copies of the first edition were printed in New York; no later edition has been published in this country. Why have these lively lectures been virtually suppressed? Chiefly because of an aside on page 20. There Eliot is discussing the conditions necessary for a tradition to develop and survive, with particular reference to Christian tradition and to Virginia. For tradition to endure, he remarks,

The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.

.... [T]his alleged “anti-Semitism” was merely an illustration of the principle that a culture—which arises from a cult—cannot well abide two radically different religions. It would be equally true that a community of orthodox Jews would be distressed and resentful, were they to find themselves beset by a Comus’s rout of free-thinkers nominally Christian. The religion, or anti-religion, of the “free-thinking Jews” that Eliot had in mind was not Judaism, but rather secular humanism....

There being nothing more in the pages of After Strange Gods about Jews, whether free-thinking or orthodox, it is absurd to cry anathema and to keep from others’ eyes this outspoken little book. Does literature have an ethical end? Should books be judged by the moral suppositions they implicitly affirm or deny? Do Good and Evil matter? And may the operations of the Evil Spirit (capital letters Eliot’s) be discerned among us in the twentieth century? May they be descried, indeed, among men of letters whose talents are high and whose private characters are commendable? These questions are raised perceptively in After Strange Gods.

As orthodoxy had been Samuel Johnson’s doxy, so was she Eliot’s, in 1933 and so long as he lived. .... [more]

The full text of After Strange Gods can be found here.

T.S. Eliot and Anti-Semitism » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog, Touchstone Archives: T. S. Eliot On Literary Morals

Not a historian

Those who have been paying attention know that David Barton doesn't get much respect from actual students of history. Greg Forster provides more evidence [if such is needed] why that is true:

World magazine breaks the story about conservative Christians who view David Barton of Wallbuilders as an embarrassment. The focus of the current controversy is Barton’s new book on Jefferson. My friend Jay Richards doesn’t mince words; he says this book and Barton’s other books and videos are full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

I’m not a scholar of Thomas Jefferson, but I am a scholar of John Locke. Barton has an article about Locke on his website, so I thought I’d weigh in with my opinion on whether it matches Jay’s description of Barton’s methods. It does, and then some. .... [read on]

David Barton’s Errors » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Learning from Pooh

Maria Konnikova illustrates some of "What Grown-Ups Can Learn From Kids' Books," with The Little Prince, Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, and Winnie-the-Pooh. From her comments on Pooh:

...[T]he Winnie-the-Pooh stories offer astute character studies of some of society's most recognizable personality types.

Who hasn't met an Eeyore, the endless worrywart and eternal pessimist, who believes that the grass is the same dull brown no matter what side you're on? Eeyore is the one who, in response to Pooh's "how are you," offers a "not very how." And just contrast his and Pooh's approach to the Mystery of the Missing Tail. "You must have left it somewhere," says Pooh simply. "Somebody must have taken it," counters Eeyore. Eeyore is the sardonic one. And we shan't blame him if it rains.

And what group doesn't have a Rabbit, the doer and planner, the busybody who needs to ensure that everyone is doing just what they're supposed to be, when and how they are supposed to be doing it? Rabbit, the ever-practical. ....

There's Owl, the pompous scholar and aspiring intellectual, who is so much hot air behind his reputed ability to spell TUESDAY. Doubtless you've met him at a party or a conference, sometimes at the front of a classroom. Owl hides behind Big Words ("Can you read, Pooh?" he asks anxiously before agreeing to write a message for Eeyore's birthday) and manages to get Rabbit—the one who actually can read and write—to consult him, and not the other way around. ....

There's Piglet, the small animal who doesn't like to commit to anything without being fully certain of its safety and who always has something else to attend to when the danger reaches a certain threshold—but who can rise to the occasion when occasion demands (case in point: the day Owl's house falls down.) ....

And, of course, there is Pooh himself, who lives as in the moment as possible. The clock in his house is stopped perpetually at Luncheon Time—and there's nothing that can't be resolved with a little smackerel of something (preferably honey). But though Pooh sees himself as a bear of little brain, there's nothing little-brained about him. Recall what happens on the Expotition to find the North Pole when baby Roo falls into the river. While Piglet jumps up and down, Kanga runs beside the stream to ask Roo if he's all right, Owl explains what to do in a Sudden and Temporary Immersion, Eeyore puts his tail into the pool where Roo fell in long after Roo has gone downstream, and Rabbit authoritatively runs around and Organizes Everyone, Pooh is the only one who actually does something useful: He gets a stick, stands down-current from Roo, and helps Roo grab the stick when the current brings him to it. The essence of each character, revealed—as always with our true essence—in the height of emergency.

"When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," Piglet asks him as their adventures near an end, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?"

"What's for breakfast?" Pooh answers. "What do you say, Piglet?"

"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" responds Piglet.

Pooh thinks it over. "It's the same thing," he says. And as adults, we can at last appreciate just how right he is. It may seem silly to waste your time on books for children. But are we really wasting it—or using it to much better advantage? It's like the Red Queen tells Alice, "You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." [more]

What Grown-Ups Can Learn From Kids' Books - Maria Konnikova - The Atlantic

A gift of grace

Thomas Cothran is "Against Faith in Faith":

It has become a strange and unfortunate commonplace that one must have faith in faith—faith, that is, in the ability to commit oneself to truths that transcend rational justification—not only out of respect for faith’s intrinsic (if futile) beauty, but also as a means to the truth. Confronted with inadequate evidence for the deeper truths of life, one must conjure up a commitment to ideas for which the subjective act of faith can be the only ground, and one must believe not only in the content of faith but in the faith-act itself.

This, at least, is the picture of faith one finds in the writings of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and it has an embarrassing currency among Christian believers. ....

Faith, in the Christian life, has nothing to do with a subjective belief that does not admit rational justification (not even Kierkegaard quite said that), because faith begins not with the subject of faith but its object—the Trinitarian life of God. It consists not of assent to some proposition but the entrustment of one’s being to God’s providence. Faith does not originate in the individual believer’s own efforts, but is rather a gift of grace to the believer, usually received in baptism, as one means among many of participating in God’s own life.

Far from posing a threat to one’s faith, knowledge reinforces it: the more reason one has to believe in God’s providence, the more readily the believer entrusts himself to God. Faith likewise facilitates a more intimate knowledge of the plans God has set in store for the believer. As recent scholarship has demonstrated, “faith” in the Bible is often better rendered “faithfulness”; one has faith, therefore, less by belief than by piety. Faith is—at least in the order of time—primarily performative and only secondarily reflective. Recall St. Irenaeus’ dictum: “to believe in God is to do his will.” .... [more]

Against Faith in Faith | First Things

Brian Croft and "Practical Shepherding"

Brian Croft was a speaker at my denomination's conference sessions last week. He is the pastor of Auburndale Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and author of several books providing practical advice for pastors. He also blogs at "Practical Shepherding" subtitled "Laboring with you in the trenches of pastoral ministry." Visiting that site, I found much to like. For instance, from a post titled "What important element of public worship goes largely neglected today?":

There is an increasing amount of churches that no longer include reading Scripture as a regular part of the public gathering, aside from a passage read during the sermon. Even in many churches I would closely align myself with who have a Christ-centered focus and a high view of preaching, still divide their public gatherings into 2 halves: The singing portion and the preaching portion.

I have a growing concern with this trend as it often squeezes out the public readings of Scripture as a separate, essential role in our services. Here are a few reasons I want to encourage pastors to continue to see the public reading of Scripture as a needed part of your public gatherings.... [more]

And from "Why should a pastor preach through whole books of the Bible?":

I am currently preaching through 2 Samuel. Having just preached through 2 Samuel 11-13 these last 3 weeks, I was reminded of the challenge it is to systematically preach through whole books of the Bible. And yet, in the midst of being reminded of these challenges, the reasons to continue to do so have been affirmed to me all over again. Here are 3 of them:

1) You cannot avoid the hard passages. 2 weeks ago I preached on David’s adultery and murder. Yesterday, it moved to an interesting progression of rape, incest, and murder among David’s children. Let’s just say not what I would choose to preach if I was just picking a passage for the week. But our people need to hear these passages and we as pastors need to wrestle with them to figure out what God desires for us to learn from them. Preach the hard passages. If your congregation sees you are not afraid to wrestle with them, then they are certain to grow less afraid also.

2) You understand the author’s intent better. It amazes me how much better I feel I understand the writer’s intent, because I have preached through the natural flow of his argument or narrative. .... [more]

There is much more including a regularly recurring series of posts he calls "Book Recommendation…for the pastor’s study."

Practical Shepherding | Laboring with you in the trenches of pastoral ministry

Explaining why

Tim Keller explains why Christian apologetics (something he does very well in The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism) is especially important in our age:

Apologetics is an answer to the "why" question after you've already answered the "what" question. The what question, of course, is, "What is the gospel?" But when you call people to believe in the gospel and they ask, "Why should I believe that?"— then you need apologetics.

I've heard plenty of Christians try to answer the why question by going back to the what. "You have to believe because Jesus is the Son of God." But that's answering the why with more what. Increasingly we live in a time when you can't avoid the why question. Just giving the what (for example, a vivid gospel presentation) worked in the days when the cultural institutions created an environment in which Christianity just felt true or at least honorable. But in a post-Christendom society, in the marketplace of ideas, you have to explain why this is true, or people will just dismiss it. ....

We need to be careful of saying, "Just believe," because what we're really saying is, "Believe because I say so." That sounds like a Nietzschean power play. That's very different from Paul, who reasoned, argued, and proved in the Book of Acts, and from Peter, who called us to give the reason for our hope in 2 Peter 3:15. If our response is, "Our beliefs may seem utterly irrational to you, but if you see how much we love one another then you'll want to believe too," then we'll sound like a cult. So we do need to do apologetics and answer the why question. .... (more)

In Defense of Apologetics – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Render unto Caesar...

John Stonestreet in "A Higher King than James" on Thomas Helwys, a Baptist:

...[I]t was a Protestant standing up for Catholics who gave us the idea of religious freedom as we now know it when he broke the spiral of silence four centuries ago.

In 1612, the English-speaking world first heard the radical idea of Thomas Helwys, a British missionary who co-founded the Baptist denomination. Helwys sought to challenge King James I’s tyranny over religion. This was no easy or safe task. For years, those who sought to practice Christianity according to their own consciences faced severe persecution. The year before, Baptist Edward Wightman was burned at the stake for his beliefs. And while Helwys was working in The Netherlands, his own wife was thrown into prison back home.

Desperate to stop the persecution, Helwys spoke up. But rather than beg the king for mercy, he made an audacious move that ultimately cost him his life.

With his book, “A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity,” hot off the press, Helwys attached a polite cover letter and mailed this historic defense of religious liberty to King James. Needless to say, the king was less than pleased, and four years later, Helwys died in Newgate Prison, a victim of the persecution he sought to end. ....

His words renouncing the persecution against Roman Catholics are worth repeating here:

“For we do freely profess that our lord the king [of England] has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes…For men’s religion to God is between God and themselves.”

A Higher King than James

"Dead guys who were faithful"

Among the highlights of the week at the just concluded Seventh Day Baptist General Conference sessions were the presentations by Rev Brian Croft about reviving existing churches. He is interviewed in the current issue of Credo Magazine about "ministering to widows, pastoral blunders, and mentoring the next generation of future pastors." In Croft's presentation to us he mentioned books he would recommend to pastors. These, from the interview, were probably what he had in mind:

What are three or four “must-read” books on pastoral ministry and why?

The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges, The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter, Lectures to my Students by Spurgeon, and The Work of the Pastor by William Still…to name a few. The reason these authors are at the top of my list is because they are all dead guys who were faithful to the end. Moreover, they all write in such a way that they are not biased towards a modern day, consumerist, American culture. That is a helpful perspective for all pastors today.

Also in this issue of Credo Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church and 9Marks is interviewed about a new book, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible,  and, among other things, is asked:

[W]here does the rub lie for non-Baptists in your argument?

Certainly in my understanding of baptism. And these days, although Baptists are historically congregational, I think I’m in a minority among Southern Baptists in being self-consciously congregational, though all of our forbearers were.

I think there was a pragmatism in the 20th century, where large churches became CEO-run. I think the multi-service movement, and now the multi-site movement, have just encouraged more confusion in terms of polity. ....

Credo is new to me. This issue, about "Old Princeton" is full of interesting articles about personalities once associated with Princeton Theological Seminary.

Current Issue- Credo Magazine