Dear E-Flash Friends;
My daughter, Rachel, and I were riding a wave runner a few days ago and after a while Rachel started to get bored. You know how it is, right? Zipping across the waves--on what amounts to a motorcycle on the water--at 35-40 mph . . . that can get a little boring. After all, wave runners don't come equipped with DVD players.
Well, I decided to let Rachel take the controls of the craft. I knew that would make things a little more interesting for her.
(I know, you can probably see this one coming, but don't get ahead of me.)
Rachel had the controls and we were moving pretty slowly--which believe it or not--is much more unstable on a wave runner than if you are moving quickly. At one point, we were not only moving slowly, but we were sideways to the waves rather than facing straight into them. This is, also, a very unstable position. Well, sure enough, a wave hit us and we lost our balance and got thrown off of the wave runner.
Wave runners have a very important and helpful design feature that involves wearing a wrist band which is connected to a "kill" switch on the craft. So, if you fall off the vehicle, the engine automatically stops and the unmanned wave runner doesn't take off and leave you stranded in the water.
There we were, floating in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 yards from shore--wearing very buoyant life vests--about 10 feet away from our wave runner. This, actually, is not a difficult predicament, it's happened to me several times before. However, if you've never experienced it, I suppose it might sound a little unnerving.
Rachel immediately grabbed on to me with an iron claw grip.
I said, "Rachel, be calm, it's alright. Just relax and hold on to me and I will swim over to the wave runner."
After about 30 seconds of swimming and pulling Rachel, I said, "Hey Rachel, I still want you to be calm, but you can kick your feet a little bit, too."
We climbed back on board our craft, but as I was pulling Rachel out of the water, back up on to the wave runner, we had one of those moments where we began laughing--the whole incident suddenly became very amusing to us. And it was extremely difficult to try to pull Rachel up on to the wave runner while we were both laughing.
You say, "So, Dan, what's the moral of the story? What's the lesson in this modern day parable?"
I really don't have one. I was just hoping that you would read the story and find it enjoyable and amusing and that you would say to yourself, "Boy, it will be great to see Dan and Nadia and Rachel again, pretty soon." Because I am definitely looking forward to seeing all of you!
Love and Blessings,
Dan
P.S. Quite a few folks from our Youth group, along with several adult counselors left, today, for the Church of God International Youth Convention in San Antonio, Texas. We are very excited about their participation in this event and are hoping that this will be a time of great spiritual growth and challenge and awakening for everyone who is going. Please pray that they will have safe travel, spiritually receptive hearts, and lots of fun. Actually, I'm pretty confident about the "fun" part.
P.P.S. Here's a wonderfully encouraging passage . . .
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28
P.P.P.S. Hope you're planning to be at church this Sunday, July 13th. Chris is talking about something really important, "Loving Jesus With Your Whole Heart". It's going to be great!
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Friday, July 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
How Can A Book That Teases Atheists NOT Be Fun?
This is a review by Dan Marler of "The Devil's Delusion", David Berlinski.
David Berlinski is a gifted writer and he is a witty and persuasive writer. That is an interesting and fun combination.
In fact, Berlinski's wit can make his arguments seem even more forceful. Don't get me wrong, I think his arguments are strong anyhow, but you know how it is, the humor helps. Here are some examples of the Berlinski wit:
Speaking of Hector Avalos, atheist professor of religous studies at Iowa State University, "He is a member in good standing of the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance."
"The details may be found in Hawking's bestselling A Brief History of Time, a book that was widely considered fascinating by those who did not read it, and incomprehensible by those who did."
"When asked what he was in awe of, Christopher Hitchens responded that his definition of an educated person is that you have some idea how ignorant you are. This seems very much as if Hitchens were in awe of his own ignorance, in which case he has surely found an object worthy of his veneration."
Suddenly, it occurs to me that those comments may not seem quite as funny when they are not read in context. But they made me laugh when I was reading the book.
I know, humor is subjective.
Berlinski's book, is basically a defense of God and religion against the recent attack of atheism--particularly the haughty form of atheism that pretends to draw all of its ontological stature from a pure and inescapable scientific reason. The Devil's Delusion is even more interesting because Berlinski is a "secular Jew"--his description--with a Ph.D. from Princeton who has spent many years writing about mathematics and science. In other words, this is an apologetic for God and religion coming from a highly educated, secular man who has signficant experience in, and great respect for, science.
One of the interesting ideas that I took from the book has to do with the similarities between the faith in God that existed in the pre-Modern era and the faith in Science--yes, sometimes blind faith--of the Modern and Post-Modern eras.
If you're rolling your eyes, right now, and saying, "Oh, come on, there are no similarities between faith in God and faith in Science" my response would be: Read The Devil's Delusion.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
David Berlinski is a gifted writer and he is a witty and persuasive writer. That is an interesting and fun combination.
In fact, Berlinski's wit can make his arguments seem even more forceful. Don't get me wrong, I think his arguments are strong anyhow, but you know how it is, the humor helps. Here are some examples of the Berlinski wit:
Speaking of Hector Avalos, atheist professor of religous studies at Iowa State University, "He is a member in good standing of the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance."
"The details may be found in Hawking's bestselling A Brief History of Time, a book that was widely considered fascinating by those who did not read it, and incomprehensible by those who did."
"When asked what he was in awe of, Christopher Hitchens responded that his definition of an educated person is that you have some idea how ignorant you are. This seems very much as if Hitchens were in awe of his own ignorance, in which case he has surely found an object worthy of his veneration."
Suddenly, it occurs to me that those comments may not seem quite as funny when they are not read in context. But they made me laugh when I was reading the book.
I know, humor is subjective.
Berlinski's book, is basically a defense of God and religion against the recent attack of atheism--particularly the haughty form of atheism that pretends to draw all of its ontological stature from a pure and inescapable scientific reason. The Devil's Delusion is even more interesting because Berlinski is a "secular Jew"--his description--with a Ph.D. from Princeton who has spent many years writing about mathematics and science. In other words, this is an apologetic for God and religion coming from a highly educated, secular man who has signficant experience in, and great respect for, science.
One of the interesting ideas that I took from the book has to do with the similarities between the faith in God that existed in the pre-Modern era and the faith in Science--yes, sometimes blind faith--of the Modern and Post-Modern eras.
If you're rolling your eyes, right now, and saying, "Oh, come on, there are no similarities between faith in God and faith in Science" my response would be: Read The Devil's Delusion.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Some Thoughts On Discipleship, Part 2
This is part 2 of a two-part column on the subject of discipleship. This is not a comprehensive or systematic treatment of the subject, it is simply a few random thoughts that I hope will be helpful and will encourage further thinking by others.
Encouraging Daily Personal Bible Study/Devotional Time
The obvious point that has been coming up in current research on discipleship and spiritual growth is the importance of personal Bible study and personal prayer and devotional time, including the discipline of solitude. It seems that many people know the value of these spiritual disciplines but, probably, they don’t know how to go about doing it. Or, it may be that they find it to be boring. Or—it is a discipline, after all—they find it to be hard to do on a regular, consistent basis and they quit.
Part of our church’s job will be to encourage, foster, help and train people to engage in these critical disciplines, on their own, on a regular basis.
Serving
Part of discipleship will involve helping the disciple to find a place to serve the body. We’ve acknowledged that this is not a strong area in our church. I wonder how much of this has to do with our lack of skill at helping people find areas to serve—I know that accounts for some of the problem here. But, is this also, partly, a reflection of the fact that some people really don’t want to serve? Or, they only want to serve under ideal conditions? I think, perhaps, unintentionally, we may have given some folks the impression that serving will always be something that is fun; and joyful; and gets a person excited; and is completely fulfilling. I don’t find that reality when I look in the Bible. And I know, personally, that if I only served the church in areas that I enjoyed, there would be a lot of things that I wouldn’t do.
I’m a firm believer in gift-based serving—how can I not be, it’s biblical? But, the simple truth of the Bible is that sometimes serving, even in areas of giftedness, won’t be fun. The most obvious example is a crucifixion.
Please understand, I’m not saying that serving should be a constant drag. I hope it will often be joyful and fulfilling. But if most of the people in a church only serve when it’s convenient for them and only when it makes them feel good, then the picture of serving that you’re likely to get is the picture that we see in many of our churches, these days.
Serving is a “discipline” in which “disciples” engage. As such, I suspect it won’t always, necessarily, be fun and enjoyable and convenient.
By the way, I’ve been thinking a good bit, lately, about the things that we sometimes, unintentionally, do as a church that foster selfishness. The idea of serving only when it’s fun; and easy; and convenient; and exciting; seems like it has the potential of fostering a form of selfishness that is part of what serving is supposed to help diminish in our lives.
Transforming The Mind
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Romans 12:2
“You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Ephesians 4:22-24
“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is not hidden with Christ in God.”
Colossians 3:1-3
I’ve listed those three passages of scripture, above, because of their reference to our “minds”. The Bible clearly tells us that transformation into the character of Christ, which is a key aspect of discipleship, involves the mind.
We have the freedom to control—at least to some degree—our thoughts. In addition to this, we have some freedom of control over what our minds are exposed to. Certainly, we don’t have complete freedom of control in terms of what our minds are exposed to, but we have “some” control. Again, since transformation into the character of Christ involves the mind, we have to teach disciples about “thinking”. Our discipleship training will need to involve guidance and challenge and instruction on what we put into our minds, what we intentionally think about, and what we “allow” into our minds.
Dallas Willard, speaking of spiritual formation, says, “As we first turned away from God in our thoughts, so it is in our thoughts that the first movements toward the renovation of the heart occur. Thoughts are the place where we can and must begin to change.”
I don’t have a method, here, for the training of our minds, I simply mention it as something that our discipleship training will need to consider. There are some obvious actions that readily come to mind when it comes to positively training and influencing our thoughts.
What needs to go into our minds: Bible study; Bible memorization; worship songs; good preaching/teaching; good Christian reading; loving, positive, encouraging, stimulating, challenging conversation.
What needs to be eliminated, as much as we can control: Certain TV shows, certain images, certain kinds of conversation, certain magazines, that do not encourage and promote within us the light and truth of Christ and His kingdom.
Philippians 4:8 is a helpful thought: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
I think a sober word of caution is in order here: When we begin to talk and teach and train in regard to “what people think”, we are dealing with a very personal and important aspect of who a person is. This is an area where we must be very gentle and extremely humble. It is a significant matter to presume to teach someone “what to think”. We must be careful to defer to Scripture as much as possible. We must be willing to be silent where Scripture is silent. We must be willing to freely admit that there are aspects of the renewing of our minds that we do not completely understand. Arrogance, presumptuousness and ungraciousness in this area can quickly be interpreted in a very negative way as an attempt by “religious people” to try to “control the minds of others”. Let’s be honest, this kind of negative perception has some valid cause for concern when we consider the history of some “Christians” and some Christian groups.
Obviously, it is not our intention to try to “control the minds of others”, our intention is to help people be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ—one of the central purposes for which we were created. But, again, when we venture into teaching and training regarding “what people think”, we are on sensitive ground and we must venture forth lovingly, graciously and very humbly—with strong adherence to Scripture—remembering that our own minds are still in the process of renewal, as well.
I humbly and lovingly submit these thoughts for your reflection.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Encouraging Daily Personal Bible Study/Devotional Time
The obvious point that has been coming up in current research on discipleship and spiritual growth is the importance of personal Bible study and personal prayer and devotional time, including the discipline of solitude. It seems that many people know the value of these spiritual disciplines but, probably, they don’t know how to go about doing it. Or, it may be that they find it to be boring. Or—it is a discipline, after all—they find it to be hard to do on a regular, consistent basis and they quit.
Part of our church’s job will be to encourage, foster, help and train people to engage in these critical disciplines, on their own, on a regular basis.
Serving
Part of discipleship will involve helping the disciple to find a place to serve the body. We’ve acknowledged that this is not a strong area in our church. I wonder how much of this has to do with our lack of skill at helping people find areas to serve—I know that accounts for some of the problem here. But, is this also, partly, a reflection of the fact that some people really don’t want to serve? Or, they only want to serve under ideal conditions? I think, perhaps, unintentionally, we may have given some folks the impression that serving will always be something that is fun; and joyful; and gets a person excited; and is completely fulfilling. I don’t find that reality when I look in the Bible. And I know, personally, that if I only served the church in areas that I enjoyed, there would be a lot of things that I wouldn’t do.
I’m a firm believer in gift-based serving—how can I not be, it’s biblical? But, the simple truth of the Bible is that sometimes serving, even in areas of giftedness, won’t be fun. The most obvious example is a crucifixion.
Please understand, I’m not saying that serving should be a constant drag. I hope it will often be joyful and fulfilling. But if most of the people in a church only serve when it’s convenient for them and only when it makes them feel good, then the picture of serving that you’re likely to get is the picture that we see in many of our churches, these days.
Serving is a “discipline” in which “disciples” engage. As such, I suspect it won’t always, necessarily, be fun and enjoyable and convenient.
By the way, I’ve been thinking a good bit, lately, about the things that we sometimes, unintentionally, do as a church that foster selfishness. The idea of serving only when it’s fun; and easy; and convenient; and exciting; seems like it has the potential of fostering a form of selfishness that is part of what serving is supposed to help diminish in our lives.
Transforming The Mind
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Romans 12:2
“You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Ephesians 4:22-24
“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is not hidden with Christ in God.”
Colossians 3:1-3
I’ve listed those three passages of scripture, above, because of their reference to our “minds”. The Bible clearly tells us that transformation into the character of Christ, which is a key aspect of discipleship, involves the mind.
We have the freedom to control—at least to some degree—our thoughts. In addition to this, we have some freedom of control over what our minds are exposed to. Certainly, we don’t have complete freedom of control in terms of what our minds are exposed to, but we have “some” control. Again, since transformation into the character of Christ involves the mind, we have to teach disciples about “thinking”. Our discipleship training will need to involve guidance and challenge and instruction on what we put into our minds, what we intentionally think about, and what we “allow” into our minds.
Dallas Willard, speaking of spiritual formation, says, “As we first turned away from God in our thoughts, so it is in our thoughts that the first movements toward the renovation of the heart occur. Thoughts are the place where we can and must begin to change.”
I don’t have a method, here, for the training of our minds, I simply mention it as something that our discipleship training will need to consider. There are some obvious actions that readily come to mind when it comes to positively training and influencing our thoughts.
What needs to go into our minds: Bible study; Bible memorization; worship songs; good preaching/teaching; good Christian reading; loving, positive, encouraging, stimulating, challenging conversation.
What needs to be eliminated, as much as we can control: Certain TV shows, certain images, certain kinds of conversation, certain magazines, that do not encourage and promote within us the light and truth of Christ and His kingdom.
Philippians 4:8 is a helpful thought: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”
I think a sober word of caution is in order here: When we begin to talk and teach and train in regard to “what people think”, we are dealing with a very personal and important aspect of who a person is. This is an area where we must be very gentle and extremely humble. It is a significant matter to presume to teach someone “what to think”. We must be careful to defer to Scripture as much as possible. We must be willing to be silent where Scripture is silent. We must be willing to freely admit that there are aspects of the renewing of our minds that we do not completely understand. Arrogance, presumptuousness and ungraciousness in this area can quickly be interpreted in a very negative way as an attempt by “religious people” to try to “control the minds of others”. Let’s be honest, this kind of negative perception has some valid cause for concern when we consider the history of some “Christians” and some Christian groups.
Obviously, it is not our intention to try to “control the minds of others”, our intention is to help people be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ—one of the central purposes for which we were created. But, again, when we venture into teaching and training regarding “what people think”, we are on sensitive ground and we must venture forth lovingly, graciously and very humbly—with strong adherence to Scripture—remembering that our own minds are still in the process of renewal, as well.
I humbly and lovingly submit these thoughts for your reflection.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Some Thoughts On Discipleship, Part 1
We have a task force in our church thinking and praying about the subject of discipleship. I, recently, put some thoughts into writing on the matter and it occurred to me that it might be of interest to others, so, I’m putting it here on the blog in 2 parts.
This is Part One . . .
All The Time
Part of our task is to help disciples see and understand that spiritual formation is a part of literally everything that we do. Spiritual formation happens in small groups and it happens during public and private Bible study and it happens during public and private worship, of course, that part seems obvious to us. But spiritual formation needs to be recognized as something that is a part of all of life. There is a false dichotomy that we have accepted which suggests to us that there are “spiritual” things that we do and there are “secular” things that we do. Disciples need to see that our relationship with Christ and our apprenticeship to him is a part of everything that happens in our lives, all the time, every moment, every day.
We need to teach this, we need to talk about it in our conversations; and those of us who understand our role as leaders and mentors need to be aware of living this reality.
Now, obviously, some things that we do have a much more direct and tangible influence on our spiritual formation than others. Reading and studying the Bible is a more direct and tangible act of spiritual formation than going to a baseball game. However, we may be more tempted NOT to live and respond and talk and act like Jesus at a baseball game, thereby, providing us with a different challenge and opportunity for growth than the Bible study.
I recently heard a speaker at a conference talk about being challenged—by a show on CNN—to understand the priorities of life in a way that conflicted with his beliefs and values as a Christian. His identification of what was happening to him, as he watched this show, and his understanding and commitment to his primary values—his Jesus inspired values—was an act of spiritual formation in the course of every day life.
When We Gather
In the times that we already do gather, we need to see and understand that spiritual formation is happening. This needs to be talked about and recognized. And, I think, perhaps, we need to be more intentional about spiritual formation in some of what we do when we are gathered together.
For example, if we were to think about everything that happens from the moment a person enters the church property for a Sunday morning or Wednesday night service, to the moment they leave, we might recognize that some of the things that we already do could be done in a more purposeful way.
Could our greetings of one another have a more purposeful discipleship element? I’m not trying to create a false or uncomfortable greeting—or make our fellowship times awkward—but I’m asking the question.
Could our offering time have a more purposeful discipleship element? I think it probably could.
This is not a list of all the areas, it’s just a few examples to get us thinking. My guess is that there are probably other elements of our time together that could be thought about in this way, as well.
Along these lines, it may be that we need to think of our services—and perhaps even intentionally present and structure our services—more as a time to “develop” than as a time to sit and watch a presentation.
The way I heard this described, recently, is to think of services the way you would think of a dance class or a trip to the gym for a work-out. Please don’t think I mean this in any frivolous or disrespectful way. And I’m not comparing the worship of Almighty God with a dance class. The point in the description is that we go to a dance class or a gym “EXPECTING” to grow and develop and learn, that’s the whole purpose of going there. Could we present and structure our services in such a way that people would come expecting to grow and develop and learn as part of their experience of worshiping God?
Again, I don’t presume to know the answer, for sure, I pose this as a genuine question for our reflection.
One On One Mentoring
The idea of one on one mentoring has been mentioned and I think that holds great promise. If just the few people who seem to have a particular interest in discipleship, would find one person to mentor—with part of the goal of the process being that the mentored person would someday mentor someone else—we all know the principle of exponential growth works quite powerfully in this regard.
It’s likely that many of the original mentors would say, “I’m willing. But how do I do this? Is there a some process or some guidelines I should follow? Is there some training that could help me know how to begin?” Part of the role of the discipleship task force could be to find the training help, or create the training help for the original mentors.
I believe in our last meeting, some brief conversation occurred along these lines. So, I thought I would throw in my two cents: The mentors, when looking for someone to disciple, probably need to try to find someone who they believe already shows signs of significant commitment and spiritual passion. Leaders, working in a one on one manner, are usually best advised to leverage their time and efforts with a student. And one form of leveraging time and efforts is to attempt to mentor someone who really cares, someone who is really committed, someone who demonstrates a sincere passion for God. Obviously, God’s leading in the matter is most important.
Part two of these thoughts on discipleship to follow shortly.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
This is Part One . . .
All The Time
Part of our task is to help disciples see and understand that spiritual formation is a part of literally everything that we do. Spiritual formation happens in small groups and it happens during public and private Bible study and it happens during public and private worship, of course, that part seems obvious to us. But spiritual formation needs to be recognized as something that is a part of all of life. There is a false dichotomy that we have accepted which suggests to us that there are “spiritual” things that we do and there are “secular” things that we do. Disciples need to see that our relationship with Christ and our apprenticeship to him is a part of everything that happens in our lives, all the time, every moment, every day.
We need to teach this, we need to talk about it in our conversations; and those of us who understand our role as leaders and mentors need to be aware of living this reality.
Now, obviously, some things that we do have a much more direct and tangible influence on our spiritual formation than others. Reading and studying the Bible is a more direct and tangible act of spiritual formation than going to a baseball game. However, we may be more tempted NOT to live and respond and talk and act like Jesus at a baseball game, thereby, providing us with a different challenge and opportunity for growth than the Bible study.
I recently heard a speaker at a conference talk about being challenged—by a show on CNN—to understand the priorities of life in a way that conflicted with his beliefs and values as a Christian. His identification of what was happening to him, as he watched this show, and his understanding and commitment to his primary values—his Jesus inspired values—was an act of spiritual formation in the course of every day life.
When We Gather
In the times that we already do gather, we need to see and understand that spiritual formation is happening. This needs to be talked about and recognized. And, I think, perhaps, we need to be more intentional about spiritual formation in some of what we do when we are gathered together.
For example, if we were to think about everything that happens from the moment a person enters the church property for a Sunday morning or Wednesday night service, to the moment they leave, we might recognize that some of the things that we already do could be done in a more purposeful way.
Could our greetings of one another have a more purposeful discipleship element? I’m not trying to create a false or uncomfortable greeting—or make our fellowship times awkward—but I’m asking the question.
Could our offering time have a more purposeful discipleship element? I think it probably could.
This is not a list of all the areas, it’s just a few examples to get us thinking. My guess is that there are probably other elements of our time together that could be thought about in this way, as well.
Along these lines, it may be that we need to think of our services—and perhaps even intentionally present and structure our services—more as a time to “develop” than as a time to sit and watch a presentation.
The way I heard this described, recently, is to think of services the way you would think of a dance class or a trip to the gym for a work-out. Please don’t think I mean this in any frivolous or disrespectful way. And I’m not comparing the worship of Almighty God with a dance class. The point in the description is that we go to a dance class or a gym “EXPECTING” to grow and develop and learn, that’s the whole purpose of going there. Could we present and structure our services in such a way that people would come expecting to grow and develop and learn as part of their experience of worshiping God?
Again, I don’t presume to know the answer, for sure, I pose this as a genuine question for our reflection.
One On One Mentoring
The idea of one on one mentoring has been mentioned and I think that holds great promise. If just the few people who seem to have a particular interest in discipleship, would find one person to mentor—with part of the goal of the process being that the mentored person would someday mentor someone else—we all know the principle of exponential growth works quite powerfully in this regard.
It’s likely that many of the original mentors would say, “I’m willing. But how do I do this? Is there a some process or some guidelines I should follow? Is there some training that could help me know how to begin?” Part of the role of the discipleship task force could be to find the training help, or create the training help for the original mentors.
I believe in our last meeting, some brief conversation occurred along these lines. So, I thought I would throw in my two cents: The mentors, when looking for someone to disciple, probably need to try to find someone who they believe already shows signs of significant commitment and spiritual passion. Leaders, working in a one on one manner, are usually best advised to leverage their time and efforts with a student. And one form of leveraging time and efforts is to attempt to mentor someone who really cares, someone who is really committed, someone who demonstrates a sincere passion for God. Obviously, God’s leading in the matter is most important.
Part two of these thoughts on discipleship to follow shortly.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Friday, June 6, 2008
Can You Critique An Undefined Movement?
This is a review by Dan Marler of the book "Why We're Not Emergent", Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck, Moody Publishers
Young people seem to have a way of looking at the status quo and finding flaws and errors; and feeling frustrated at the existing structures and beliefs and traditions. And, so, they criticize and challenge and initiate change. Frankly, that can be good and it has its place and it is, no doubt, an inevitable part of life.
Sometimes, however, after the years go by, and these young people have aged and gained some experience at the school called “life”, they come to see that some of those old structures and beliefs and traditions had some wisdom that they had overlooked in their youthful omniscience and zeal.
That is, of course, a great oversimplification of reality, but that’s the thought about the “Emergent Movement” that kept occurring to me as I read “Why We’re Not Emergent”.
This is an interesting book that does a good job of explaining and critiquing a movement that is inherently hard to define and has no recognized headquarters or statement of beliefs—it’s a movement where even its recognized leaders and spokespersons will sometimes not identify themselves as part of the movement. The authors characterize the task of defining and critiquing the Emergent movement as being like trying to nail jello to the wall. (At least, I think I read that in this book. I might be wrong. If I am, disregard the last three sentences and move rapidly to the next paragraph shaking your head and saying, “tsk, tsk.”)
The book is interesting and funny and the positions of the authors—who are definitely not Emergent—were well reasoned and well stated. But, I appreciate that it was also, in my opinion, a reasonable and irenic treatment of the Emergent movement and its ideas and approach.
DeYoung and Kluck don’t back down from stating their beliefs, but you get the impression that they were really trying to disagree lovingly. To “disagree lovingly” is a form of tolerance that is not well recognized in our culture because we’ve redefined the whole concept of tolerance so that many believe it means that everyone is always right. But DeYoung and Kluck write in a manner that evidences the true spirit of tolerance—which includes disagreement.
Why We’re Not Emergent would be a helpful book for people who would like to gain some familiarity with the Emergent movement. And it could also be a profitable intellectual challenge and, dare I say, corrective, for those who consider themselves to be Emergent.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Young people seem to have a way of looking at the status quo and finding flaws and errors; and feeling frustrated at the existing structures and beliefs and traditions. And, so, they criticize and challenge and initiate change. Frankly, that can be good and it has its place and it is, no doubt, an inevitable part of life.
Sometimes, however, after the years go by, and these young people have aged and gained some experience at the school called “life”, they come to see that some of those old structures and beliefs and traditions had some wisdom that they had overlooked in their youthful omniscience and zeal.
That is, of course, a great oversimplification of reality, but that’s the thought about the “Emergent Movement” that kept occurring to me as I read “Why We’re Not Emergent”.
This is an interesting book that does a good job of explaining and critiquing a movement that is inherently hard to define and has no recognized headquarters or statement of beliefs—it’s a movement where even its recognized leaders and spokespersons will sometimes not identify themselves as part of the movement. The authors characterize the task of defining and critiquing the Emergent movement as being like trying to nail jello to the wall. (At least, I think I read that in this book. I might be wrong. If I am, disregard the last three sentences and move rapidly to the next paragraph shaking your head and saying, “tsk, tsk.”)
The book is interesting and funny and the positions of the authors—who are definitely not Emergent—were well reasoned and well stated. But, I appreciate that it was also, in my opinion, a reasonable and irenic treatment of the Emergent movement and its ideas and approach.
DeYoung and Kluck don’t back down from stating their beliefs, but you get the impression that they were really trying to disagree lovingly. To “disagree lovingly” is a form of tolerance that is not well recognized in our culture because we’ve redefined the whole concept of tolerance so that many believe it means that everyone is always right. But DeYoung and Kluck write in a manner that evidences the true spirit of tolerance—which includes disagreement.
Why We’re Not Emergent would be a helpful book for people who would like to gain some familiarity with the Emergent movement. And it could also be a profitable intellectual challenge and, dare I say, corrective, for those who consider themselves to be Emergent.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Friday, May 9, 2008
E-Flash From Dan, Re: Mother's Day 2008
Dear E-Flash Friends;
Imagine going for an ultra sound and during the procedure you hear the technician say, “Wow!?! That’s strange.”
A little bit concerned you ask, “What? What is it?”
The technician responds, “I’ve never seen this before.”
Now, you’re starting to feel a little bit of panic, “What are you seeing? What’s wrong?”
And the technician says, “It’s not anything wrong, it’s just that . . . well . . . I don’t know how to say this, but . . . your child is God.”
After a brief fainting spell, you wake up and realize it was all just a crazy dream. So, you chuckle and then make a quick trip to the bakery to get some Angel Food cake.
I’m bringing this up, because I’d like to encourage us to consider what it must have felt like for a young girl named Mary to hear this strange and perplexing and flattering and scary and utterly unique message from an angel: “Oh, by the way, you’re baby is the Savior and long awaited Messiah, the specially anointed King who will rule FOREVER. He is conceived in you by the Holy Spirit and he is the Holy one. So, that’s all I needed to tell you, I’ll see you later!”
It’s the Greatest Challenge Any Mom Ever Faced, and that’s what we’ll be talking about this Mother’s Day, May 11th.
I invite you to join us and hope that you can bring your mom to church. We will honor the moms and tell them how much we love them. We’ll laugh, we’ll cry, we’ll reminisce, and then we’ll start the service and it will get even better, still.
Mother’s Day 2008: “The Greatest Challenge Any Mom Ever Faced”
God bless and see you Sunday!
Dan
Imagine going for an ultra sound and during the procedure you hear the technician say, “Wow!?! That’s strange.”
A little bit concerned you ask, “What? What is it?”
The technician responds, “I’ve never seen this before.”
Now, you’re starting to feel a little bit of panic, “What are you seeing? What’s wrong?”
And the technician says, “It’s not anything wrong, it’s just that . . . well . . . I don’t know how to say this, but . . . your child is God.”
After a brief fainting spell, you wake up and realize it was all just a crazy dream. So, you chuckle and then make a quick trip to the bakery to get some Angel Food cake.
I’m bringing this up, because I’d like to encourage us to consider what it must have felt like for a young girl named Mary to hear this strange and perplexing and flattering and scary and utterly unique message from an angel: “Oh, by the way, you’re baby is the Savior and long awaited Messiah, the specially anointed King who will rule FOREVER. He is conceived in you by the Holy Spirit and he is the Holy one. So, that’s all I needed to tell you, I’ll see you later!”
It’s the Greatest Challenge Any Mom Ever Faced, and that’s what we’ll be talking about this Mother’s Day, May 11th.
I invite you to join us and hope that you can bring your mom to church. We will honor the moms and tell them how much we love them. We’ll laugh, we’ll cry, we’ll reminisce, and then we’ll start the service and it will get even better, still.
Mother’s Day 2008: “The Greatest Challenge Any Mom Ever Faced”
God bless and see you Sunday!
Dan
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Are You Ready For Some Verbal Judo?
Review of "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day.
Sarcasm? Check.
Witty jabs? Check.
Tender words of warmth and kindness? Check. (Not!)
Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” is a little edgier and a little more aggressive than most books that could be labeled “Christian apologetics”, but that’s part of what makes it interesting to read. And Vox’s logical critique of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is sort of like a philosophical straight jab to the solar plexus. Can you tell I’ve been waiting for a long time to be able to throw some martial arts references into a book review?
Day actually extends a little more respect to Daniel Dennett because Dennett’s “Breaking The Spell” is “substantially different than” the books written by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Although Day strongly disagrees with Dennett’s conclusions he feels that Dennett, at least, offers a “reasonable perspective” and that Dennett’s “intellectual honesty” is “refreshing”.
Day gives a strong argument for atheism’s failure as a worldview and particularly it’s failure as a political system by sharing some of atheism’s sad history. Yes, there are some stains in Christianity’s history, as well. That can never honestly be denied and Day addresses that subject. But it’s fair to do a little comparison. Over the course of more than 300 years 3,230 people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. That’s 3,230 too many and it’s an embarrassment to Christians. But compare that to this: “the total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheist [regimes], three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”
Is “The Irrational Atheist” gentle? No. Is it convincing? Yes.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Note: Day uses a few swear words in the book. If that would be offensive to you then you shouldn't read "The Irrational Atheist".
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Sarcasm? Check.
Witty jabs? Check.
Tender words of warmth and kindness? Check. (Not!)
Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” is a little edgier and a little more aggressive than most books that could be labeled “Christian apologetics”, but that’s part of what makes it interesting to read. And Vox’s logical critique of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is sort of like a philosophical straight jab to the solar plexus. Can you tell I’ve been waiting for a long time to be able to throw some martial arts references into a book review?
Day actually extends a little more respect to Daniel Dennett because Dennett’s “Breaking The Spell” is “substantially different than” the books written by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Although Day strongly disagrees with Dennett’s conclusions he feels that Dennett, at least, offers a “reasonable perspective” and that Dennett’s “intellectual honesty” is “refreshing”.
Day gives a strong argument for atheism’s failure as a worldview and particularly it’s failure as a political system by sharing some of atheism’s sad history. Yes, there are some stains in Christianity’s history, as well. That can never honestly be denied and Day addresses that subject. But it’s fair to do a little comparison. Over the course of more than 300 years 3,230 people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. That’s 3,230 too many and it’s an embarrassment to Christians. But compare that to this: “the total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheist [regimes], three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”
Is “The Irrational Atheist” gentle? No. Is it convincing? Yes.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Note: Day uses a few swear words in the book. If that would be offensive to you then you shouldn't read "The Irrational Atheist".
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Monday, April 28, 2008
Review of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
What is Ben Stein’s beef? In his documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, you begin to realize from the opening shots at the Berlin Wall, that the main issue in the movie is freedom; freedom to pursue a line of thinking.
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tolerance Does Not Mean Agreement
Now more than ever, the call to tolerance is heard. As well it should be. But I think it’s fair to ask: What does it mean to be tolerant? You see, our culture has been very effective at redefining the actual meaning of tolerance. Many people have come to believe that tolerance means everybody will agree with each other and everyone will see each other’s viewpoint as equally correct.
Philosophy professor Paul Chamberlain says, “In contemporary North American culture, tolerance has come to be virtually synonymous with agreement.” He goes on, “The way to be tolerant toward an idea or practice is to agree with it, or better yet to affirm it, possibly even to celebrate it.” We tend to think that is tolerance.
By this definition of tolerance, if you voice disagreement with a view, you are labeled intolerant. And, of course, no one wants to be labeled as intolerant because tolerance is such a highly valued virtue in our culture. Furthermore, to be intolerant is on a par with being a bigot or, worse yet, a Bible-believing-fundamentalist. That’s the charge that really causes some to run from the room sobbing and shaking their heads in vigorous denial.
Of course, the person who calls someone “intolerant” usually fails to notice the inherent contradiction of the action because to call someone intolerant involves a judgment which, by society’s incorrect, but popularly held, definition of tolerance renders the accuser guilty of being intolerant, as well.
But our commonly held definition of tolerance is actually incorrect. We are operating with an improper understanding of the word. Scholar Paul Copan writes, “Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’—not ‘being accepting of all views.’”
Tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement. Some of us may require a moment to allow the very idea to sink in. But think about it: if you agree with someone’s position, there is no need for tolerance. Tolerance is only necessary when people disagree on a matter. You are only called to tolerate what I’m writing here if you disagree with me—as shocking as that is for me to imagine.
Often, those who oppose the truth do so by redefining or misusing terms. If terms are redefined, one can throw a smoke screen on the real issues at the heart of a matter. I believe this has happened with the concept of tolerance. We have been taught that it means “everybody is always right”. But of course, that very idea involves a logical contradiction.
We have been taught that tolerance means “I agree with your position no matter what it is.” But to attempt to hold that position will ultimately be dishonest and, at some point or another, very uncomfortable.
Tolerance really means: “I disagree with you, but I will respect you, and I will respect your right to your position.” On many delicate issues that understanding of tolerance will be plenty to keep us challenged.
Since real tolerance requires disagreement, perhaps one of the more vital questions is: Can we disagree and yet do so humbly, extending respect and grace toward each other? Let’s hope so.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Philosophy professor Paul Chamberlain says, “In contemporary North American culture, tolerance has come to be virtually synonymous with agreement.” He goes on, “The way to be tolerant toward an idea or practice is to agree with it, or better yet to affirm it, possibly even to celebrate it.” We tend to think that is tolerance.
By this definition of tolerance, if you voice disagreement with a view, you are labeled intolerant. And, of course, no one wants to be labeled as intolerant because tolerance is such a highly valued virtue in our culture. Furthermore, to be intolerant is on a par with being a bigot or, worse yet, a Bible-believing-fundamentalist. That’s the charge that really causes some to run from the room sobbing and shaking their heads in vigorous denial.
Of course, the person who calls someone “intolerant” usually fails to notice the inherent contradiction of the action because to call someone intolerant involves a judgment which, by society’s incorrect, but popularly held, definition of tolerance renders the accuser guilty of being intolerant, as well.
But our commonly held definition of tolerance is actually incorrect. We are operating with an improper understanding of the word. Scholar Paul Copan writes, “Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’—not ‘being accepting of all views.’”
Tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement. Some of us may require a moment to allow the very idea to sink in. But think about it: if you agree with someone’s position, there is no need for tolerance. Tolerance is only necessary when people disagree on a matter. You are only called to tolerate what I’m writing here if you disagree with me—as shocking as that is for me to imagine.
Often, those who oppose the truth do so by redefining or misusing terms. If terms are redefined, one can throw a smoke screen on the real issues at the heart of a matter. I believe this has happened with the concept of tolerance. We have been taught that it means “everybody is always right”. But of course, that very idea involves a logical contradiction.
We have been taught that tolerance means “I agree with your position no matter what it is.” But to attempt to hold that position will ultimately be dishonest and, at some point or another, very uncomfortable.
Tolerance really means: “I disagree with you, but I will respect you, and I will respect your right to your position.” On many delicate issues that understanding of tolerance will be plenty to keep us challenged.
Since real tolerance requires disagreement, perhaps one of the more vital questions is: Can we disagree and yet do so humbly, extending respect and grace toward each other? Let’s hope so.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Review of "The Reason For God"
Timothy Keller has been pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in Manhattan, for nearly 20 years. In that time, he has heard many questions and comments about the Christian faith from young, hip, New York City urbanites. Keller routinely holds Q&A sessions following the services at the church and, so, he has fielded a lot of genuine queries along the way. “The Reason For God” poses a number of these questions and comments, along with Keller’s response.
Many of the objections to Christianity are what you would expect to hear. For example:
There can’t be just one true religion.
How could a good God allow suffering?
Christianity is a straightjacket.
The church is responsible for so much injustice.
How can a loving God send people to hell?
Science has disproved Christianity.
You can’t take the Bible literally.
The response to these challenges comprises the first half of the book. In “part 2” of the book, Keller presents some of the basic Christian doctrines, still maintaining a tone of explanation and defense of the faith.
The jacket flap of the book states that Keller “explain[s] how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity”. I found that to be true and it comes across in the book.
Many of Keller’s answers to the objections to Christianity are not particularly original—since the field of apologetics has a long and much-pondered history. However, Keller presents some great insights. For example, explaining how Christianity is not the great enemy of pluralism and multiculturalism, Keller writes, “Christianity has been more adaptive (and maybe less destructive) of diverse cultures than secularism and many other worldviews.”
He goes on to explain, “The pattern of Christian expansion differs from that of every other world religion. The center and majority of Islam’s population is still in the place of its origin—the Middle East. The original lands that have been the demographic centers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have remained so. By contrast, Christianity was first dominated by Hellenists and centered in the Mediterranean. Later the faith was received by the barbarians of Northern Europe and Christianity came to be dominated by western Europeans and then North Americans. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity soon will be centered in the southern and eastern hemispheres.”
What Keller writes is true and it’s an important insight. It speaks powerfully to the adaptability of Christianity. It also points out a truly unique and extraordinary quality of Christianity.
The person that comes through in “The Reason for God” is smart and thoughtful. He is a good communicator and his ideas are cogent, sound and helpful.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Many of the objections to Christianity are what you would expect to hear. For example:
There can’t be just one true religion.
How could a good God allow suffering?
Christianity is a straightjacket.
The church is responsible for so much injustice.
How can a loving God send people to hell?
Science has disproved Christianity.
You can’t take the Bible literally.
The response to these challenges comprises the first half of the book. In “part 2” of the book, Keller presents some of the basic Christian doctrines, still maintaining a tone of explanation and defense of the faith.
The jacket flap of the book states that Keller “explain[s] how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity”. I found that to be true and it comes across in the book.
Many of Keller’s answers to the objections to Christianity are not particularly original—since the field of apologetics has a long and much-pondered history. However, Keller presents some great insights. For example, explaining how Christianity is not the great enemy of pluralism and multiculturalism, Keller writes, “Christianity has been more adaptive (and maybe less destructive) of diverse cultures than secularism and many other worldviews.”
He goes on to explain, “The pattern of Christian expansion differs from that of every other world religion. The center and majority of Islam’s population is still in the place of its origin—the Middle East. The original lands that have been the demographic centers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have remained so. By contrast, Christianity was first dominated by Hellenists and centered in the Mediterranean. Later the faith was received by the barbarians of Northern Europe and Christianity came to be dominated by western Europeans and then North Americans. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity soon will be centered in the southern and eastern hemispheres.”
What Keller writes is true and it’s an important insight. It speaks powerfully to the adaptability of Christianity. It also points out a truly unique and extraordinary quality of Christianity.
The person that comes through in “The Reason for God” is smart and thoughtful. He is a good communicator and his ideas are cogent, sound and helpful.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Before Time Began, God Knew I'd Write This Review
Review of:
What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?
By Millard J. Erickson
Several years ago, I discovered that some serious, evangelical Christian scholars believed that God may not know everything about the future. That surprised me, to say the least. I wonder if God saw this coming.
I had always been taught that God knew everything, past, present and future. In fact, I was taught that He even knew future contingencies that wouldn’t actually occur, but, if they did, this is how it would happen. God’s complete omniscience seemed to be a reasonable concept to me. After all, He’s God, right? He exists outside of time, so how could a matter that hinges on time (past, present, future) present a limitation for Him?
Well, I discovered that some theologians would be quick to say, “Wait, just a minute, buddy boy. What about this passage where God seems to change his mind?”
Or, “what about this passage where God’s actions are changed based upon what a person does?”
Or, “what about this passage where God seems to truly discover something about a person based upon a test He has given the person?”
Or, “how can people really have a free will and, yet, God already knows what they’re going to do?”
And, so, the debate is on.
Millard J. Erickson’s book, “What Does God Know And When Does He Know It?” presents the issues of this debate in a reasonably fair and comprehensive manner.
Erickson presents the arguments for the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he presents the Open View of God. He offers a biblical basis for each position. He examines the hermeneutics and doctrinal structure of the issues. He looks at the historical development of the matters and the philosophical influences. And he presents some of the practical issues that follow.
Erickson has a keen eye for identifying the logical inconsistencies of the Open View.
Erickson, himself, holds the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he makes that clear, in the book. However, he also states that his book represents an attempt “to deal with these issues with an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments on both sides.” He does acknowledge the strength of the Open View on the points where he perceives they have the stronger argument, especially in the “Evaluation and Conclusion” section of the book.
Summing it up, he writes this, “On balance, then, while no single view has given final answers to the issues involved in the foreknowledge debate, the traditional view of God’s exhaustive definitive foreknowledge appears to have considerably more cogent intellectual support and fewer difficulties than does the alternative.”
This is a good introduction to Open Theism.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?
By Millard J. Erickson
Several years ago, I discovered that some serious, evangelical Christian scholars believed that God may not know everything about the future. That surprised me, to say the least. I wonder if God saw this coming.
I had always been taught that God knew everything, past, present and future. In fact, I was taught that He even knew future contingencies that wouldn’t actually occur, but, if they did, this is how it would happen. God’s complete omniscience seemed to be a reasonable concept to me. After all, He’s God, right? He exists outside of time, so how could a matter that hinges on time (past, present, future) present a limitation for Him?
Well, I discovered that some theologians would be quick to say, “Wait, just a minute, buddy boy. What about this passage where God seems to change his mind?”
Or, “what about this passage where God’s actions are changed based upon what a person does?”
Or, “what about this passage where God seems to truly discover something about a person based upon a test He has given the person?”
Or, “how can people really have a free will and, yet, God already knows what they’re going to do?”
And, so, the debate is on.
Millard J. Erickson’s book, “What Does God Know And When Does He Know It?” presents the issues of this debate in a reasonably fair and comprehensive manner.
Erickson presents the arguments for the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he presents the Open View of God. He offers a biblical basis for each position. He examines the hermeneutics and doctrinal structure of the issues. He looks at the historical development of the matters and the philosophical influences. And he presents some of the practical issues that follow.
Erickson has a keen eye for identifying the logical inconsistencies of the Open View.
Erickson, himself, holds the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he makes that clear, in the book. However, he also states that his book represents an attempt “to deal with these issues with an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments on both sides.” He does acknowledge the strength of the Open View on the points where he perceives they have the stronger argument, especially in the “Evaluation and Conclusion” section of the book.
Summing it up, he writes this, “On balance, then, while no single view has given final answers to the issues involved in the foreknowledge debate, the traditional view of God’s exhaustive definitive foreknowledge appears to have considerably more cogent intellectual support and fewer difficulties than does the alternative.”
This is a good introduction to Open Theism.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Friday, March 14, 2008
E-Flash From Dan, March 13, 2008
E-Flash Awesome Quote:
“For we are God’s workmanship . . .” Ephesians 2:10(a)
“The word ‘workmanship’ comes from the Greek word poiema,
from which we get the word ‘poem’. So we can say that God
creates each of us as a piece of art, as a piece of poetry. Every
one of us is a poem that God writes, something that He has
created to be of use for the mission He has given us.”
Dan Kimball
From the book, “Practitioners”
Dear E-Flash Friends;
Thought it might be a good idea to remind you that this weekend we “spring ahead” one hour. The change to Daylight Saving Time always seems to slip past a few folks every year. When that happens they show up at 12 o’clock for the 11 o’clock service on Sunday. I have this idea that, one spring—on Daylight Saving Time weekend—we should all hide at 11:55. And when the people who forgot about the time change show up at noon, we jump out of the shadows and shout “Boo!” really loud. Then we simply walk out of the building with no further comment.
I haven’t implemented the idea, yet, because it feels like it still needs a little more refining. Anyhow, until that idea pans out, here’s your reminder: Don’t forget to set your clocks ahead, one hour, this Saturday, March 8th.
I also want to remind you that Easter is coming in just a few weeks. These are always powerful and awesome services—services of victory and joy and celebration! I’m getting excited just thinking about it. Aren’t you? We will have three Easter services, one on Saturday evening (March 22) at 5 pm and two on Sunday morning (March 23) at 9 and 11 am. I’m so fired up that I’m going to try to rearrange my schedule so that I can be at all three services. (Don’t analyze that last sentence too carefully.)
We want to make a little extra room at the 11 o’clock, Sunday morning Easter service, because that is the most well attended time and it is the most likely time that new guests to our church will show up. So, if it is possible, would you consider attending the 9 am Sunday morning service or the 5 pm Saturday service? I know that won’t fit into everybody’s plans and, that’s okay if it doesn’t. But if 9 am, Easter Sunday, or 5 pm Saturday won’t be a bother for you, that would help us provide space for the extra visitors. Thanks so much, you guys are always gracious and accommodating. There are folks who don’t go to church very often, or perhaps “ever” who will come on Easter and we want them to have a seat and be able to hear the life-changing message of the RISEN and Living, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! The greatest message of HOPE in the world.
One more thing: I’m asking each of us to think of one person for whom we could pray, every day, between now and Easter. Is there one person for whom you could pray and invite to our Easter service? If we will all pray and all invite, I believe God might do something really great. To Him be the glory!
Your friend and partner in ministry,
Dan Marler
www.VisitUsOnline.org
*If you would like to have the E-Flash delivered directly to your e-mail, send an e-mail to cog111st@aol.com and write, "I'd like to receive the E-Flash" in the subject field.
“For we are God’s workmanship . . .” Ephesians 2:10(a)
“The word ‘workmanship’ comes from the Greek word poiema,
from which we get the word ‘poem’. So we can say that God
creates each of us as a piece of art, as a piece of poetry. Every
one of us is a poem that God writes, something that He has
created to be of use for the mission He has given us.”
Dan Kimball
From the book, “Practitioners”
Dear E-Flash Friends;
Thought it might be a good idea to remind you that this weekend we “spring ahead” one hour. The change to Daylight Saving Time always seems to slip past a few folks every year. When that happens they show up at 12 o’clock for the 11 o’clock service on Sunday. I have this idea that, one spring—on Daylight Saving Time weekend—we should all hide at 11:55. And when the people who forgot about the time change show up at noon, we jump out of the shadows and shout “Boo!” really loud. Then we simply walk out of the building with no further comment.
I haven’t implemented the idea, yet, because it feels like it still needs a little more refining. Anyhow, until that idea pans out, here’s your reminder: Don’t forget to set your clocks ahead, one hour, this Saturday, March 8th.
I also want to remind you that Easter is coming in just a few weeks. These are always powerful and awesome services—services of victory and joy and celebration! I’m getting excited just thinking about it. Aren’t you? We will have three Easter services, one on Saturday evening (March 22) at 5 pm and two on Sunday morning (March 23) at 9 and 11 am. I’m so fired up that I’m going to try to rearrange my schedule so that I can be at all three services. (Don’t analyze that last sentence too carefully.)
We want to make a little extra room at the 11 o’clock, Sunday morning Easter service, because that is the most well attended time and it is the most likely time that new guests to our church will show up. So, if it is possible, would you consider attending the 9 am Sunday morning service or the 5 pm Saturday service? I know that won’t fit into everybody’s plans and, that’s okay if it doesn’t. But if 9 am, Easter Sunday, or 5 pm Saturday won’t be a bother for you, that would help us provide space for the extra visitors. Thanks so much, you guys are always gracious and accommodating. There are folks who don’t go to church very often, or perhaps “ever” who will come on Easter and we want them to have a seat and be able to hear the life-changing message of the RISEN and Living, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! The greatest message of HOPE in the world.
One more thing: I’m asking each of us to think of one person for whom we could pray, every day, between now and Easter. Is there one person for whom you could pray and invite to our Easter service? If we will all pray and all invite, I believe God might do something really great. To Him be the glory!
Your friend and partner in ministry,
Dan Marler
www.VisitUsOnline.org
*If you would like to have the E-Flash delivered directly to your e-mail, send an e-mail to cog111st@aol.com and write, "I'd like to receive the E-Flash" in the subject field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)