August 2005
Monthly Archive
Wed 31 Aug 2005
For years I have been telling a story, pleased at my own cleverness Jean reminds me, about a conversation I had many years ago with a very dear friend of ours. This friend belongs to a strict, confessional baptist church and mentioned in passing a church friend of his, who had been attending for over 15 years but was not a member. I inquired why and our dialogue went something like this:
“15 years. Why hasn’t he joined the church?”
“Oh, because he doesn’t agree with our confession.
“You mean to join your church you have to agree with your confession in its entirety?”
“Yes”
“Does anyone doubt that this person is a Christian? Does he have a reasonable testimony?”
“Oh yes, he loves the Lord dearly.”
I paused and then asked, “Do you realize that your church membership standards are higher than God’s?
I like this story not only because I think it is funny but because I think it has an important point to make. With that history in mind, I was thrilled to recieved todays edition of Fresh Words, the email newsletter of Desiring God Ministries. The session of Bethlehem Baptist, of which John Piper is the teaching elder, has made the remarkable decision to amend the Church constitution and by-laws to allow people to join the church who have not been baptized as believers. Here is the money quote:
The central issue at stake is: How should we define the membership of the church? That is, what degree of biblical understanding and agreement should a person have in order to belong to a local church? Or to put it another way: Should the door to membership in the local church be roughly the same size as the door to the universal church? If so, what is the basic set of beliefs that a person should be willing to affirm—or at least not deny—in order to give good evidence that he is born again into the family of God and a follower of Christ?
After more than three years of study and prayer and discussion of this issue, the Council of Elders believes that membership requirements at Bethlehem should move toward being roughly the same as the requirements for membership in the universal body of Christ. That is, we have come to the conclusion that it is seriously questionable to say to a person who gives good evidence of being a true Christian and who wants to join Bethlehem: you may not join.
I am a member in good standing of a local presbyterian church although I am a credo-baptist. Until this announcement by BBC, the “favor was not returned” in the event that a paedo-baptist wanted to join a baptist church. I think this is a remarkable move and hope that more baptist churches will do the same.
Steve
Wed 31 Aug 2005
Recently, I have stumbled onto some of the weirdest things in my daily blogwalk.
Phil Johnson over at PYROMANIAC pointed to Tales from the Temple, the story of one mans association with and subsequent rejection of a hyper-fundamentalist, religio-fascist church in Texas. This man, James Spurgeon, is an excellent story teller and its all the more compelling to realize that these stories are true. I was up past midnight last night reading the tales. On the one hand, I laughed a lot. On the other hand I also found it very depressing. Some of the thoughts that came to my mind were:
- Since when was megalomania a Fruit of the Spirit?
- Does the bible teach blind obedience to to your “pastor”?
- Isn’t pastor another word for “shepherd”?
- Can you say “plurality of elders?”
- I am much more likely to become Roman Catholic than to join Longview Baptist Temple.
- If someone tells you not to read books outside your tradition, run, do not walk, to the door.
- Any tradition that tells you that theology is suspect, umm, is suspect.
- Do these people actually read the Bible, or just wave it around and pound on it a lot?
- I seem to have lost my gospel in here.
- How could people be so incredibly un-rooted historically?
- Every time they said they alone carried “the faith once delivered to the saints”, I just about died laughing.
- I thought Jesus commanded us to “make disciples”, or am I wrong about that?
- If Jesus joined this church, He would be “preached at” within a week.
- They would be trying to come up with some dirt on Him in two weeks.
- What the heck is “soul winning”?
- What the heck is a bus route?
- And I thought Saddleback was obsessed with numbers.
- Maybe they have a helpful spreadsheet for the souls per dollar calculation.
- James Spurgeon is a much better man than I am.
I grew up in a town that has a large and prestigious fundamentalist university. Being the pagan Southern Baptist that I was and going to the local liberal Southern Baptist university, I loved to make fun of their barbed-wire fence, knee-length skirts and silly dating rules. The fact is, after God gave me a new heart and as I moved into a more monergistic view of religion, I was very influenced by people who had come out of that university. I can see looking back that there were a lot of godly followers of Christ there. I am still glad I was never raised a fundamentalist. I am really glad I am in now in the PCA.
This sounds like a good religion (jk)
Scott
Tue 30 Aug 2005
Posted by Administrator under
Movies ,
Thumbs Down :-([2] Comments
This movie was very difficult to watch. It was like being at a party with standing room only, talking to a guy you don’t like, whose great passion in life is something you think is wacky like socialism, colonic irrigation therapy or curling, who won’t shut up about it and who spits when he talks. And worst of all, he thinks your one of him.
The Corporation is a movie that people who are inclined to think corporations are evil will cheer but would not convince a critically thinking, skeptical viewer regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
The movie begins with a rather funny segment using news clips of politicians stating the words, “a few bad apples” following the revelations of corporate wrong-doing at Enron and other companies. The filmmakers then goes on to make the bold and ridiculous assertion that the problem isn’t the “bad apples”, the problem is that the idea of a corporation is wrong. The producers point to two essential traits to support their characterization: the corporation has legal standing as a “person” under the law and this “person” has the same character traits as a psychopath. That’s right a psychopath! The producers leave no room for debate. Their is no subtlety or nuance to their arguments.
In fact, a corporation is a legal entity that allows the owners to protect themselves from liabilityin the event of the corporation is sued . The ability to incorporate is one of the important factors that has led to the remarkable standard of living we enjoy today. It encourages individuals to take risks and be entrepeneurial without the risk of losing their homes or being thrown into debtors prison.
All the substantive commentary in the film is provided by political ideologues such as Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore. It does have some commentary by thinkers and leaders who defend the corporation such as Milton Friedman, and Peter Drucker. It would be great if these corporate defenders were actually given the opportunity to provide reasonable counterpoints to the filmmakers anti-corporate agenda. Instead they are provided for their “shock value” by providing snippets of comments without context such as when Peter Drucker states “If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast.” I would love to see the footage that was left on the cutting room floor.
The filmakers talk about externalities, a technical term used by economists to describe the costs of a market transaction that are borne by a third party who has not engaged voluntarily in the transaction. For example, when a woman wears too much of a bad perfume on a crowded elevator, the externality is the olfactory unpleasantness borne by her fellow elevator riders. Pollution is the classic example of a negative externality. Sometimes externalities bestow positive benefits. These filmmakers grossly simplify their explanation of externalities to serve their end of vilifying corporations. One commentator, and ironically one of the corporate defender (see point above), describes corporations as “externalizing machines”, making it sound as if the purpose of corporations is to produce externalities. This is oxymoronic. Or maybe just moronic.
Many of the case studies seem appalling on the face of it. For example, the state of Bolivia privatized its water system by selling to Bechtel. Under the agreement, it became illegal to collect rainwater. But the extreme bias shown by the filmmakers begs the question as to what was left out. For example, the film takes on the issue of 3rd world sweatshops. But fails to ask the question that economists ask when considering working conditions: “Compared to what?” Sure working conditions are poor…compared to America. But are these workers voluntarily choosing the work? Then their revealed preference is that working there is better than not working there. In fact, there has recently been some research done by labor economist asking the question whether being employed by sweatshops raises the standard of living of the employed. Their conclusion is that over 80% of the time that it does. This film begs for a detailed deconstruction of the type that thinking people have provided for Michael Moore’s or Morgan Spurlock’s films.
Two other criticisms upon which I will not elaborate. The film utterly fails to understand the power of private ownership. See this essay on the Tragedy of the Commons. The documentarians also fail to acknowledge any reasonable alternative. Their is an underlying, assumption of the benevolence of government without acknowledging the terrible destruction and misery that can be inflicted on even well-meaning but misguided government bureaucracies. Or to quote a review of the movie in The Economist, “Instead, there is a misty-eyed alignment of the state with the public interest. Run that one past the people of, say, North Korea.”
It’s a movie that could have been made about any institution; the church, the goverment, the girl scouts, or the Grand Order of Water Rats. String together dubious facts, with faulty premises supported by extremist idealogues. Allow for no subtlety, complexity or serious debate. Mix together with amusing 50’s, leave it to beaver-esque footage and half-bake. Voila: The Corporation.
Tue 30 Aug 2005
Where I live in North Alabama, Katrina’s bark was worse than her bite. I slept like a baby last night. Its been very windy, with lots of branches littering the yard, but we have not lost power and we didn’t hear even one Tornado warning siren last night. I really expected we might. School is delayed this morning until 10:00 AM.
I know that Katrina caused many deaths and utter devestation in Louisiana and Mississippi. I have prayed this morning for God’s grace to be sufficient and His glory to be made manifest to the many suffering people there. I hope that the response of the church is filled with compassion and mercy.
Scott
Mon 29 Aug 2005
Chewymom, aka, FatTriplet1 DW, has already posted about why we are not going to shop at Amazon anymore. Imagine trying to walk out of a Brick and Mortar store, having already left the register, when the manager comes and snatches the bag out of your hand, telling you that they made a mistake and priced the item too low. Admittedly, they hadn’t charged our credit card yet, but the order was complete and we were waiting for shipment.
**UPDATE** My DW has informed me that in fact there was a “pending” charge on our account, which went away after they yanked the order.
Just read chewymom’s post to learn more about what happened.
I am saddened really. I have shopped at Amazon.com since it was a tiny and virtually unknown company (1995), and I currently have close to 50 items on my wishlist.
I know for christian books I can go to:
Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service
Monergism Books
Discerning Reader
If those booksellers don’t have what I want then I can always go with a good independent bookseller such as:
Powells
As for my wishlist, I have noticed that Google’s shopping feature, Froogle, has a Wishlist feature. I have just added the first item to my Froogle Wishlist.
Maybe if enough people notice and change their shopping habits due to Amazon’s “We screwed up so we’re gonna screw you” policy, then they will change their policy. Join me in the revolution.
Scott
Sat 27 Aug 2005
We live very near Lake Hartwell in SC. My father lives on the lake and has a boat with a covered dock that is at our disposal to use whenever we like. The extraordinary generosity my father has shown regarding his boat been a major blessing to say the least. All my kids love the water and love water activities. My youngest daughter, age 7, is quite a proficient skier and the regular opportunity to ski is one reason.
Last weekend we discovered another major source of fun on the lake. There is a small, pristine lake above Lake Hartwell called Issaqueena Lake. Lake Issaqueena empties into Lake Hartwell via a dam. It is about an 8 minute boat ride from my dad’s dock to the Lake and Dam. This area is a major hangout on the weekends in the summer. The reason: the dam which is steeply sloped is smooth and algae covered enough that you can slide down the face of the dam from Lake Issaqueena into Lake Hartwell. When you are sitting on the dam looking into Lake Hartwell, it is daunting. But the thrill of it is more than half the fun. And all my kids braved it and had a blast. 
Steve
Fri 26 Aug 2005
Tim over at challies.com has upgraded his blogging software and wants some trackbacks to test new functionality. Besides, he has good stuff over there. Y’all check it out. So here ya go Tim.
Scott
Fri 26 Aug 2005
Kelly Monroe Kullberg has written a beautiful two part essay over at Common Grounds on the subject of beauty, forgiveness and the glory of God. Check it out.
Scott
Thu 25 Aug 2005
I am, at best, a reluctant participant in the ure wars. Mostly I am a non-participant. The “Christian right” who pugilate endlessly in this war are fighting the wrong battles, in the wrong ways to acheive the wrong ends.
They endlessly seek to undermine the pluralistic and (yes, even secular) principles that have contributed in such full measure to our countries greatness and even the strength of our churches. They battle for prayer in school, for politically motivated 10 commandment monuments, for flag burning amendments and other distractions. They live under the mistaken notion that we are, or at least were, a Christian nation. Our victories, or losses, become fodder for the Christian ure Warriors PR machine.
And the battle is . No grace. No mercy. No compassion. No humilty. It is US vs. THEM. Policy fights. The president is our savior. The lobbyist is our foot soldier. Donations are our lifeblood. The slippery slope is their greatest argument. Fear is their greatest galvanizer. And Christ is marginalized, the Holy Spirit is silent and God is impotent.
But the fight, the real fight, is fought with cups of cold water to parched lips, covered dishes for the grieving, squeezing the hand of the dying, wiping the brow of the retching, bowed praying heads, weeping and love. This is the church that the world will listen to and respect. This church does not demand outward conformity with righteous laws. It asks for devotional obedience by a heart that has been transformed. It asks not for the right “prince” but for the Prince of Peace.
Piper has written in one of the best ever editions of his Fresh Words newsletters what I think is the proper response for the Christian to our ure. Brokenhearted joy.
Steve
Sun 21 Aug 2005
We have an older brother, 4 years our senior. He is quiet and reserved, the strong silent type. He is very well-rounded and a great guy. Which is amazing in light of the fact that he had triplet brats to deal with growing up. As far as I know he has never needed counseling or electro-shock therapy.
I have a distinct memory from my childhood. I am not sure how old we were, but I am pretty sure we were pre-school or kindergarten aged. We played toss with my brothers hamster. We stood in a triangle in my brother’s room and pretended his pet was a furry ball. We were not cruel or careless triplets, we were just young and somehow ended up alone for a few minutes in my brothers room. We could neither catch nor throw very well. When the hamster stopped moving, we thought there might be something wrong, so we put him back in his cage.
When my brother discovered we had killed his hamster, he didn’t kill us. Although he may have wanted to. Maybe I should thank my mother.
Scott
Sat 20 Aug 2005
I blogged last month about How we got our Names, which is basically the story of the Fat Triplet’s birth. In that story I told how my dad drove 90 mph in his Plymouth Valiant to try to make it to the hospital in time for the delivery, which he failed to do.
When I first started writing that story I thought dad had been driving his OTHER CAR.
This is a fire-engine red 1955 MG TF 1500 convertible.
Well, he was persuaded after we were born that it was too irresponsible and impractical to keep that car with his family suddenly doubled in size to 6.
So he sold it. That sure is a beautiful car. I hope we were worth it, dad.
Fri 19 Aug 2005
I have always viewed the Harry Potter books as brilliant works of fantasy and have mostly stayed on the periphery of the controversy surrounding them. My opinion has mostly been shaped by Stephen Greydanus brilliant essay Harry Potter vs. Gandalf In his essay, Greydanus argues that there is in fact a difference in the use of magic in J.K. Rowling’s books as opposed to its use in the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. However, he concludes the essay by suggesting that for most children who have been exposed to a rich diet of excellent literature, that “a child whose reading has this kind of breadth and depth is unlikely to be negatively influenced by having read the Harry Potter books.” In other words, my view has been that, although not as explicitly Christian as Lewis or arising from the Christian worldview espoused by Tolkien, they are well crafted stories that with some caution by the Christian reader can be read with enjoyment and even profit.
Now with this excellent book by John Granger, Looking for God in Harry Potter, I am ready to make this loud proclamation: “Harry Potter is Christian Literature”.
The author’s story is interesting. He is a Christian (Orthodox) homeschooling father of 7 without a television in his home. In fact, he was so removed from the media that he had never even heard of Harry Potter until after the 3rd book was released. He learned of its existence through a co-worker at a natural foods store. She had multiple piercings and tatoos and hair dyed funky colors so he just assumed she was in the occult and dismissed her recommendation. But when his 12 year old daughter was given a copy of the book to read, he was forced to read it so he could tell her why he would not allow her to. In fact, after a night of reading, his response was polar opposite to many in the Christian community. He concluded that the books were brilliant, edifying and even Christian in the grand tradition of English Literature. His response was not different because he was less discerning but because of his training. He, just as J.K Rowling, was trained in the classics. He majored in latin and greek in college and was required to read the “Great Books”. Rowling also studied the classics and is “fluent with the languages, philosophy and literature of the classical and medieval worlds.”(p.xvi) Or as Granger states in the introduction, “My compost heap of books read and loved is a lot smaller than Rowling’s, but it has enough common elements that it smells the same.” (p. xvii)
Granger regards the Potter stories as Christian because they “richly resonate with stories that reflect the greatest story ever told-the story of God who became man.”(p.xix) He argues that the Christian message contained within the books is both implicit and explicit. But in order to understand and appreciate it we must understand the “secret code” of English literature. The purpose of the book is to unlock this code.
There is much to recommend this book to those who want to understand Rowling’s Potter series more deeply, even if you don’t agree with all of Granger’s conclusions.
Here are a few random nuggets that I particularly liked from the book:
- While unambiguously condemning occult practices, Granger argues persuasively that the magic in Harry Potter, and all fantasy books for that matter, is something altogether different. New age or occultic magic is invocational (literally “to call in”). Granger seriousl and gravely warns that to invoke “demonic principalities and powers for personal power and advantage is dangerously stupid” (pps. 4-5) as well as against the clear teaching of scripture. The magic in Harry Potter is incantational (literally to “sing along with”) and expresses “in story form our human thirst for a reality beyond the physical world.” This distinction between invocational and incantational magic is a one that I had never heard of.
- Granger makes an important point that I think is critical to any honest evaluation of the Harry Potter books. The true risk of temptation to engage in occult practices for most Christians is extraordinarily small. The greatest challenge facing the church is not the occult, it is materialism. The materialism and pragmatism of the west is what has led to such an incredibly shallow and ineffectual church in America. We live as if this is all there is, even if we say with out mouth it is not. The Potter books consistently challenge materialism as a worldly philosophy. Harry’s relationship with his worldly, greedy and shallow guardians, the Dursley’s continuously illustrates Harry’s struggle against materialism. It is ironic that one of the chief criticisms among Christians of the Harry Potter books is his disobedient and disrespectful attitude towards his guardian. Yet it is the tension of that relationship that plays such a critical role in developing the “spiritual-mindedness” of Harry versus the materialism of the Dursley’s.
- One of the “hedges” that Greydanus mentions as violated by the Potter books is that Rowling allows for the creation of a magical world within our world. Granger does not doubt that this is true, rather he doubts that it is a fair distinction. On the contrary, he believes that the “hidden” world of a higher magical realm is a powerful metaphor for spiritual reality and truth. I think this is a persuasive argument.
- Granger does an excellent job of analyzing the structure and formula that guides the story arc of each of the book. Most interestingly, he describes how, in every book, Harry’s is “saved” from death or near death after battling the forces of darkness. These battles almost always occur underground. And his salvation is inevitably found in some sort of Christ symbol: the philosophers stone in the Sorcerer’s Stone, the sword of Gryffindor and the Phoenix tears in the Chamber of Secret, the stag in the Prisoner of Azkaban, etc. Each one of these means of salvation is a clear symbol of Christ.
These points just barely scratch the surface of the detailed and finely grained analyis that Granger offers on the Harry Potter books. He goes into great detail on the battle of good versus evil, the extensive use of alchemical imagery throughout the books (most explicitly in the first book) and the spiritual meaning of this imagery, the centrality of sacraficial love to the stories and their parallels to the gospel as well as an analysis of each individual book. My favorite chapter is Chapter 10, Fun with Names. Rowling clearly intends for the names of characters in the books to have meanings consistent with their characters. Granger’s deconstruction of the names is great fun. I won’t give them away here. Get the book.
In summary, even if there is some speculation that may or may not be true, Granger clearly brings appropriate training, a deep understanding of both the Potter books and the literature that inspired them and an open mind to his deconstruction of the Potter mythology in this book. Whether you agree on every point or disagree, you will find his analysis to be thoughtful, thought provoking and fair.
Fri 19 Aug 2005
Posted by Steve under
ReflectionsNo Comments
My friend Cheryl had this post that I really I liked about Joy and pain.
Steve
Fri 19 Aug 2005
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light…”
If this sounds familiar it’s because its from the Bible, John chapter 1 verse 6. I remember thinking at the funeral�what a clever use for the verse. Used there not to describe John the baptist but my father-in-law, John Christian McNeil, who 7 years ago today went to be with Jesus. The going was not easy�collapse� meningitis� recovery� diagnosis� glioblastoma� surgery� descent� surgery� death at age 52.
Profound how grief leaves us crippled�like one of our limbs has been severed. We learn to live with part of us gone…buried there with the coffin. Even the handicapped can live. The stump scabs over and maybe sometimes the limb grows back but it is never the same. We reach with our hand but the hand is gone. We remember and try again with the other. And so we get on with our lives.
Isn’t it amazing that this can happen even if our loss was a wicked man or woman. The broken children mourn their abusers.
But John McNeil was not a wicked man. He was one of the best people I have ever known. And for 7 years I had the privelege of being his son-in-law. He was a quiet man. But he had a sense-of-humor and a wit and a twinkle in his eye and a capacity to love. And I only knew him for 7 years. I do grieve but as one who mourns the loss of what could have been. Vacations together, growing knowledge and intimacy with one another, and wisdom he could have shared.
Not like my wife, who cried this morning 7 years later, and not like my mother-in-law who is trying, even as we “speak”, to bury her pain in the Alaskan sea. Even on a cruise, no doubt she has wept today and worked to throttle the memories that would harbinge the loss of fellowship with brother and sister-in-law who would share her grief only not as deeply. I love you mom. Not like 2 sons left to battle alone in this life without the wisdom and love of a father. For their loss is not for just what might have been but for what WAS. The memories add to the pain.
We all live in his shadow. He was truly a great man for many untold reasons but mostly because he “came as a witness, to bear witness about the light.” The thing I remember most about him is that he loved Jesus. His readiness to weep and sing. I am happy to report that John does not share our grief. Oh, to be with the savior. To live under the shadow of His wing. To bask always in his Glory. “surgery� death at age 52�” AND GLORY� GLORY� GLORY� GLORY� GLORY.
So we grieve but not as “others do who have no hope.” (1 Th 4.13) There has always been a joy in our sorrow that only can be explained if the Christian gospel is true. May God help us to all “live and act so as never to dishonor such a father” as him.
It was 7 years ago today John began his first 10,000 years.
AMEN
Seth
Fri 19 Aug 2005
My wife is an ISTJ < ------------------> I am an ENFP
We are polar opposites. But in this case, opposites attract.
Scott
Next Page »
