TheLionRampant.net

Check out how good your UK/US terminology is here. I think I knew most of them, which is good considering we’ve been here more than 2 years.

****
I just finished making a nearly vegan chocolate cake and it was super fabulous. This was attempt #2. Attempt #1 involved me not having maple syrup (and so I added sugar and water and it was awfully hard and bad); additionally, the recipe for attempted cake #1 called for brown rice, and this should’ve tipped me off that it wasn’t going to be good. So I threw it away and baked this. Bryce loved it and being quite anti-vegetarian, this is quite a feat. I imagine you could substitute brown rice syrup for the sugar and maybe some applesauce as well.

I’m listening to an interview with Jamie Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College. Smith begins by talking about his frustration with much of what the media reports about evangelicalism, and the people that speak for evangelicalism. But he’s also dissatisfied with with evangelicals:

There is (and I don’t want to be trite or quick about this)…there is a remarkable collusion and identification in this country of being a faithful Bible-believing evangelical Christian, and being a very patriotic, pro-business, pro-war (after 9-11) kind of citizen. And so to suggest, for instance, that Christians might want to rethink their commitment to the sort of nationalistic pride that motivates participation in war, that feels like you’re taking a brick out of the wall of their Christian faith, because they haven’t been able to distinguish the two. Or, if you start saying, “hey, you know, I don’t know if we should be so pro-big business and free markets in the way that we are because, if we think about this a little more carefully, there’s some really serious injustices that are engendered by that…” it’s like you might as well have said, “I’m not sure that Jesus is God,” in some places. That’s so bundled up in a sense of identity and standing up for what’s right that you’re very quickly marginalised as a Christian if you start challenging those areas… In other words…there’s a way in which the core of evangelical faith already provides the resources for calling into question this collusion between the two [biblical faith and patriotism]…When I try to convince people, in an adult Sunday School class, in a local congregation, to think differently, it’s—within evangelicalism, you need to be able to come and say, “look, let’s look at what the Bible shows us about the sorts of things that we should be passionate about; what really matters.” And if you can show that it’s in Scripture, for evangelicals, that’s the authority. That’s ultimately the authority…If somebody says, “well look, the only way you can do this is if you show them from the Scriptures”, I would just say, “what better place to go to?” I’m very happy to derive a very different vision from the Scriptures, and use that as our common starting point.

What’s does he suggest instead?

The thing that I find so maddening in evangelicalism today, is on it’s right wing there is this idea of, sort of, re-Christianizing, or Christianizing the State. In my reading, Radical Orthodoxy would put much more emphasis on the church as being and exhibiting this alternative community without it being a withdrawal…and thinking about, “we’re going to exhibit an alternative economics by the way we distribute resources within the body of Christ”…I’m reading a fascinating book right now by Charles Marsh called The Beloved Community on the history of the civil-rights movement…and you see a lot of the things that I think of, as what would be a radically orthodox community, you can see embodied in something like those early civil rights projects, which weren’t fundamentalists trying to take over the State, but they also weren’t a-political, withdrawals from the State either. It was engaging the public from a confessional perspective.

The key is recognising the false-dichotomy that frequently confronts us, and finding the third way:

One of the things I get frustrated with very quickly is that, “well, if you’re against Bush or against current Republican policies, then you must be a Democrat.” To which I would reply, “no”. I don’t understand why it’s always this either-or. I think what happens is, both sides of that game are playing by the rules of what I would call “state-craft”. I developed this a fellow named Daniel Bell, a Methodist theologian at Southern Lutheran Seminary. What he says is both liberal-progressive Christian Democrats, and the more conservative, right wing Republican Christians, both think that the way to solve problems, and the way to be faithful is to marshal the resources and mechanics and engine of the State. And this is where I think there is an alternative which says, “you know, I don’t want to play by either side’s rules in that respect.” The church, within a civil society, can carve out its own space to be political as the church. That is, I think the church is a political space; it is a polis, in the Greek sense; it is a community which has a specific goal that its aiming for, and it’s trying to embody practices to form virtuous people to achieve that goal. So I think that’s a political space, but I don’t think it should be identified with the space which is the State. When I say “the church”, I wouldn’t want us ever to just think of a local congregation, and I wouldn’t even want us to just think of American evangelicalism. What we’re talking about is a body, a community, which is a trans-national reality; it’s really an alternative, but global, community of people, which transcends the borders and citizenships of nation-states, and yet that’s our primary citizenship. So that has to make a difference for how we think about our relationship to global realities.

Listen to the whole interview here.

HT: FFF

I posted a short bit on organic food at Intellectuelle following our first delivery from Grow Wild. Feel free to jump in on the conversation over there (or here, if you’d rather).

NEW: Check out this fabulous spoof video about organic food here. (HT: FFF)

As many of you will know, Derek Webb is one of my favourite musicians. Not only is he a superb artist, but the theology driving his lyrics is second to none; a rare combination in Christian music. Derek is certainly controversial, and I think the controversy has gained him more attention that he might otherwise have attracted. There are many Christians who have become disenfranchised with evangelicalism in recent years, and I think many of these folks have seen Derek as a kindred spirit. I wonder, however, if such people find more in common with Derek’s critique of evangelicalism than his positive statements about the church and the gospel.

On his solo debut album, Derek recorded songs about the church–her beauty, her sinfulness, and her need for reformation according to the Good News of Jesus. In “Nobody Loves Me”, speaking of the need to conform the church to God’s Word, Derek sang,

So I’ll do whatever it takes
To fit us into this wedding gown
I’ll use words that rattle your nerves
words like ’sin’ and ‘faith alone’ now…

It is not uncommon for churches today to shy away from such “religiously charged” words as “sin” and “faith alone”. And yet, they are thoroughly biblical concepts, and thoroughly necessary to be conformed to the Bible. Derek’s outspokenness gained him many fans.

Fast-forward a few years. Derek continues to write songs that cut to the heart of sinners like myself; he draws blood with the law and completes the surgery with the gospel. And yet, his lyrics aren’t quite the same. If anything, they are more personal; he began applying the gospel specifically. One of his most recent songs proclaims, “sell your SUV” and, “Jesus isn’t a Republican”. As you’d expect, this caused some uneasiness, to say the least. Many people accused him of softening up, lessening his focus on the gospel. One former-fan said, “I’m longing for the days when he ’sings songs that rattle your nerves, words like sin and faith alone’”.

Now, regardless of your views on politics and the environment, the question I want to ask is this: “what happens when words like ’sin’ and ‘faith alone’ don’t rattle my nerves anymore?” I’ve been a theological student for long enough now that I can debate the nature, origin, and effects of sin with just about anyone. I can explain the historical and theological significance of the doctrine of sola fide, if you care to know (and I can even reference the Latin :)). But there are certainly times when the general concepts don’t rattle my nerves in the least. What am I supposed to do when when my intellectual knowledge of my own sinfulness doesn’t shake me to the core?

The answer is that I need to get specific. The abstract concepts are entirely useful and necessary, but I need to be aware of the specifics of my sin; the specific sins I commit, in addition to the general awareness that I am a sinner. There are many of us who are happy enough to say, “yeah man, I’m a sinner.” But if I can’t name my particular sins, then I am only a theoretical sinner with a theoretical saviour. I have to get to the specifics if I am to be rattled to the bone. The specific issues Derek mentioned in this song (SUV’s and politics) are a subject for another time; what is essential, however, is that these issues be brought to our attention. We need the specifics.

What, then, does this have to do with my previous post on neutrality? Quite simply, both posts deal with specifics. I am fascinated by the concept of truth and how truth is defined and substantiated in the Bible. I am fascinated with the concept of absolute truth and the standards according to which such truth is measured. I have been considering writing about such topics for a while, but I get the impression that most people aren’t the geek that I am and might not find the ideas as interesting as I do. I could have simply written about the Word of God as the supreme standard of truth. Every evangelical, by definition, would agree that the Bible is the absolute truth of God. But what about the specifics? It is one thing to affirm that the Bible is true, or even that the Bible is Truth. It is another issue to discuss the standards of biblical truth against the backdrop of cultural events. How does biblical truth relate to the standards of law in the US? Specific questions are harder to answer, but they also have the tendency to rattle more nerves.

Living overseas, I’m often a little slow in finding out about what’s newsworthy in the US. So I’ve only just begun to find out about who the next Supreme Court justice is likely to be. Reading the news today, I suppose I would be expected to be happy, since being a Christian means I’m expected to be a Republican. Or perhaps I could dive under the surface a bit and express concern that John Roberts won’t openly condemn abortion. Yet there is something far more troubling than Roberts’ views on abortion, whatever they may be.

As Senators question, interupt, and otherwise dignify the conversation that takes place during recess at a typical American junior high, Roberts attempts to keep himself out of hot water. I don’t envy the guy; people on opposing sides of the aisle are trying to pin him down and he can’t gain the support of some with losing that of others. So I guess his tactic is to appear as neutral as possible, at least until he is confirmed. And so he hides behind court precedent and refuses to state his own views because of cases that are likely to come before the Supreme Court in the not too distant future. In the midst of his ducking and dodging, he assured the Senate that his Roman Catholic beliefs would not influence his decisions if he were confirmed. “There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.

Well that’s a relief.

And so, the soon to be chief justice of the highest court of the United States panders to the illusion that he is, in fact, totally neutral, despite what he may believe on Sunday morning. If Roberts’ “personal views based on faith” will not be influencing his decision making, I think the American people have a right to know which of his personal views will be influencing his decisions. The idea that he can simply make decisions based on the precedent set by previous court cases is utter foolishness, and the fact that such a position is actually the favoured one in our culture is even more absurd.

Without wanting to make personal judgements about an individual’s spiritual state (much less an individual I don’t know), I have to say that the flavour of Roman Catholicism John Roberts has swallowed is akin to a religious starvation diet. If such a religion does not provide an all-encompassing, comprehensive worldview, then it is not worth subscribing to at all. What’s more, the liberals (and conservatives) that are trying to pin him down know as much, and have refused to live according to the supposed neutrality they set as the standard for everyone else.

The fact is, no one is neutral. The idea that we can set aside our personal beliefs and judge neutrally is pure fiction. Everyone has a religion (whether they call it a religion or not), everyone is living according to their religion, and everyone is evangelising for their religion. Allow me to prove this by using a fictitious, though entirely realistic, illustration. I walk into a high school biology class to learn that the subject of the day is Darwin’s theory of evolution. After listening to the lecture for 15-20 minutes I raise my hand a remark that evolution is patently false, because it is in clear contradiction to the Bible. My teacher responds by saying that whatever my person beliefs may be, this is a science class, and for the purpose of the class I must set aside my private beliefs. And just like that, my teacher has expressed her religion (naturalism), lived according to it, and attempted to proselytise me.

Naturalists believe that nature is all that exists, and therefore everything must be explainable in terms of nature. Few naturalists would view their beliefs as religious in any way, yet I suspect that if I were to tell my science teacher that though she may personally believe that God doesn’t exist, for the purpose of the class she must set aside her private beliefs and adopt the assumptions of the Bible, the outcry would be very religious. The fact is that we all have beliefs, and we all make decisions based on those beliefs. The science teacher’s belief that humanity evolved from nothing is an outworking of her belief that nature is all that exists. My belief that evolution is wrong is an outworking of my belief that the Bible is true. Neither position is based on some kind of neutrality. Neutrality is a myth; every decision is based on a belief of one sort or another. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

In the case of Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, he is claiming that he can perform his duties without reference to his Roman Catholic faith. That may well be true, but if it is, he is still basing his judgments on some other belief. The claim that he can judge a case neutrally is stupid at best, and dishonest at worst. So Roberts owes it to the Senate, and to the American public, to disclose what his beliefs are on the basis of which he will pass judgement on Supreme Court cases. Not all beliefs are created equal and we may not like what he has to say. But at least we can have an honest discussion, instead of hiding behind myths and lies. As it stands now, Senators will have to guess what Roberts believes about abortion, and make their decision on the basis of that guess. The larger issue, however, is that whatever his position on abortion, Roberts has been dishonest about how he will judge cases. If he is confirmed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will have entered into his position through the use of the sort of lies that are not supposed be allowed in a court of law, and he will make judgements of behalf of a country that espouses a myth as virtue.

If the current trend of polarisation continues in the US, and there is every reason to believe that it will, I suspect public figures of all kinds will be under increasing pressure to bow to the myth of neutrality. This, of course, has serious ramifications for Christians; I will perhaps explore these in a couple days.

Okay, I’ve bitten off way more than I can ever hope to chew with this blog title. But nevertheless, I hope my very quick thoughts will get us all thinking.

First off, I wonder how much my ideas about women and the church are influenced by my culture and how much by the Bible. (And a further clarification: I’m not going to talk about women in leadership in the church right now — that’s just a bit too much for the spare brain power that I have.) What concerns me is that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of thinking women in the church at large. This is the sort of thing that blog groups like Intellectuelle and College girl are seeking to address. It seems to me that in contemporary evangelical subculture many of the “older women” Paul writes to Titus about do well to admonish younger women to “work in the home” and to “love their husbands” but I fear that beyond this there’s not much mentoring going on. (Please do correct me if I’m completely off base — and I do know that this is not the case everywhere and there are many exceptions, I’m just making, perhaps unhelpful, generalisations). That is, the “older women” lead craft nights and host baby showers as well as helping out younger women when it comes to marriage and family, but the Christian life for a woman is not always seen outwith such a framework.

I know it is the case that many women thrive in their role as Christian wives and mothers and although I feel that even if one’s role is a wife and mother (without an outside career) one needn’t live the role, one may fulfil the role without making the role the defining feature of one’s identity. After all, we’re not to live the role of beautiful, perfect, everything’s-perfect-on-the-outside woman and this is easily addressed in Christian subculture — beauty comes from the heart, etc. However the role of wife and mother is held up as the telos of a Christian woman’s idenity in an evangelical environment. The role of Christian wives and mothers is, I believe, essential and it makes sense that the church would stress this aspect of womanhood in relation to the feminist outcry of the last generation. At the same time however, I fear that emphasising these roles to the exclusion of the person is detrimental to Christian women. What if one isn’t sure about ever getting married or having children? What do you do with your church’s single women? What is a girl to think if her worth is wrapped up in her role as a wife or mother? Must all women have as their end goal marriage and family? How do outside interests/career fit in with this? What does the “Christian woman” look like (the Proverbs 31 woman sure juggled a lot more than just 2 roles!)?

I think that the evangelical church would do well to consider some of these questions and view it in light of the whole gospel of God. And I do find it a bit hard when women are content to settle for the role rather than transform the role. A woman as well as a man has been bought by the blood of Christ if she has been redeemed. Here is her worth. Not in a wedding ring or baby nappies.

Because I said I would, I wanted to post some links for those of you who are interested in seriously using the money you do have in responsible ways — not for necessarily profitable ways but hopefully ways which reflect Christ first and foremost.

At Starbucks last week, I saw they had the Rough Guide for a Better World for free. You can probably get them at your neighbourhood coffee shop or the pdf version is online as well: here

For those in the UK, there’s the Good Shopping Guide, which lists products that “reports and ranks at the ethical behaviour of the ultimate holding companies, behind hundreds of the UK’s biggest brands”. There’s a sample chapter for free but you have to pay for the book.

In the US, there’s a similar thing called the responsible shopper where you can search by company name or brand.

Fair trade resource network can be found here. This is a fair trade bibliography.

Another organisation to support is the International Justice Mission, a group of Christian lawyers who give of their time to global justice issues.

Finally, here is a wonderful article about Christian responsibility to the poor and the meaning of grace and justice by Greg Bahnsen.

Enjoy and *use* the links and do let me know what you think!

Perhaps we’ll start a feature on Media and Society and why TV fries your brain (a la Neil Postman), perhaps not. But I thought I’d post some interesting statistics on TV-free families.

Here’s a little teaser on what I learned about the TV Free Families who responded:

–They have about an hour of meaningful conversation per day with their children (national average: 38 minutes per week).
–They come from 43 states, all walks of life, income brackets, levels of education, races, etc. Most are in their 30s, married with 2 children, have college degrees, earn $60,000-$80,000 per year (range: less than $20,000 to $130,000 up), two thirds have religious affiliations and 41% send their kids to public schools (private and home school equally divided the rest).
–92% of parents say their children “never or rarely” complain about the lack of TV or pressure them to buy brand names and popular toys.
–As to their children’s heroes, most votes went for Mom and Dad. Others include teachers, Harry Potter, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Grandparents, and Michael Jordan.
–80% feel their marriages are stronger due to no TV - more cuddle time (see essay)!
–They are readers (adults and children). Get the majority of their news from NPR, newspapers, and a few national magazines.
–They (kids and adults) rarely feel they’re missing out - totally on the gain side.
–More than half of their children get all A’s in school.
–The computer does not take over the role of TV in most homes. Though 98% own a computer, only 1-3 hours of recreational use per week was reported by adults. (When asked if their children use the computer more or less than kids who watch TV, nearly half felt their children use it less due to the passive nature of the activity.)
Children entertain themselves and play for long hours with fewer sibling fights. 70% of parents felt their children got along better with no TV.
–One family with an ADD child reported removing TV from the home (under their pediatrician’s advice) - the child blossomed and took tremendous strides in development.
–As for why they’re TV-free, one man’s comments reflected much of what the survey showed: “We have not watched TV for more than 16 years, not out of a statement against society or any overt religious injunction, but a simple desire to have TIME for a more meaningful marriage and family in the face of a busy life.”

Information found here

So, what do you think about being TV-free? Is it snobbish, a good decision or a way to lose touch with one’s culture?

Albert Mohler has written an article discussing a recent study, which found that the predominant ‘religion’ of American teenagers is ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’. This view ‘consists of beliefs like these: 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”‘

While this study focused on the views of teeneagers, the researchers behind it suggested that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is the most common ‘religious’ view of all Americans, and has infact been very influential in the Christian church. Consider this quote:

“Other more accomplished scholars in these areas will have to examine and evaluate these possibilities in greater depth. But we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually [only] tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity’s misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

They argue that this distortion of Christianity has taken root not only in the minds of individuals, but also “within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions.”

How can you tell? “The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, . . . and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward.”

Does this mean that America is becoming more secularized? Not necessarily. These researchers assert that Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.

Thanks to laura for the link.