The Matthew Never Knew

Teaching Topics

2012-01-27T11:51:00.003-05:00

I'm really enjoying the various books/topics I've been learning/teaching about recently.

LWC & SS = War & Peace
We've studied Jesus, the Apostles, the Early Church, Constantine, Augustine, the Crusades/Inquisition, and we've still got a long way to go. I've really learned a lot through this series.

HRWC Sermons = 1 Corinthians 7
Looking forward to preaching on 'redeeming singleness' this week and 'redeeming marriage' next week

Prayer Meeting = Prayer
We spend about half an hour each week looking at the next prayer in the Bible. We've been doing this for over 60 weeks and are currently in Matthew.

Wednesday Night = 4th in 1: A study in John
We're almost done with John and have been working at it for about 30 weeks. I think we have 3 weeks left. I've been using Carson and Lincoln commentaries and they've proven to be worthwhile purchases. John is the final book in the Bible for me to teach through. I've been avoiding it, but in some ways I saved the best for last!

MOST = Luke
MOST is my 20-something small group that meets every other week. Most of us are in our 30's now though, haha. We methodically study a small portion of Luke each week after sharing supper together. I try to pick a theme for each night and use the Q&A approach.

LWC Small-Group = Genesis
We just started an every other week get together for the Lockport Wesleyan Church. I decided to start right from the beginning with Genesis. We've only been doing it for 2 weeks, but I've really enjoyed each session. I'm using Hamilton's commentary as support.

Thesis = Hell
I've also been working on my Master's Thesis on Hell. My thesis is basically that given our theological epistemology, The Wesleyan Church should be more open to various views of Hell than the current Discipline statement on Destiny seems to allow. I will take 3 views of Hell through the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and see what comes out the other side.

The Five

2012-01-25T00:35:00.000-05:00

I realized recently that there are 5 Christian thinkers/teachers/writers that have most heavily influenced me.

Greg Boyd
Bruxy Cavey
Steve Gregg
Clark Pinnock
N.T. Wright

How about you?

Modern Sitcom Top Ten

2012-01-22T00:36:00.000-05:00

I'm trying another Top Ten list. This time, it is a list of my favorite Modern TV Sitcoms. The criteria here is that the show has to be a half-hour situational comedy no older than Cheers. This was a hard list to make and many quality shows had to be left out.

10. How I Met Your Mother
It may be a bit premature to place this on the list ahead of some shows that I've seen plenty more of. Truth be told, I'm only on season 2 of this show, but I really enjoy it. Each episode is well written and the characters all bring something to the show. I predict it will climb into the middle of this list before too long.

9. 30Rock
I've always liked fast-paced humor. I think Tracy Morgan, on this show, is a classic character. It's well written. Most of the episodes are well worth watching. I don't think this show has much of a chance to climb more than a spot or two, and it could fall of the list completely, but it deserves its spot for now.

8. Parks and Recreation
Parks and Rec. has the potential to move up a little bit. I think the new storyline with Leslie running for office could be really funny. I think the Andy character is hilarious. Of course, if the show gets lame it could lose a couple spots and be left off the list.

7. Friends
In some ways, Friends makes number 7 more out of respect than actual preference. I know a lot of people love it and it was certainly one of my favorite shows for a couple of years. It had a good run and plenty of funny lines, a decent storyline, and a good cast. Unfortunately for this show, the 3 shows ranked behind are gaining ground right now.

6. Cheers
Like Friends, Cheers makes number 6 largely out of respect. Yes, it's a great show, but I also value the role that it played in changing television. I think Cheers really prompted a new era of sitcom. The cast on this show was great. Few shows can change leading ladies and survive. They also switched bartenders pretty successfully. I liked the squabbles with Gary's Old Town Tavern a lot.

5. Arrested Development
This is a very different kind of show, but in a good way. I don't think nearly as many people have seen this show than the others on the list. It has a lot of re-watch-ability in my opinion b/c of the fast paced humor. And, apparently, its coming back in some form via Netflix.

4. Coupling
This is a BBC show. It's like Friends in a lot of ways, but more obsessed with sexual humor. I just found it so well written and cast. It'll be hard for any current shows to reach this level in my book, so Coupling's spot in my top 10 is pretty safe for a while I think.

3. Frasier
Frasier is not so much laugh out loud funny as it is just downright clever. Well crafted, I cared about the characters in Frasier more than those of any other show on this list. It wasn't just a comedy; it actually said something about life sometimes. But that's not to take away from how funny it was.

2. The Office
The Office (US version) was well on its way to claiming the top spot, but then it faded pretty fast and has only sometimes recovered with a good episode here or there. The first 3 or 4 seasons were pure comedy gold. Almost every episode was classic and quotable. Now such episodes are few and far between. Barring some amazing last season, this will probably stay number 2.

1. Seinfeld
Seinfeld wins the top spot. Jerry, George, Elaine, Kramer and friends took a little while to develop great chemistry, but then kept it for season after season. It really was a show about nothing, but at the same time it was about people interacting with all their idiosyncrasies. The last season wasn't the best, but it wasn't the worst either. This show contained too many great quotes and moments not to be first.

Best Bad Speech Ever?

2012-01-20T12:31:00.000-05:00

It's a campaign year, so there are plenty of people out there trying to give great speeches. Of course, you can give a great speech that gets people excited and, yet, has terrible content! In this regard, perhaps the best 'bad' speech ever was given by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in the year 1095. This speech started The Crusades. I'll give you the highlights (via 4 ear-witnesses):

Account 1 Summary:
"The Turks and Arabs have attacked... If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account, I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends... Christ commands it... All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins."

Reaction:
These statements are rendered even worse when you consider that earlier, in the same speech, he had urged the church leaders to be examples of righteousness by declaring, "If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable?" And even though he was trying to arouse a war at the request of the secular leaders, he had the nerve to tell the church leaders under him to, "keep the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power." Besides these things, the summary (above) is alarming in and of itself. The insistence that his words are actually God's words, the seeming hatred of the Turkish race, the promise of forgiveness of sins for anyone willing to serve as a soldier... all these elements make this one awesomely bad speech.

Account 2 Summary:
"An accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God... has invaded the lands. You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you. Let the deeds of your ancestors move you and incite your minds to manly achievements... Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degenerate, but recall the valor of your progenitors... the land that you inhabit... is too narrow for your large population... wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says 'floweth with milk and honey'... Undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven. [at this point the audience cried out: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!' to which Urban replied...] Let this be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God... wear the sign of the cross of the Lord... fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, 'He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.'"

Reaction:
Again we see the seeming hatred of Turks (what happened to 'love your enemies'?). We see the abundance of guns as an obvious sign of God's blessing. We see an appeal to ancestors, but which ancestors are in mind? It is not their spiritual forefathers (the early church, which was a peace church), but their natural ancestors who are in mind. We see an outright appeal to greed. Again the promise of forgiveness and eternal reward. We see the implementation of religious props to provoke passion and unity. And to top it all off, we see a total mis-interpretation of Jesus' words (turning the passage on its head!). Instead of the cross being a symbol of sacrifice for the good of one's enemies, it is used as a symbol of sacrifice toward the death of one's enemies.

Account 3 Summary:
"Christian blood, redeemed by the blood of Christ, has been shed... base and bastard Turks hold sway... blindness of mind rules over them... you rage against your brothers and cut each other in pieces. This is not the (true) soldiery of Christ... the Holy Church has reserved a soldiery for herself to help her people... if, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood,or advance boldly, as knights of Christ... Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battleline, most invincible line... but if it befall you to die this side of it [Jerusalem], be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army... you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers... the possessions of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own; or empurpled with your own blood, you will have gained everlasting glory... Short is the way, little the labor, which, nevertheless, will repay you with the crown that fadeth not away... brothers and fellow bishops; you, fellow priests and sharers with us in Christ, make this same announcement through the churches committed to you, and with your whole soul vigorously preach the journey to Jerusalem... you who are to go shall have us praying for you; we shall have you fighting for God's people. It is our duty to pray, yours to fight."

Reaction:
Obvious racism here. An interesting admission that they already aren't practicing Christianity (maybe they should have judged themselves a bit more aggressively before commenting about the Turks?). Ironically, he refers to the blindness of the Turks when, in reality, he was blind to the teachings of Christ. Promised blessings, appeal to greed, appeal to ease of victory... and a pretty convenient announcement at the end about how Urban himself will be staying home, of course.

Account 4 Summary:
"You should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the Holy City... If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor... you have thus far waged unjust wars... we now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom... [According to Prophecy] Antichrist is to do battle... He will attack Christians. And if Antichrist finds there [in Jerusalem] no Christians, no one will be there to oppose him... With the end of the world already near... it is first necessary, according to their prophecy, that the Christian sway be renewed in those regions... before you engage in His battles, believe without question that Christ will be your standard-bearer and inseparable forerunner."

Reaction:
Notice how the strongest appeals for this sort of thing usually come from Old Covenant times. Interestingly, in this version, we see an appeal from eschatology. If prophecy says the Antichrist is going to fight against Christians in Jerusalem, then we better make sure the Christians are in power there so the end of the world can come!

Best. Bad. Speech. Ever.

Space/Alien TV Top Ten

2012-01-19T01:28:00.004-05:00

This top 10 list ranks my favorite sci-fi shows that specifically deal with space and/or aliens. I don't know how to compare these shows to other sci-fi shows that don't involve space and/or aliens. So here we go...

10. Star Trek (Voyager)
I avoided watching this show until recently... and even then I skipped most episodes that weren't centered on either the doctor or Seven of Nine (both characters seemed to be a spin-off of Data from TNG). But I did watch a few dozen episodes and enjoyed most of them. I also liked the ending. This beats out the only other candidates for #10 that I can think of (shows I've seen): Star Trek (Original) and Earth 2.

9. Firefly
I think I will get in trouble for ranking Firefly 9th instead of top 5 (or even top 3). I know a lot of people really loved it. I liked it a lot (there's a big gap b/w 10 and 9 here). I wish it had been on for more episodes. It certainly could have climbed the list a bit if that were the case. The combination of Sci-fi and Western was creative (I also liked Dollhouse, from the same mind... though I maybe even liked Dollhouse better).

8. Roswell
Yes, I know, this was a teen romance more than sci-fi sometimes. But I have to admit I really enjoyed this show. I thought the storyline was good and the characters likeable. It was a bit longer than Firefly, which gives it the extra spot.

7. Caprica
I posted this list on Facebook some months back, but have sinced watched the one season of Caprica. Why was this cancelled. I really enjoyed it. I don't think the storyline could have gone more than a few seasons, but they would have been good.

6. Stargate Universe
This is where it gets really tough for me. All of the top 6 make a strong case for the #1 spot in my mind. I really feel that if Stargate Universe had continued for 5 or 6 seasons, it'd be number 1. I know I'm in the minority since most stargate fans liked this show the least, but I really enjoyed it. I wanted more.

5. Stargate Atlantis
How do you decide between these Stargate series'? I find it very difficult. I've basically ranked them, here, according to length of the show since I value quantity when quality is pretty equal. This show was a good combination of solid storyline, quality character development, and humor.

4. Stargate SG-1
Longevity is a big help here. Great show and it was on for a long time. Solid characters. They were even mildly successful and totally changing the enemy and some of the major characters to enlongate the series. Plus, this show gets the credit for making the spin-offs possible.

3. Farscape
It was a tough call, but I am ranking Farscape beyond the Stargate shows. I very much liked this show. It wasn't that the enemies were the worst or the storylines the best, the show was just fun. The characters were so varied and fresh. I really liked the cast selection here.

2. Star Trek (Next Generation)
If I'm watching this today for the first time, it gets nowhere near #2, but I have to keep in mind that if it weren't for Star Trek TNG, I might not even have bothered watching the other 9 (including the original Star Trek, which I watched after watching TNG). Growing up, this was one of my favorite shows and, though it's hard to look at compared to today's sci-fi, it's still great.

1. Battlestar Galactica (New)
The original Battlestar Galactica was pretty good for its time, but I would have to say that the new Battlestar Galactica is, by a very slim margin over most of the shows on this list, my favorite Sci-Fi show of all time. Lots of episodes, awesome character development, fresh episodes, solid special effects, plenty of twists and turns, etc. Granted, I didn't always like the storyline, but that simply shows that I cared. The ending was so-so in my opinion, but overall, this show tops the chart.

Feel free to argue or tell me what I NEED to see that fits this genre

Resurrection?

2012-01-18T10:40:00.001-05:00

Should this blog be resurrected? I require 3 comments from 3 different people to re-activate this blog.

My Prayer

2011-11-14T13:08:00.001-05:00

Father
Help me to come further into your kingdom today
Help me to come further out of the kingdoms of this world
Change my HEART today, so that my life is changed forever
Amen

#10 The Twilight Zone

2011-07-24T17:16:00.003-04:00

I couldn't make my top 10 sci-fi list without, at least initially, including The Twilight Zone. I will grant that some of the episodes are duds. I will also grant that, given that it is only ranked 10th and would seemingly never rise up the ranks, it probably won't stay on the top 10 forever. But I will also declare that I enjoy most Twilight Zone episodes. I like the black and white simplicity mixed with mystery. Some of the episodes even teach very good lessons and are useful teaching illustrations.

Runners Up

2011-07-20T14:13:00.002-04:00

I've decided to expand my top 10 list to include all shows that I determine are primarily sci-fi. I'll admit that putting a show in its 'primary' category is not always easy. For example, LOST certainly had sci-fi elements (time-travel, a smoke monster, etc.), but I think it fits better in the category of 1-hour dramas. Speaking of 1-hour dramas, Eureka is an interesting show to categorize. It's an hour long, and there's usually some drama involved. Then again, it's also a lot 'lighter' than LOST and more focused on sci-fi aspects. I think Eureka fits better in the sci-fi category. Then you have shows like Futurama. It's funny and takes place in space. Does it best fit in the sci-fi category? I think not. I'll place it in the sitcom category. All of this to say, it's not easy to make a top-10 list for a TV genre.

So what shows did I determine fit the Sci-Fi genre but failed to make the top 10? In no particular order: Eureka- I think its best shot to make a top 10 was the sci-fi category, but it falls just short Battlestar Galactica (orginal)- Really good for its time Star Trek (original)- At one time it would have made the list, but I've seen too many better shows since then Tales from the Crypt- Slightly different genre. I enjoyed it years ago, but not enough. The Outer Limits- Same deal as above Earth 2- I didn't hate it, but it definitely wasn't on the level as my top 10 shows

I'm sure there are many other shows that fit in this genre that I'm not going to write about and didn't make my top 10. And I know there are shows that I haven't watched yet that might replace something on my top 10.

Top 10 Space/Alien Shows

2011-07-13T13:49:00.000-04:00

Below is a list of space and/or alien shows that I have seen enough of to have formed an opinion about. Soon I will be counting down my top 10 list, but before I do that I wanted it to be clear what I've seen and what I haven't seen:

3rd Rock from the Sun

ALF

Battlestar Galactica (Original)

Battlestar Galactica (New)

Earth 2

Farscape

Futurama

Jetsons

Roswell

Star Trek (Original)

Star Trek (The Next Generation)

Star Trek (Deep Space Nine)

Star Trek (Voyager)

Star Trek (Enterprise)

Stargate SG-1

Stargate Atlantis

Stargate Universe

X-Files

So am I missing any great space/alien shows?

Idol #8

2011-04-20T14:56:00.003-04:00

It was time

I liked Paul, especially at first. He had a fresh sound. But at this point in the competition I was neither surprised nor very upset to see him depart. Sure, I like him better than Stefano, Jacob, and Lauren, but I don't expect to always get my way.

Now if only those 3 can be the next 3 to go.

Idol #9

2011-04-07T23:02:00.002-04:00

I haven't been blogging... again
But I have been watching American Idol
So why not blog about that like I used to?

Let me just say that I am shocked and appalled. Pia was the best pure singer on American Idol this season and she was also, seemingly, one of the nicest people in the shows history. She also happened to be maybe the prettiest girl the show has ever had (perhaps Brooke White?).

So why is she gone?

This is a mystery. Not a mystery like the Trinity or the tension b/w divine sovereignty and human free-will, but a mystery nonetheless. Was she not entertaining enough for some people? Were the mostly female voters just jealous? Did all her fans just assume she was safe and not vote?

The show must go on. With Pia gone, I will be pulling for Casey Abrams. My current standings are as follows:

105 Casey
102 James
98 Jacob
97 Scotty
94 Haley
93 Paul
93 Lauren
90 Stefano

Rankings are based 50% on my opinion and 50% on how they come off from the show (judges comments, contestant comments/attitude, production storyline, etc.). By the way, Pia was rated 105 and her departure marks one of the first times my stats have ever been way off.

Wesley vs. Wesleyan

2011-03-25T15:35:00.003-04:00

The title of this post could be taken in a number of different ways, but I wish simply to ask the following questions:

1. What was Wesley's view of Hell?
2. What is a 'Wesleyan' view of Hell?

The answer to the first questions seems entirely clear. Wesley believed that Hell is a place of eternal torment. This is proved by the following quotations.

"[Both we Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that the] unjust shall after their resurrection be tormented in hell for ever" (Letter to a Roman Catholic)

It is a vain thought which some have entertained, that death will put an end to neither the one nor the other; it will only alter the manner of their existence. But when the body "returns to the dust as it was, the spirit will return to God that gave it." Therefore, at the moment of death, it must be unspeakably happy, or unspeakably miserable: And that misery will never end. (Sermon 'On Eternity')

The answer to the second question is, perhaps, more difficult. Are Wesleyans bound to agree with John Wesley about everything? I don't think even Wesley would be comfortable with such a notion. I think, as Outler argued, Wesley would want us to continue to pursue truth through what we call the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral.' We are to find truth primarily through Scripture, but also by using reason, tradition, and experience.

If the 'Wesleyan' view is to pursue the truth using the quadrilateral then we may, in fact, come to different conclusions than Wesley did on a given doctrinal subject, including that of Hell. I, for one, believe the best Scriptural case (our primary tool for finding truth) can be made for a view that doesn't include eternal torment. I also believe reason supports this position. I think tradition is more open to alternatives than Wesley may have imagined.

So Wesley believed hell was a place of eternal torment, but a 'Wesleyan' may very well come to a different conclusion.

Am I Still Wesleyan?

2011-03-22T15:42:00.004-04:00

A good friend asked me a good question today. In my own words, the question was "Can you, as a Wesleyan who has agreed with the Wesleyan articles of religion, in good conscience believe and/or teach the conditional immortality view of Hell?" Here is my response:

The Articles of Religion section XXI is about the destiny of all people.

I will quote it below with my comments in CAPS

250. We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death.

I ALSO AGREE THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE AFTER DEATH FOR EVERYONE. I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNBROKEN FOR THE WICKED (THEY MAY BE UNCONSCIOUS UNTIL JUDGMENT DAY) NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WICKED CONTINUES ON FOREVER (THEY MAY EVENTUALLY CEASE TO EXIST).... BUT SINCE I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE AT LEAST SOME PERIOD OF CONSCIOUS PERSONAL EXISTENCE, MY BELIEF FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE STATEMENT.

The final destiny of each person is determined by God's grace and that person's response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual's personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God.

I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT

Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ,

CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT

but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.

OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD BE THE STATEMENT MOST AT ODDS WITH MY OWN VIEW. I WOULD HAVE LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE 'SEPARATION FROM GOD' PHRASE. MY ISSUE IS WITH THE PHRASE 'EVERLASTING MISERY.'

I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT CERTAINLY BELIEVED IN THE ETERNAL TORMENT VIEW, BUT I ALSO THINK I CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, SUPPORT THE STATEMENT WITH MY OWN INTERPRETATION.

NOTICE IT SAY 'ITS' (HELL'S) EVERLASTING MISERY. IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THE WICKED WILL RECEIVE EVERLASTING MISERY. I DO BELIEVE THAT HELL WILL FOREVER BE A PLACE OF TORMENT (FOR SATAN AND HIS MINIONS), BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WICKED HUMANS WILL FOREVER REMAIN CONSCIOUS IN HELL.

IN OTHER WORDS, I DO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT HELL IS A PLACE OF EVERLASTING MISERY, BUT I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS FOREVER THERE. AND I THINK THE STATEMENT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THIS INTERPRETATION.

SO WHAT SAY YOU? AM I TAKING TOO MANY LIBERTIES? SHOULD I RESIGN THIS VERY HOUR?

3 Views of Hell

2011-03-18T11:59:00.004-04:00

About 5 years ago I was studying and struggling through the issue of the fate of the wicked. I felt pretty lonely as I slowly became more and more convinced, from Scripture, that torment does not likely go on forever. Over the past 5 years I've become more concrete that this view (conditional immortality) is correct, though I am still open to change.

I don't feel as lonely now. The issue of hell has been raised afresh by Rob Bell's book which caused a fire-storm before it was even read. I don't know what Bell concludes (sounds like he's closer to the universal reconciliation view), but he's proven to be enough of a name to bring this issue front and center. A number of prominent scholars and church leaders have chimed in.

Ben Witherington, for instance, just said this on his blog...
"I am open to persuasion either to eternal torment or anihilationism, but I just think on the whole the latter view explains more of the Biblical evidence and is more consistent with the full character of God. But I freely admit, I could be wrong."

I am comforted to see another well-respected evangelical testify, at least, to the legitimacy of the debate and, in this case, actually be willing to place himself in the camp of the minority. This is sometimes necessary before a large scale doctrinal shift can take place.

If you're new to this issue and have some time for a short audio introduction to the 3 views, click HERE. I consider Steve Gregg not only a friend, but also my favorite Bible teacher.

MIA

2011-03-11T14:08:00.002-05:00

I confess that I have failed as a blogger. When I began this blog, I was pretty much just a son, a brother, and a pastor. Now I am a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a pastor (in 2 churches), a student, a camp director, etc. To be blunt, not only do I not think about blogging very much, even when I do I often don't know what to say.

Someone inspire me with a new idea or motivation to blog.

Or just tell me to completely give up

Where is God When it Hurts?

2011-02-04T16:47:00.003-05:00

Book Review of Where is God When it Hurts by Philip Yancey

One of Philip Yancey's first books must be one of his best (I have only read 2 or 3, but this one was surely worthwhile to read). He sets out to find a message that we Christians can give to people who are suffering, an answer to the question asked by the title of the book. It's the classic conundrum, the problem of pain.

Part 1 of the book is spent defending pain. You read that right. Yancey believes that we have an inadequate view of pain. Without pain in this life, we'd be in a heap of trouble! Pain is a needed and built in warning system, as those who suffer from painlessness would attest. Pain can lead to good results (think athletes in training or, even better, women giving birth).

Part 2 reminds us that we don't live in the best possible world. We live in a world brought into chaos by sin. God allows this to continue for various reasons, but certainly one of them is that the brokenness of this world causes us to cry out, out of this world. Yancey believes that it is far better to ask 'to what end?' amidst pain than to attempt to locate the source of a specific circumstance. Until we realize that this life is not about 'being happy,' but about transforming our soul, we will not see the value of pain. Ours is not to reason why, but to learn to trust God to... no, simply to trust God.

Part 3 gets into specific cases of pain/suffering and overwhelmingly demonstrates that there are a myriad to responses to pain. Some give up on faith b/c of pain. Others find it! Some hope for healing while others resign themselves to their plight. Because there are so many actual responses, we can't rightly blame pain for our refusal to believe.

Part 4 deals with four key issues that need to be addressed in order to cope with pain: Fear, helplessness, lack of meaning & lack of hope. Yancey describes how we can best support those experiencing pain and suffering by helping them in these areas.

Part 5 focuses on how the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ultimate answer to the problem of pain. One of the big questions people ask is 'How can God just sit up there in heaven and let this pain and suffering go on forever?' That 2-part question is addressed by the occupied cross and the empty tomb. God hasn't just sat up in heaven. He came and suffered with us. And it's not going to go on forever because, through Jesus, there is life after death.

I had started this book a couple of times over the years, but only finished it today. I did myself a disservice. It's a very good book. Yancey is, of course, one of the better Christian writers. I also think he is one of the most genuine thinkers, most thorough researchers, and most helpful teachers in the body of Christ. Highly recommended.

Crazy Love

2011-01-31T15:35:00.002-05:00

Book Review of Crazy Love by Francis Chan

Crazy Love is another in a long line of books that begin with the premise that the church in America is not doing well. Where these books part company with each other is in either their diagnosis of the problem or in their recommended cure. For Chan, the problem is an inaccurate view of God (22) and the solution is, therefore, a correct theology that leads to complete devotion.

The book starts out sort of slow, a very basic discussion of what God is like. Chapter 4 onward had the feel, to me, of a couple of different sermon series tied together in book form. I mean none of this critically, as the book is pretty decent. Francis is frank and, I think, quite right in what he is saying. Most importantly, the book challenged me in a number of ways not by being innovative but by doing what all good Christian books do: reminding us how great God is and what we should do in response.

Quotes of Note

The core problem isn't the fact that we're lukewarm, halfhearted, or stagnant Christians. The crux of it all is why we are this way, and it is because we have an inaccurate view of God (22).

Do not assume you are good soil. I think most American churchgoers are the soil that chokes the seed because of all the thorns. Thorns are anything that distracts us from God (67).

The American church is a difficult place to fit in if you want to live out New Testament Christianity (68).

To put it plainly, churchgoers who are 'lukewarm' are not Christians. We will not see them in heaven (84).

Most of us use "I'm waiting for God to reveal His calling on my life" as a means of avoiding action. Did you hear God calling you to sit in front of the television yesterday? Or to go on your last vacation? Or exercise this morning? Probably not, but you still did it (169).

If I stop pursuing Christ, I am letting our relationship deteriorate (170).

Amish Quotes

2011-01-25T13:08:00.003-05:00

I enjoy quote books. A friend lent me a book of Amish quotes and I've finally gotten around to reading it through. Here are some of my favorites:

FAITH
"Don't hurry, don't worry, do your best, leave the rest"
"Bibles that are coming apart usually belong to people who are not"
"It may be difficult to wait on the Lord, but it is worse to wish you had"
"Don't pray when it rains, if you don't pray when the sun shines"
"Be like the teakettle; when it's up to its neck in hot water, it sings"
"You can tell when you're on the right track. It's usually uphill"

FAMILY
"Our children are the only treasures we can take to heaven"
"A sweater is a garment worn by a child when his mother feels chilly"
"Parents who are afraid to put their foot down usually have children who step on their toes"
"If parents don't train their children, the children will train the parents"
"Good character like good soup is usually homemade"

FRIENDS
"A smile is a curve that can straighten out a lot of things"
"Swallowing words before you say them is so much better than having to eat them afterward"
"A man is happier to be sometimes cheated than to never trust"
"It is better to give others a piece of your heart than a piece of your mind"
"The best vitamin for making friends is B1"
"He who talks to you about others will talk to others about you"

WORK
"The reason some people get lost in thought is because it is unfamiliar territory"
"The trouble with doing nothing is it's too hard to tell when you're finished"
"One thing you can learn by watching the clock is that it passes time by keeping its hands busy"

The Shack Reviewed

2011-01-24T12:34:00.002-05:00

Theological Critique of The Shack
By Matthew Rose

Introduction

When William P. Young wrote The Shack as a Christmas gift to his 6 children, he reportedly had no idea that he would soon become a best selling author. Since its publication in 2007, the book has spent 70 weeks atop the New York Times best seller list and sold over 10 million copies. According to Eugene Peterson, “this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”

Or is it? The Shack has created plenty of controversy. Multiple rebuttals have been written. A number of leading evangelicals voiced their concerns and critiques. These negative reactions range from assessments of literary quality (or a lack thereof) to accusations of heresy. Norman Geisler, for instance, finds 14 problems with the book and concludes that Young has compromised Christian truth in an attempt to engage current culture.

Is The Shack a new Pilgrim’s Progress or a dangerous set of doctrinal distortions? Most likely, the truth is somewhere in between. But where? Below, in an attempt to answer that very question, I will discuss the theology and apologetic perspectives found in The Shack before analyzing its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than trying to summarize the story, I will assume that the reader has read the book.

The Theological Perspective of The Shack

If theology is the study of God, then The Shack is certainly a theological work. If Christian theology is essentially Trinitarian, then this book is certainly an attempt at Christian theology. But does this book offer an orthodox picture of the Christian God? Below I will evaluate Young’s picture of the Trinity.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that there is one God existing in three eternal and equal Persons. This distinguishes the Trinity from Polytheism (three gods), Modalism (3 phases of 1 person), and Subordinationism (inherent hierarchy within the 3 persons). These 3 ISM’s are the most common departures from the orthodox view of the Trinity. Does the depiction of God in The Shack match with orthodox Trinitarianism or one of these other ISM’s? Thankfully, there are enough statements about the Trinity in the book to make an answer to this question possible. The chart below contains some of the most straightforward statements about the nature of the Trinity contained in the book:

The Shack vs. Polytheism

“Then,” Mack struggled to ask, “Which one of you is God?” “I am,” said all three in unison. (87)

“We are not three gods” (101)

The Shack vs. Modalism

“We are not talking about one god with three attitudes” (101)

“If I were simply One God with only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even… [without] love and relationship” (101)

The Shack vs. Subordinationism

“Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command” (122)

“To you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.” (124)

“Papa [the Father] is as much submitted to me [the Son] as I to him, or Sarayu [the Spirit] to me, or Papa to her.” (145)

Throughout the book, then, these three departures from orthodoxy are confronted and avoided. In terms of numbers, at least, The Shack offers a thoroughly orthodox representation of the Trinity. God, in The Shack, is one God and three Persons (and these Persons are eternal and equal). But what about how each Person of the Trinity is depicted? Does Young’s portrayal of the Father, Son, and Spirit compromise the Christian faith? The chart below lists some of the key statements from the book about each member of the Trinity:

The Father in The Shack

A large beaming African-American woman (82)

“You may call me Elousia” (86)

“Elousia… that is a wonderful name. El is my name as Creator God, but ousia is ‘being’ or ‘that which is truly real,’”

The Son in the The Shack

He appeared Middle Eastern and was dressed like a laborer (84)

“I feel more comfortable around you. You seem so different from the other two.” “How do you mean, different?” came his (Jesus’) soft voice out of the darkness. “Well… more real, more tangible, I don’t know.” (110)

The Spirit in the The Shack

A small, distinctly Asian woman (84)

“And I am Sarayu… keeper of the gardens, among other things.” (87)

“She is creativity; she is Action; she is the Breathing of Life; she is much more. She is my Spirit.”

Whereas one would be hard pressed to complain about the orthodoxy of Young’s Trinitarianism, his depiction of each member of the Trinity has created quite a lot of controversy.
Center stage of this controversy has been the portrayal of the Father as a woman. It is important to determine the ground on which Young’s detractors are standing. Are they saying that the Father is male? Or are they saying that the Father should only be depicted as male?

If the claim is that the Father simply is male, then it is the detractors and not the author of The Shack who have moved beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Standard Christian theology states that God is neither male nor female. Orthodoxy should applaud the statement coming from Young’s Father figure in chapter 6 when he states, “I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature” (93).

If the Father is not essentially male, then one must wonder on what basis the Father must only be depicted as male. It’s not as if The Shack is stubborn in its insistence on making the Father a female. Young goes out of his way not only to provide reasons for his choice, but ultimately the Father character is revealed through a male image. Papa (now appearing as a dignified, older male) states, “Forgiving your dad yesterday was a significant part of your being able to know me as Father today” (221).

Perhaps less controversial is Young’s portrayal of the Son. The Shack dips its pages into such deep waters as Moltmann’s theology of the cross (96) and theories of kenosis (99-100). While these subjects are indeed controversial, they are part of an in-house debate within Christian orthodoxy. Essentially, the Persons of the Trinity as described in The Shack are quite typical of orthodoxy. The Father is connected to Creation. The Son is connected to Restoration of humanity. And the Spirit is connected to cultivation of the heart/life and creativity. This is a fairly traditional approach. By and large, Young has steered clear of heretical statements in regard to the Trinity.

One last issue must be addressed in regard to Young’s treatment of the Trinity. In chapter 11, Young has Mack interact with a fourth character who turns out to be Sophia, “a personification of Papa’s wisdom” (171). Why Young made this choice is unknown to me, but, in any case, it is made clear in chapter 12 that Sophia is not a fourth member of the godhead.

The Apologetic Perspective of The Shack

If the core of theology is the doctrine of God, then the core of apologetics is finding a solution to the problem of pain. John Stott once said that “the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith, and has been in every generation. Its distribution and degree appear to be entirely random and therefore unfair. Sensitive spirits ask if it can possibly be reconciled with God’s justice and love.” Even more than the Trinity, The Shack has the problem of pain as its core topic. The story begins by describing The Great Sadness (Young’s name for the problem of pain) in Mack’s life and ends by saying that, through the events of the story, The Great Sadness has been resolved (247).

The problem of pain is, perhaps, best posed by the Greek Philosopher Epicurus: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, and does not want to, he is wicked. But if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes evil in the world?” In this book, the setting and conflict of the story illustrate the problem of pain. Mack was an abused child and is now the father of multiple children. One of those children (a little girl named Missy) is kidnapped and murdered, leaving Mack and his family in intense grief. In what way(s) does Young attempt to resolve this grief through Mack’s encounter at the shack? The chart below shows how The Shack deals with the problem of pain in past, present, and future perspective:

Past Perspective

“We created you to share that [joy]. But Adam chose to go it on his own, as we knew he would, and everything got messed up. But instead of scrapping the whole Creation we rolled up our sleeves and entered into the middle of the mess. That’s what we have done in Jesus.” (99)

“When I created it, it was only Good, because that is just the way I am.” (131)

“Your world is severely broken” (164)

Present Perspective

“There are millions of reasons to allow pain and hurt and suffering rather than to eradicate them” (125)

“Just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me. Grace doesn’t depend on suffering to exist, but where there is suffering you will find grace in many facets and colors.” (185)

“Nobody knows what horrors I have saved the world from ‘cuz people can’t see what never happened.” (190)

“At this point, all I have to offer you as an answer is my love and goodness, and my relationship with you. I did not purpose Missy’s death, but that doesn’t mean I can’t use it for good.” (222)

Future Perspective

“It won’t be this way forever” (132)

“Nothing is at it should be, as Papa desires it to be, and as it will be one day.” (164)

The past, present, and future perspectives are all necessary in initiating a resolution to the problem of pain (The Great Sadness). Throughout The Shack, Young utilizes all three perspectives to address the issue.

Christianity offers great insight into the past that provides a beginning point for a resolution to the problem of pain. Objection to Christianity is often raised in the following way: “Why would a loving God create such a broken world?” The Bible offers a past perspective that renders this objection baseless. In Christian theology, God did not create a broken world. God created a good world. Young states this theme in numerous ways throughout his book. The problem of pain is not a problem that finds its origins in Creation. The problem of pain finds its origin in The Fall. The problem is not Genesis 1, but Genesis 3. God is not the source or cause of evil, pain, and/or suffering. The cause of Missy’s murder was not God’s will, but the will of a fallen human being. This insight into the past is essential for justifying God amidst the presence of pain. In essence, then, the past perspective on the problem of pain is the classical free-will defense.

The past perspective, on its own, cannot resolve the problem of pain. For even if God did not initiate evil, evil is allowed to continue under God’s jurisdiction. Why does God allow evil presently? An objector might raise the question in this way: “How can God just sit up there in heaven and watch all of this misery take place?” The Bible offers a bold response to this strong complaint. In Christian theology, God does not just sit up there in heaven and watch the problem of pain. Rather, God became flesh and lived amidst the problem of pain. What’s more, God allowed the problem of pain to land squarely on his two shoulders at the cross. The cross demonstrates that God can work immense good out of terrible situations. Indeed, the cross is the best good (it makes salvation available to all) and it comes out of the worst evil (the crucifixion of the God-man). If this is the case, then God is certainly capable of working good out of our trials and tribulations, our pain and suffering. By the end of the story, Missy’s death has been used by God to do a good work in Mack, his family, his friends, and potentially even his enemies.

Even if we consider the past and present perspectives, however, we are left with a lingering issue. An objector might continue: “But how can God allow all of this pain and suffering to continue forever? He must be indifferent or powerless!” But again, one must allow the Bible to speak for itself. The Bible states what Young has stated in his book. The problem of pain will not last. Death will come to an end. Suffering will cease to exist. Mack was able to see that Missy was not gone. She had received eternal life. He would join her one-day in a place free from evil. No theodicy is complete without a picture of eternal life.

The Shack, then, offers an intriguing and thorough resolution to the problem of pain. But I can imagine how some would find this resolution hopelessly artificial. After all, William Young has put words into God’s mouth that God has not necessarily uttered. Mack received special revelation that a real human being encountering pain will not necessarily receive. The Great Sadness is resolved for Mack because he receives a letter from God and meets the Trinity in an almost face-to-face encounter. But will we each receive such a letter? Will we each experience such a vision? Indeed, Young has his Jesus admit that Mack’s case is special (112). Is this fictional special revelation a real answer to the general problem of pain?

Strengths & Weaknesses

I have suggested that The Shack passes the test of orthodoxy in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity and that it offers a strong (albeit somewhat artificial) solution to the problem of pain. But what other strengths and weaknesses are to be found in the pages of The Shack? Below I will briefly discuss how Young handles three other topics of interest. Space is not available to deal with these issues at length:

The Shack and Religion
Young’s book is laced with criticisms of institutional religion. Mack, even after his experience with God, is “not very religious” (10). The chart below catalogues some of these statements:

Page # Statement
66 “Sunday prayers and hymns weren’t cutting it anymore… sick of all the little religious social clubs that didn’t seem to make any real difference or affect any real changes.”
91 “None of his [Mack’s] old seminary training was helping in the least”
93 “Help you from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning… this weekend is not about reinforcing your religious stereotypes”
179 “Religious machinery can chew up people!”… An awful lot of what is done in my name has nothing to do with me and is often, even if unintentional, very contrary to my purposes.”

While there is much truth in these statements, one wonders if Young has gone too far in his critique of the institutional church.

The Shack and Exclusivism
Some have critiqued Young for apparently inclusivistic themes. Below is a chart of some of the content that sparks this controversy:

Page # Statement
31 “Is the Great Spirit another name for God—you know, Jesus’ papa?”… “I would suppose so. It’s a good name for God because he is a Spirit and he is great.”
120 “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.
182 “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions… I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my papa…”

While it is understandable why some would be alarmed at quotes such as these (especially the last one), one should read the end of that conversation between Mack and Young’s Jesus as well. Mack asks if that means that all roads lead to God. Jesus responds by saying that “most roads don’t lead anywhere…[but] I will travel any road to find you” (182). Frankly, I find a lot of truth in these statements, but I am not surprised that other evangelicals have rejected them.

The Shack and the Law
I think it would be a fair critique of The Shack to say that Young didn’t provide enough nuances in regards to the apparently Antinomian statements in chapter 14. Mack asks, “Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” to which the Father replies with a simple “Yes, in Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful” (203). Again, there is a sense in which these statements are true and a sense in which they are not (certainly there is a law for Christians, the Law of Christ/Spirit). Young could and should have better elaborated on this point.

All in all, William P. Young should be commended for writing a bold book that takes on big issues creatively. The book has created discussion and that is a good thing. The book offers lots of practical wisdom in regards the relationships between faith and rationality, sovereignty and free will, and forgiveness and reconciliation. On the other hand, it might be considered quite presumptuous to put so many words into the mouths of the members of the Trinity, some of which are questionable doctrinally, and some of which are, perhaps, superficial/idealistic.

Conclusion

I would recommend The Shack to my colleagues and parishioners, but I’d want to stay in dialogue with them about the contents of the book. Indeed, I’d look forward to the dialogue because Young’s book tackles a lot of interesting subjects and offers intriguing insights. I am glad that the book received a wider audience than his own children.

NFL Playoff Predictions

2011-01-08T13:05:00.005-05:00

Prior to the NFL season, I correctly predicted 4 of the 6 AFC playoff teams (NE, Indianapolis, Baltimore, NYJ). I predicted only 3 of 6 NFC playoff teams (Atlanta, NO, GB)

Below are my predictions for the AFC Playoffs. I've decided, this year, to make surprising selections.

AFC

Wild Card Round
NYJ over Indy- Manning will struggle w/Jets D
Baltimore over KC- Ravens are just way better

1st Round
NYJ over Pats- Patriots cold, Jets fired up
Pitt over Baltimore- Real tight game. Home field wins.

Championship Round
NYJ over Pittsburgh- I predict NYJ in OT

NFC

Wild Card Round
NO over Seattle- Not even close
GB over Philly- Very close

1st Round
Atlanta over GB- Too tough to win in Atlanta
Chicago over NO- NO will be too banged up

Championship Round
Chicago over Atlanta- Chicago will shock in OT

So after having both championship games go to OT, the Jets will clobber the bears in the Super Bowl.

A Knew Year

2011-01-01T01:37:00.003-05:00

I was just reflecting that, when all is said and done, 2010 may go down as one of the best years of my life. We bought our first home, Kenzie was born, had a great time working with David Hockley, the list could go on and on. I don't know what 2011 has in store, but I do sense a new phase in my life and ministry.

How about you? Where do you think 2010 will rank when all is said and done?

2010 Blog Highlights

2010-12-29T17:14:00.002-05:00

This will be embarrassing!

Apology Series
Q&A for Today
Space Quotes

It wasn't a good year for my blog. I stopped blogging. People stopped reading. Life was busy. Facebook took over. Will this blog survive 2011? Did it survive 2010?

4 Views of 4 Views Books

2010-12-07T12:22:00.002-05:00

Intro
Recently I've been reading a number of books which present 4 views of a given subject and allow for some interaction between the different presenters. These books serve as good introductions to broad subjects, but the format also carries with it some negatives. This post will present 4 different views of the '4 views' books.

View #1 "They're GREAT!"
The '4 Views' books are awesome. They help us to understand those whom we disagree with and even to better understand our own positions. Plus, they go as 'in depth' as most people will need on the subject at hand.

View #2 "They're GOOD!"
The '4 Views' books are a good start, but by their very nature, they don't go into enough detail. Each view gets a very abbreviated description.

View #3 "They're OK!"
The '4 Views' books are ok, but sometimes there's only 3 legitimate views and sometimes there are 5. My unique (and right!) view always seems to get left out.

View #4 "They're TERRIBLE"
The '4 Views' books give equal time to deception! Only 1 view is correct and the others should not be given the chance to stand side by side with the true view.

Conclusion
The '4 Views' books have strengths and weaknesses.

Psalm Sort of Prayer

2010-12-02T17:30:00.003-05:00

For many members of these United States, Thanksgiving is about the four F’s: Faith, Family, Food, and Football. Interestingly, each component of Thanksgiving lends itself to prayer. Our faith leads us to share a prayer of gratitude to God for our families and for the abundance of food. In many homes each member around the table will express the ways in which they’ve been blessed prior to partaking in the feast. And this prayerfulness does not end when the television is turned on to watch the football game. A touchdown is often accompanied by a finger pointing to the heavens as a thanks for, apparently, God-given success on the field. After the game, when a star player is interviewed, the first words out of his mouth are often an expression of gratitude toward God.

This year, for me, Thanksgiving felt like a five-day festival. Wednesday night I led a small congregation in a Thanksgiving Eve service. We sang to God and shared with Him and each other many of the ways in which God had blessed us over the past year. It was easy to find some Psalms to help us consider some of our blessings (we used Psalms 92 and 107). Thursday afternoon my wife (Katie) and I were able to host her side of the family for our Thanksgiving Day meal in our new home! Friday morning we (along with our 4-month old daughter Kenzie) made our way safely eight hours to Pennsylvania to visit family. We were able to spend Saturday and Sunday with loved ones as we ate meal after meal of delicious leftovers and watched plenty of football. Throughout the week, many prayers of thanks were offered to God. Even now, as I reflect on the above, I am overwhelmed with thankfulness.

Soon after our arrival back in New York Monday evening, I turned the radio on to find them still talking about faith and football, but with a strange and apparently uncomfortable twist. It seemed that a wide receiver for my favorite team (the Buffalo Bills) had blamed God for his poor performance on Sunday. He had dropped what would have been a game winning catch in overtime and, shortly thereafter, left the following message on his online Twitter account: “I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO...”

Local radio was abuzz Monday evening with reaction. One sports sociologist, in a radio interview, said of the wide receiver, “He's blaming God. And the fact he's blaming God is beyond the scope. That is frightening. Granted, he may have been saying that out of immediate anger and sadness, but he needs help," When quotes from the interview were posted on the radio stations’ website, a lay comment read, “If you have a relationship with anyone, including God, you have your ups and downs. This was a down day for Steve [the wide receiver] but it proves to me he has a healthy relationship with the Lord.” As I turned off the radio, I found myself wondering who was right. Was the sports sociologist right in insisting that this was a serious sign of psychological problems and that the wide receiver needed help? Or was the lay person correct in saying that the Twitter message was a sign of a healthy relationship with God? Could they both be right to some degree?

Certainly there are issues of greater importance than the result of a football game. The above controversy got me thinking about my Thanksgiving weekend. I had so much to be thankful for (a great family, material blessings, safe travels, etc) and I had expressed this gratefulness to God. But what hadn’t I said to God? Throughout the weekend I had been receiving updates from my mother regarding my one-year-old nephew Lijah. He was in the hospital fighting pneumonia and was in very rough shape. I had prayed a number of times for improved health, but I had resisted expressing any anger of frustration with God for allowing such a small child to go through such an ordeal. It didn’t seem fair, but it also didn’t feel right to vent such feelings to God.

I'm currently teaching on the Psalms, and if they have anything to say on the subject (and I think they do...), then they teach us to pray no matter what our moods and feelings. The Psalms are filled with complaints/laments. I really enjoyed some writing from John Goldingay on this subject, he said,

“The presence of these prayers in the Psalter indicates at least that God gives permission for them to be prayed. What he then does with them is his business; though we may grant that ours, in our better moments, is to recognize that these are not the profoundest moments in the Psalter (except in the sense that, in their own paradoxical way, they point towards the cross to which such human realities pushed God), and that, while they may be uttered, they may then need to be repented of.”

Monopoly

2010-11-24T22:36:00.004-05:00

Monopoly is by far the greatest board game ever, except for the fact that very rarely will someone actually play it with me. But recently we were lent Wii Monopoly! It took me a little while to figure out how the computer played the game, but I'm on fire now. Here are my results:

4th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Not a super post, I know, but (just like in monopoly), it'll take me a while to get back into the swing of things :)

Blame Game

2010-11-21T14:25:00.001-05:00

Who is most to blame for my lack of recent blogging?

A. Blogger Matthew
B. Intern David
C. Baby Kenzie
D. Other (type-in)

Prayer Meeting?

2010-10-19T11:48:00.002-04:00

In the past, almost all holiness churches had a mid-week prayer meeting. Many churches have since stopped. Our church didn't, but the attendance got to be something like 8-15 people on most nights. I discovered that those 8-15 were very sad that so few attended this meeting which was open to a congregation of 200.

Would I like to see 200 people in prayer meeting? Of course! But I realize our culture. My concern was to help these 8-15 feel better about their Wednesday night experience. How could I help them not to be sad about the fact that they were such a small group?

I found something that seems to have worked. I simply started calling them a small-group. This subtle change has changed the atmosphere of our Wednesday night get-together. We think of ourselves now as a small-devoted to specifically to prayer. I make mention of the fact that there are multiple other small groups happening in congregational homes. This helps the prayer small-group to realize that just b/c tons of people aren't at the church building on Wednesday night, it doesn't mean a lot of people are engaged in prayer and the Christian life.

Furthermore, changing Wednesday night prayer meeting into a 'prayer small-group' has given our group renewed focus. No longer is it just another bible study and prayer time. Now it is very centered on prayer. When we look at Scripture, we are looking for insights into prayer. When we pray, we are more passionate. It's been a good thing.

Pastor Appreciation

2010-10-01T19:55:00.000-04:00

How to make your pastor feel UNappreciated

Coming Soon- How to make your pastor feel appreciated, Part Two

Space Quotes

2010-10-01T12:04:00.002-04:00

I've always been interested in space. Yes, I'm a Sci-Fi fan, but I also like non-fiction news about our advancing understanding of the universe. Recent articles, however, have made me chuckle more than marvel. Articles about space are getting stranger and stranger. Here are a couple of examples.

Article 1
This is an article about a newly discovered planet that seems to be in a 'goldilocks' zone. This means that the conditions for life on this planet may be 'just right.' Unfortunately, the article is filled with internal inconsistencies are ridiculous statements.

Example 1
The article begins, "Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right." But a little later the journalist admits, "Scientists have jumped the gun before on proclaiming that planets outside our solar system were habitable only to have them turn out to be not quite so conducive to life." So really this is not the first time they've spotted a planet that they thought was habitable. It's just the most recent time.

Example 2
Steven Vogt of the University of California states that "chances for life on this planet are 100 percent." What!?!? This quote is found in the same paragraph as the fact that researchers don't yet know if there is water on the planet or what the planets atmosphere is like! The statement is also very philosophical (life simply must emerge when conditions are right) rather than scientific (observation).

Example 3
That same paragraph makes the following atrocious argument, "because conditions are ideal for liquid water [on this new-found planet], and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water..." What does the 'always' mean here? What about the 'seems'?

Example 4
The article closes with this laugher, ""It's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions." This is pure naturalistic philosophy, not science. This is not based on observation at all. It is based on worldview.

Article 2
A second article, from earlier in the week, is perhaps more insane. The UN is considering the hiring of an Ambassador for Planet Earth who will coordinate first contact with alien visitors. What her job description will entail until that day is an interesting question, but there are a couple real funny lines in this article.

Example 5
The potential coordinator states, "The continued search for extraterrestrial communication, by several entities, sustains the hope that some day human kind will received signals from extraterrestrials." In other words, since we are still looking, we still might find. Brilliant. And what of this word 'hope' if not a reflection of the fact that she is making a worldview statement here, not a scientific one.

Example 6
"Under the Outer Space Treaty on 1967, which Unoosa oversees, UN members agreed to protect Earth against contamination by alien species by “sterilising” them." Of course! Those aliens who just came from light years away on a spaceship will be glad to let you sterilize them upon their arrival! Thankfully, this new coordinator has a much more tolerant approach!

Example 7
No space talk is finished without a quote from Stephen Hawking. Not so optimistically, he states, "I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. The outcome for us would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans."

I don't know if there is life on other planets or not, but I do know the difference between science and philosophy. I also know the difference between imaginative conversation and flat-out comedy, and I think these articles fit the latter category a bit better than the former.

NFL Predictions

2010-09-08T10:01:00.002-04:00

AFC East
11-5 NY Jets
10-6 NE Pats
7-9 Miami
6-10 Buffalo

AFC North
13-3 Baltimore
10-6 Cincinnati
7-9 Pittsburgh
2-14 Cleveland

AFC South
11-5 Indianapolis
10-6 Houston
8-8 Tennessee
5-11 Jacksonville

AFC West
10-6 San Diego
7-9 Oakland
7-9 Denver
5-11 Kansas City

AFC Championship
Baltimore over Indianapolis

NFC East
11-5 Dallas
10-6 NY Giants
9-7 Philadelphia
8-8 Washington

NFC North
12-4 Green Bay
10-6 Minnesota
6-10 Chicago
6-10 Detroit

NFC South
12-4 New Orleans
10-6 Atlanta
4-12 Carolina
3-13 Tampa Bay

NFC West
9-7 San Francisco
8-8 Arizona
5-11 Seattle
4-12 St. Louis

NFC Championship:
Green Bay over New Orleans

Super Bowl:
Baltimore over Green Bay

Delusion Confusion 9

2010-08-18T14:02:00.002-04:00

We're still in chapter 4. Today I want to focus on pages 162-189.

Dawkins is targeting, here, the big question of ultimate origins. Theists suggest the answer to this question is God. Dawkins offers the following alternative points:

1. The origin of life only had to happen once (162)
2. He would not be surprised if chemists figure out an answer very soon (165)
3. The fact that we are here proves that it happened, no matter how unlikely (165)
4. He doesn't think the odds are as bad as sometimes suggested (166)
5. The odds aren't so bad b/c the universe is so big (many chances for luck, 168)
6. The odds are even better b/c there might be multiple universes (173)
7. God is too complex to have been the first cause (which must be simple, 185)

My comments...

As to #2, I think it is more likely that chemists will tout an answer that isn't actually an answer. They will produce life in a lab using building blocks and pretend like that solves the problem when, in actuality, the problem is where the building blocks came from.

I don't understand how #3 is considered circular reasoning. By 'it happpened,' Dawkins surely means life from non-life without divine aid. He is assuming his conclusion to help him prove his conclusion. He's free to do that in order to show the consistency of his theory, but he shouldn't pretend it helps prove his theory.

I think #'s 1 & 4-6 are strong evidence, again, that Dawkins is doing philosophy in this book and not science. #4 is somewhat of a science (statistical probability), but as we slide down to #6 we're dealing with pure speculation. This speculation is driven not by evidence, but by necessity. If the naturalist worldview is correct, the statistical problem MUST be overcome by increasing the pool of possibilities.

As for #7, I found myself constantly writing the word 'why' next to Dawkins' words from pages 184-186. Dawkins insists that the first cause MUST have been simple. But this is only true if we assume Dawkins worldview from the get-go. Dawkins believes that complexity ONLY comes after a lot of mutations and natural selection. He cannot fathom anything complex existing without such a build-up. And so a complex Being being the first cause is out of the question for him. But why must it be out of the question for me? Why must I work with the same worldview as him?

Delusion Confusion 8

2010-08-11T17:21:00.000-04:00

Chapter 4, the longest chapter in The God Delusion (about 53 pages), is titled "Why there almost certainly is no God" (137-189). It is safe to say that this is where Dawkins sees his strength, but I found this chapter to be among the weakest in terms of argumentation. Here are some examples:

1. Dawkins says that "Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from" (138). But this is certainly too broad a statement. Even if Darwinian natural selection is as explanatory as Dawkins thinks it is, it still doesn't explain where information ultimately comes from.

2. He hints that even though there's no evidence, a darwinian principle may actually have application to origins/cosmology (139, 141, 143). To me, this is direct evidence that Dawkins is working more from a worldview than from actual observation (as he claims).

3. He makes a repeated (and good) point that Darwinian evolution really isn't a 'chance' ordeal (145). I think it is too easy for non-Darwinians to dismiss the theory as one of (statistically impossible) chance. The kind of evolution that we all agree about is not a matter of 'chance' at all. It happens for a reason.

4. Dawkins insists that the design argument is flawed in that the designer's origin, too, would need to be explained (being a complex being and all, 146-147). But again, the argument only states that things that have a beginning (like the cosmos) have a cause. "Who made God" simply isn't a legitimate question b/c God is, by definition, a being without a cause.

5. Dawkins writes as if creationists don't understand the principle of accumulation. I respond by saying that I probably believe in it even more than Dawkins does. After all, I believe that the variety that we see came about in a (relatively) short period of time via evolution.

6. In my opinion, Dawkins has an epistemology that makes his conversion (to theism or something like it) practically impossible. He states that it doesn't even make sense to search for evidence of design (151, 153). Instead, one should always assume that anything with the appearance of design is just an area of current human ignorance. How can irreducible complexity EVERY be shown if it is ALWAYS better to wait for more science (155)?

7. In this same context, he states, "It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of the narrative" (153). But his discussion of God in the Old Testament is evidence that he does not extend that sort of grace to theists.

8. From the opening quote of Jefferson to the end of the chapter, Dawkins is attempting to ignite the supposed flaming gulf that exists b/w religion and science. But no such gulf exists. Good theism doesn't wish science would go away, nor do good theists shy from it.

I'll stop at 8 (it's a long chapter). Next I'll look at what Dawkins says about the Anthropic Principle (and probably be able to finish the chapter).

Q&A for Today

2010-08-10T14:12:00.003-04:00

My men's group has been 'tackling tough questions' with tiny pamphlets. The answers given are not meant to be exhaustive (obviously), but they are meant to get people thinking toward the truth. Below are links to our brief answers to some important questions...

Who made God? How can God just exist?
Did God show favoritism by choosing Israel?
If they find life on other planets, is Christianity proven false?
Why are there so many denominations?
Can you prove Jesus actually existed?
What about those who have never heard?
How could a loving God send people to hell?
Why do Christians ignore some Old Testament laws?
If Darwin was right, is Christianity wrong?
What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead?
Can you prove that God exists?
What if I'm still not sure?
How could a loving God allow so much suffering?
Does the Trinity make sense?
Is the OT God a Monster?

Kenzie & Me

2010-07-31T11:04:00.001-04:00

Delusion Confusion 7

2010-07-21T11:48:00.003-04:00

* Below is part 7 of a response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"
**I'm dealing with pages 100-136 here

In this chapter, Dawkins is basically attempting to dismantle a number of arguments for God's existence. Below I will list the 'proofs' he deals with, describe his problem (P) with them, and respond (R) with my own feedback:

1. There must be a first cause
P- Even if true, it doesn't tell us anything about the cause
R- Clearly Dawkins avoids the strength of the argument (that it shows there must be a first cause) by simply dismissing it with critical words (dubious, arbitrary) apart from actual argument. He then points out that nothing about this 'cause' can be learned from the argument. While this is an overstatement (certainly the idea that the cause resulted in this particular kind of creation tells us something about the cause), every Christian apologist would agree that the first cause argument doesn't give us much information. It isn't intending to. Agreeing with your opponent is not winning a debate! He quickly switches enemies and attacks and apparent contradiction b/w God's omniscience and omnipotence. Thus, I found his response to this argument very weak.

2. The universe appears designed
P- Darwin shows how things can appear designed without actually being designed
R- Even if Darwinian evolution is true it only shows how complex life (that appears designed) could possibly come from simple life (that, we know now, also appears designed). Dawkins is avoiding the subject of the appearance of design in non-living things (laws of nature). He himself is willing to admit that life may have been placed here by design (aliens).

3. A perfect being must exist
P- A big chunk of the chapter is spent showing the weakness of the ontological argument.
R- I think the ontological argument is worthless too. I wonder why he spent so much time on it. At least the section gives us the chance to hear Dawkins say he doesn't like (and doesn't really get) philosophy.

4. Life is beautiful
P- The existence of beautiful things in culture proves culture, not God
R- The argument from beauty is not really a proof (for the brain), but for the heart. I don't think it is even worth arguing over this point.

5. People have experienced God
P- Dawkins claims that all such experiences are delusions.
R- Certainly some religious experiences are delusions. But since we are dealing with many throughout human history, we certainly should not dismiss them as quickly as Dawkins has done here.

6. Scripture is of divine origin
P- He says that scholarship has shown that the Scriptures are unreliable and written long after Jesus
R- To be honest, Dawkins is so misinformed in this section that this paragraph would get way too long to read comfortably. I will make a list below, but will save further comments until we deal with his later chapter on the Bible's supposed faults.

- He starts with rhetoric by making it sound like there are just a few holdout believers in the divine origin of Scripture. False, the majority of the world probably believes divine texts exist.
- He thinks the historical evidence that Jesus claimed divinity is minimal. False, this could only be stated by someone very ignorant of how Jesus spoke, acted, and related to people and the institutions of his day.
- He thinks that even if Jesus did claim it, he could have been honestly mistaken (and yet implies this wouldn't make him a crazy person). False, if Jesus thought he was God and wasn't, he was crazy.
- The scholarly case against the reliability of Scripture is overwhelming. False, it's reliability has stood the test of time.
- The NT was written long after Jesus. False, it was written within a generation.
- Paul mentions almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life. False, Paul writes to people with a previous understanding of who Jesus was/is.
- The Gospel is borrowed from the myth religions. False, this was proven false a hundred years ago.
- The genealogies of Jesus contradict each other. False, I believe one is Mary's and one is Joseph's.
- The 4 Gospels were chosen arbitrarily. False, there was intense criteria. They were recognized early on and only institutionalized later on.
- The authors of the Gospels never met Jesus. False, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses.
- A serious case can be made that Jesus never existed. False, there is plenty of evidence outside of the Bible for the basic features of Jesus' life. Only if we hold this bit of history to a totally different standard due we arrive at such a conclusion. Dawkins even dismisses this (so why mention it?).
- The Christians changed OT passages (like Isaiah's young maiden) to fit their theology (like the virgin birth. False, the Jews translated it virgin long before the 1st century.

7. Some smart people believe
P- Dawkins dismisses most of this by saying that most of the 'Christian' scientists of the past would be atheists if they lived today. He then states that many apparently religious scientists today are only religious in the Einsteinian sense. He then admits that some are genuinely religious and simply says such cases baffle him! He later states the, nevertheless, the best scientists are not religious.
R- The first point is worthless and arbitrary. I'd agree with the second point. The third point is telling. The fourth point is circular.

8. It's a better bet to believe
P- Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.
R- I generally agree.

9. Theism is highly probable
P- If you put reality into an equation it becomes obvious that God is more likely real than not.
R- I don't think this type of proof has much substance or worth either.

Questions for Discussion:
1. Which of the above arguments do you consider the strongest argument for God's existence?
2. Which of the above arguments do you consider the weakest argument for God's existence?
3. Are there arguments for God's existence that you wish he would have dealt with?

How many times...

2010-07-16T14:03:00.001-04:00

This video tests your observation skills. How many times does the white shirted team pass the ball?

Delusion Confusion 6

2010-07-09T15:55:00.003-04:00

* Below is part 6 of a response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"
**I'm dealing with pages 85-99 here

Just a few odds and ends to deal with at the end of chapter 2. Dawkins writes briefly about prayer, evidence & the probability of E.T. life.

Prayer
Dawkins speaks of various studies of prayer that demonstrate that prayer doesn't actually work. I think any thinking person would recognize the many stupidities involved in the experiment described in the middle of page 86. I, myself, really struggle with prayer. That might seem strange for a pastor to say, but I find it to be a very difficult subject to think about. But one thing I do know is that prayer is not powerful in and of itself. It's not like a vending machine in which we're guaranteed B3 b/c we put in our 50 cents. Nor is God like Santa Claus. Prayer must be thought of carefully and not in such childish manners.

Evidence
Dawkins has a real problem with Swinburne's statement that "Too much evidence [of God] might not be good for us" (89). But again, I'm not sure how deeply Dawkins is willing or able to think on these issues. Perhaps there is something of 'free will' which is negated by an over-abundance of evidence. These are deep issues worth thinking about, but I see no reason to deny God because of them.

Aliens
Dawkins says that science chips away at agnosticism on various fronts. The more we utilize science to chip away at the unexplained, the less we should feel the need to resort to God. This leads to a growing naturalism. Using this naturalistic worldview, our agnosticism about alien life is also chipped away. It is becoming more and more probable, according to Dawkins, that life exists on other planets. He thinks it is probably superhuman life (to the point of being god-like). Indeed, he states that these aliens are god-like "in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine" (98). That strange statement aside, I can certainly see how a naturalistic worldview leads to belief in aliens.

Questions for Discussion:
1. Do you believe there is any power in prayer? In what sense(s)?
2. Do you think experiments trying to prove/disprove prayer are valid? Why?
3. Do you agree with Swinburne that too much evidence might not be good for us in matters of religion? Or do you agree with Dawkins that if there is a god(s) he/she/it should overwhelm us with evidence? Would this chip away at free will?
4. Do you think alien life exists? Why?
5. Dawkins has claimed that life on earth might have been intelligently placed here by extra-terrestrials. Do you find this to be a startling admission? If true, does this solve the dilemma of the origins of life or just push it further into the galaxy?

Delusion Confusion 5

2010-06-28T16:20:00.005-04:00

* Below is part 5 of a response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"
**I'm dealing with pages 78-85 here

NOMA is an acronym coined by Gould (non-overlapping magisteria) which argues that science and religion simply cover different spheres. Perhaps science deals with the observable/material and religion with the unobservable/spiritual. Dawkins thinks "this sounds terrific - right up until you give it a moment's thought" (79).

In some ways this is really the core thought of the book. Dawkins is only willing to consider a religion that stands up to scientific scrutiny, that manifests itself in the material world. I, like Dawkins, agree that NOMA is all too convenient for religion. But I find it frustrating that Dawkins, when faced with apparent divine agreement on this point (incarnation, resurrection), is so quick to pass through the potential evidence with 1 mere paragraph (82-83). I'm having trouble remembering another mention of Jesus' resurrection in the entire book, the very kind of evidence Dawkins claims to be interested in!

So what does he say about the resurrection of Jesus?
1. If it occurred, it occurred within the material realm
2. It is unlikely that evidence will ever become available

Completely agree on point one (resurrection happens in the physical realm). But point 2 is where I think Dawkins has poor epistemology. He seemingly has such a preference for biology and contemporary observation that he either ignores historic evidence or pretends it doesn't exist. I get the impression that Dawkins would only accept the kind of evidence that nobody would expect to be available realistically (a strand of hair or drop of blood from Jesus that proved either incarnation or resurrection).

I'm going to stop there for the time being and finish chapter 2 in the next post. I was hoping Dawkins book would make some strong atheistic claims about 3 things: Origins, Morality, and refutation of Jesus' resurrection. I was disappointed that the resurrection got so little attention in this book (a few lines?). It's not that I was expecting a Bible study, it's that resurrection is the exact kind of evidence Dawkins claims to be interested in.

Matthew Series

2010-06-27T15:00:00.002-04:00

These are the handouts (with some rough notes) from my sermon series through the Gospel according to Matthew...

Introduction
Genealogy (1:1-17)
Joseph (1:18-25)
Wise Men (2:1-22)
Growing up (2:23)
John the Baptist (3:1-12)
The Trinity (3:13-17)
The Temptation (4:1-11)
D-Day (4:12-17)
The Calling (4:18-25)
The Beatitudes (5:1-12)
Salt & Light (5:13-16)
The Law (5:17-20)
Anger (5:21-26)
Marriage & Divorce (5:27-32)
Telling the Truth (5:33-37)
Dealing with Enemies (5:38-48)
The Secret Service (6:1-4)
Our Prayer (6:5-15)
Fasting for God (6:16-18)
Money Matters (6:19-24)
Worry Free Living (6:25-34)
Critique of Criticism (7:1-6)
The Golden Rule (7:7-12)
The Way of Life (7:13-29)
3 Healing Stories (8:1-15)
Theology of Healing (8:16-17)
The Cost of Christianity (8:18-22)
Calm in the Storm (8:23-27)
Swine Flew (8:28-34)
Questioning Jesus (9:1-34)
The Twelve (9:35-10:42)
Eulogy for John (11:1-30)
Lord of the Sabbath (12:1-21)
The Chained Beast (12:22-45)
The Family of God (12:46-50)
The Four Soils (13:1-23)
The Wheat & Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43)
Mustard & Leaven (13:31-35)
Full Faith (13:44-58)
Bread of Life (14:1-21)
Walking on Water (14:22-33)
Tradition vs. Transformation (15:1-20)
Jesus for Gentiles? (15:21-39)
How to Destroy Fellowship (16:1-12)
Peter's Confession (16:13-20)
Why Did Jesus Come? (16:21-26)
The Transfiguration (16:27-17:13)
Demon Possessed Boy (17:14-23)
Tax Questions (17:24-27, 22:15-22)
Like Little Children (18:1-14)
Sin in the Church (18:15-35)
One Thing (19:16-30)
Workers Paid Equally (20:1-16)
Upside-Down Kingdom (20:17-34)
From Triumph to Temple (21:1-32)
The Wicked Tenants (21:33-46)
The Banquet (22:1-14)
The Big Inning (22:15-46)
The Show Must NOT Go On (23:1-39)
It's NOT the end of the World (24:1-34)
Ready for the Return? (24:35-25:30)
What have you done to Jesus? (25:31-46)
The Betrayal (26:1-30, 27:3-10)
The Denial (26:31-35, 69-75)
He Exits the Garden Alone (26:36-56)
Jesus on Trial (26:57-68, 27:1-2, 11-44)
He has Died (27:45-56)
He has Risen! (27:57-28:15)
Go (28:16-20)

Delusion Confusion 4

2010-06-21T13:03:00.003-04:00

* Below is part 4 of a response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"

Chapter 2 (Part A)

This chapter is about 50 pages and I hardly think a decent response can be made in 1 post/note. I'll deal with pages 51-77 here. Dawkins is attempting to show the weaknesses of non-atheist positions (polytheism, monotheism in various forms, and agnosticism).

Dawkins on Polytheism
It is clear that Dawkins' pictures worldviews through the same evolutionary lens than he pictures biology. For him, polytheism evolved into monotheism which evolved into agnosticism which should evolve into atheism. Dawkins basically uses this section as a 'warm up' to his attack on monotheism in all its forms (57).

Dawkins on Monotheism
Dawkins considers Judaism, Christianity & Islam to be practically indistinguishable for his purposes. He goes on a brief tangent to bring into question just how religious the founding fathers of America were. In all honesty, I have no real interest in that debate (though I tend to think that many of them were less 'Christian' than fundamentalists believe them to have been). I'm still a little puzzled why this tangent was even necessary.

Dawkins on Agnosticism
His basic point here is that agnosticism is fine when we lack evidence (69), but that in the case of theism the burden of proof rests on the theists (76) and that their is no evidence available for them to build their case. Perhaps the most interesting section in the first half of chapter 2 is where Dawkins provides a spectrum of 7 positions in regards to theism/atheism. Dawkins considers himself to be in category 6, but is leaning toward category 7.

1. Strong theist (100% certain there is a God)
2. High Probability (Strongly believe in God)
3. Greater than 50% (agnostic but lean toward belief)
4. Exactly 50% likely
5. Less than 50% (agnostic but lean toward unbelief)
6. Low Probability (Strongly disbelieve in God)
7. Strong Atheist (100% certain there is no God)

Questions for Discussion
1. Doesn't Dawkins use circular reasoning (over and over) by failing to let theism exist on its own terms? I am thinking particularly of his insistence on starting most arguments with potential straw men (using Oral Roberts as an illustration of a theist, describing the OT God is a monster, saying that Paul is the founder of Christianity).
2. Can it really be demonstrated that monotheism evolved from polytheism and not the reverse (or, perhaps, that the evolution could go in both directions)?
3. Are the 3 monotheistic faiths really indistinguishable, even for Dawkins purposes? Doesn't the incarnational theology of Christianity make it quite distinct?
4. Were the Founding Fathers' as religious as fundamentalists say they were? Were they as secular as Dawkins guesses?
5. Is the burden of proof really on theists?
6. Is there really no evidence available for a theist? What kind of evidence would satisfy Dawkins? Why only that?
7. Where are you on Dawkins' spectrum of belief/unbelief? What direction are you moving?

Delusion Confusion 3

2010-06-17T13:58:00.003-04:00

* Below is part 3 of a response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"

Chapter 1

Dawkins uses his 1st chapter to talk about what he is and is not talking about in his book. It's a short section to establish important definitions. The key terms are atheism and theism. What form of Atheism is Dawkins defending? What form of theism does he find intellectually offensive? I will address these 2 questions below:

Atheism
Some who claim to be atheists are probably closer to agnosticism in terms of technical definition. Someone who does not presently believe in any particular God or gods may define themselves as an atheist even if they are open to belief in the future (given enough evidence). But there is a much bolder kind of atheism which believes more certainly that there is no God or gods. Dawkins fits this stronger form of atheism. The chapter seems to make clear that he believes that the physical/natural world is all that exists (the spiritual/supernatural realm does not).

Theism
Just like there are different kinds of beliefs labeled as atheism, there are also different kinds of belief that include a concept of God. Dawkins defines a theist as a believer in a supernatural God (transcendent & immanent). A deist believes in a supernatural God too (but only transcendent). A pantheist uses the term God, but not in a supernatural sense (not transcendent). He declares, "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism" (40). It is a major point of the chapter that many/most great scientists who are considered religious were closer to pantheism than to either theism or even deism.

I have no major (or even minor?) disagreement with Dawkins' definitions. I don't even care to dispute his claim that Einstein fits on the pantheistic (non-supernaturalist) side of the debate. I also welcome his ending disclaimer that he is targeting (in this book) the supernaturalist form of religion and will do so without kid-gloves.

Delusion Confusion 2

2010-06-13T19:25:00.005-04:00

(Original) Preface

There are two themes in Dawkins Preface that I'd like to react to:
1. Dawkins seems to think atheists are a persecuted minority
2. Dawkins thinks a world without religion would be a better place

The first theme made me wonder if Dawkins was not just from another country, but a whole other planet. Dawkins uses the Preface to paint a picture that atheists are some sort of mistreated minority. He believes that the "status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago" (26). This theme is carried throughout the book.

I find this same syndrome quite often in Christian circles. There is something attractive about thinking of your own group as a persecuted minority. We see this in sports all the time, but we also see it in theism and, apparently, atheism as well. But from a street level I just don't see what he claims to be seeing. Practical atheism is the NORM in America, not a minority. And, in this culture, it is usually religious belief that is treated with contempt rather than the lack thereof. But more often people are indifferent and tolerant to a fault!

The second theme is the classic John Lennon thought of imagining a world with no religion. But Dawkins also makes the classic mistake of taking out all the bad fruit of religion while not raising the issue of whether religion has produced much of the good fruit that we enjoy. I thought this was a pretty immature and un-thoughtful opening argument.

Dawkins preface states clearly some of his goals in writing this book.

1. He wants atheists to realize they can 'come out.' I would guess that most atheists, by the very nature of atheism (a positive belief that there is no god or gods), do not struggle with confidence issues.

2. He wants religion to be judged by the evidence. I was/am quite willing to grant this request, though I'd certainly critique Dawkins' epistemology.

3. He wants to bring an end to the practice of labeling children as 'Christian' or 'Muslim' (or whatever) since they have not yet made a decision of what to believe. He states at the bottom of page 25 that "There is no such thing as a Christian child." As an Anabaptist at heart, I'm hard pressed to critique Dawkins on this point.

4. He wants religious readers to be atheists by the time they finish reading his book. I can only say with complete honesty that my faith in Christ was actually strengthened by reading this book because I found Dawkins' arguments to be weak in the areas he addresses and his book very weak in terms of what was neglected. But we'll get into the particulars later on...

Questions for discussions (to keep things focused):
1. Do you think atheism is a persecuted minority in America?
2. Do you think Dawkins was fair in his imaginations of a world without religion?
3. What do you think of Dawkins' goals?

Delusion Confusion

2010-06-11T13:51:00.003-04:00

For the next little while, I'm going to be responding to Richard Dawkins best-selling book The God Delusion. Dawkins is one of the world's most famous atheists and this 400+ page book is considered his strongest argument to date against religion of all kinds (but especially focused on Christianity).

Preface to the Paperback Edition
In this section, Dawkins deals with common objections to his book.

1. You can't criticize religion w/o theological training
Dawkins responds by saying that he has no interest or obligation to respond to theologians who take God's existence for granted. He claims to deal only with those who "take seriously the possibility that God does not exist and argue that he does" (14). I think this is a fair point on Dawkins' part, but I don't think he came through. When the subject comes up later in the book, I don't see very much dialogue with the best arguments of theism. A bit of the straw-man fallacy is present, which leads us to objection 2.

2. You always attack the worst of religion
Dawkins responds by saying that subtle/nuanced religion is "numerically negligible" in comparison to bad religion. I find this point to be at odds with reality. Of those who claim to be religious in our world (most people), I don't find the vast majority of them to be illustrations of the evils of religion. And if Dawkins is directing his attack against bad religion, I'll join in! But what is that to me?

3. You are too mean!
Dawkins uses comparison to show that he's not really very mean. Having read the book, I would tend to agree with him. He has strong opinions and he's blunt with them, but I wouldn't say he is mean in any sense that would drive me away from reading his book.

4. You are preaching to the choir
This point assumes that The God Delusion will only be read by atheists who already agree with Dawkins. I think this objection is weak. I'm a Christian and I was very interested to read the book.

5. You are just as much a fundamentalist as they are
Dawkins responds to this by saying there is a big difference b/w someone who is passionate against evidence (a fundamentalist) and passionate about the evidence (in his view, a naturalist). He states bluntly that "all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution" (19). I find both components of that statement to be vastly overstated. Plus, Christianity does not stand or fall on whether Darwin was right! After reading the book, I would say Dawkins is so committed to naturalism that he would qualify as an equal though opposite fundamentalist.

6. Religion is here to stay, so live with it
Dawkins basically says that if something is false we should do everything possible to get rid of it. I agree with him in principle.

7. Religion is false, but people need it
This objection basically speaks down to the common man who doesn't know enough to become an atheist. Such unlearned people need religion to help them through life. But Dawkins thinks this is arrogant and I agree. However, Dawkins feels that most people are religious b/c they simply don't know there is a solid alternative (a point he gets into more in the regular preface). I find this point ridiculous (I'll get into this in the next post).

So, after reading the book, what objections do I think stick? I would say 1, 2 & 5 are strong points against what Dawkins has written. He hasn't dealt thoroughly with the strongest theistic arguments. He definitely avoids dealing with the strengths of his opponents (basically ZERO discussion of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) or the weaknesses of his own view (very little worthwhile discussion of true origins, unpersuasive discussion of morality w/o theistic foundations). And he's clearly assuming his naturalist position in making most of his arguments.

Internship

2010-06-02T20:41:00.000-04:00

I have a BBC intern
What should I make him do?

Idol #1

2010-05-26T08:30:00.002-04:00

I thought the final show was missing the 'moment' that the judges seemed to have found in Crystal's last song. That being said, I do think Crystal won the night and, therefore, retained the overall top score for the season. THAT being said, I still think Lee appeals to a broader base and will probably get the most votes tonight.

54 Crystal Bowersox (271)
50 Lee Dewize (266)

Q&A for Today

2010-05-20T16:07:00.004-04:00

My small groups are working on developing some evangelistic materials. We are interested in being prepared to answer the kinds of questions that non-Christians might have about God. I started with a list of 20 questions and then got more questions from Christians and non-Christians alike. I thought I'd simply share the questions we've gathered so far...

Questions of Philosophy
Who made God? How could He just exist?
Where does God live? How about Jesus?
Why does God need to be worshiped?
Does God intervene in our lives?
Aren’t monotheism & trinitarianism incompatible?
Why does God allow so much pain and suffering?
How could a loving God send people to Hell?

Questions of Creation
Haven’t science/evolution made God obsolete?
Would the discovery of E.T. destroy Christianity?
Is the earth is young? If so, why do I see stars?
Wouldn’t there be evidence of Noah’s flood?

Questions about the Old Testament
Isn’t Genesis 1-11 just a fairy tale?
Is God racist for picking 1 people group (Israel)?
Isn’t the OT God somewhat of a monster?
Why do some Christians ignore some OT laws?

Questions about the New Testament
Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?
Why worship Jesus if he never claimed to be God?
Why should I actually believe in the resurrection?
Why should I care what Paul says?

Questions about the Christianity
If it’s true, why is Christian history so bad?
Why are there so many denominations?
What about those who have never heard of Jesus?
Shouldn’t I wait until I am absolutely sure?

Questions of Comparison
Are Christians actually happier than others?
What makes Christianity superior to other religions?

Feel free to suggest more questions

Idol #3

2010-05-18T21:38:00.002-04:00

It was April 20th, on my blog, that I first predicted that Lee should & would win American Idol this year. And I think that prediction has been vindicated by his recent performance. Even without the comments from the judges, I gave him two 9 out of 10's.

37 Lee Dewize (216)
33 Crystal Bowersox (217)
28 Casey James (202)

Earlier in the season Crystal built a pretty big lead by my stat system, but now Lee is within 1 point of her. In other words, whoever performs better next week deserves to win. Unless, of course, it is Casey. He doesn't even deserve to be in the top 6, let alone the top 3. If he doesn't get voted out tomorrow I'm moving to Canada.

Idol #4

2010-05-13T10:04:00.002-04:00

I agree with the judges that the duets were way better than the performances this week. I think everyone was just sorta average.

21 Crystal Bowersox (184)
20 Lee Dewize (179)
20 Michael Lynch (175)
20 Casey James (174)

Casey should have gone home before Michael, but I'm not upset about that since BOTH of them should have gone about before Shiabjon (spelling?). In either case, it should definitely be a battle b/w Lee & Crystal. In that case I wouldn't be upset either way, but I think Lee will win.

*Programming note: After Idol is over, my next series will be a chapter by chapter review of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"

Idol #5

2010-05-05T10:45:00.001-04:00

After Tuesday's show, I really think it's got to be either Casey or Aaron on their way out. The other three were either too good last night or are too good overall. I will not be sad to see either Casey or Aaron go. Whichever one doesn't get voted out, the other one should go next week. I predict Casey will go first.

19 Lee Dewize (159)
17 Michael Lynch (155)
15 Crystal Bowersox (163)
14 Aaron Kelly (140)
13 Casey James (154)

Idol #6

2010-04-29T08:35:00.002-04:00

I was less shocked that Siabjon (I never spell it the same week to week) was voted out and more disappointed. Let's face it, the show just got a LOT more boring. She was one of the more interesting contestants of all-time in my opinion. And she was certainly talented. America stinks. Here's my rankings for this week...

17 Casey James (137)
17 Aaron Kelly (126)
16 Siabjon Magnus (138)
16 Michael Lynch (138)
15 Lee Dewize (140)
14 Crystal Bowersox (148)

I am still confident that it will come down to Lee & Crystal (I think Lee will win). But I really thought Siabjon deserved 3rd place. Now I am perplexed.

Idol #7

2010-04-20T21:30:00.002-04:00

In my transition from the apartment to our first home, I missed American Idol last week. But since I'm not really an Elvis fan, it was no big deal. I can't say I'm surprised that Katy and Andrew were voted off as they were definitely two of the most underwhelming contestants left. So we're down to our final 7. Here are my scores for the night (overall score in parenthesis):

17 Lee Dewize (125)
17 Crystal Bowersox (134)
15 Aaron Kelly (109)
14 Siobhan Magnus (122)
14 Michael Lynch (122)
13 Casey James (120)
12 Tim Urban (100)

Based on this, I again declare that Tim should be voted off. Casey and Michael, I think, are both in trouble. The more I think about it, the more I think that Lee is going to win this year. He's a little more 'pop' friendly than Crystal and, frankly, she'd be better off on her own than with all that comes with 'winning' American Idol. I think Siobhan will finish 3rd.

Idol #9

2010-04-07T09:27:00.002-04:00

I thought this was one of the better episodes of American Idol in terms of performances. There was a lot of variety and, more importantly, a lot of quality. In fact, the only one I felt was below average was Aaron Kelly. Here are my rankings for the week (running tally in parenthesis):

17 Casey James (107)
17 Crystal Bowersox (117)
17 Katie Stevens (98)
16 Lee Dewize (108)
16 Siabhan Magnus (108)
16 Tim Urban (88)
16 Michael Lynch (108)
15 Andrew Garcia (96)
13 Aaron Kelly (94)

Based on these rankings, I'd hope that Aaron is in the bottom 3. Tim, despite his best week, should also still be in the bottom 3. Andrew should probably be the other, but it could still be Katie. I'd be very surprised to see anyone else in the bottom 3. I predict, though, that Tim will actually be voted off. It'll be nice for him to go out on a high note.

MOST

2010-04-03T09:27:00.001-04:00

This is a good Easter video illustration. I actually own 2 copies of the short-film MOST if anyone local wants to borrow it (pretty moving).

Such was the Suffering

2010-04-02T11:26:00.001-04:00

Arrest
Accepts Cup (Matt 26:39, 42)
Deserted (Matt 26:56b)

Before Annas
Bound (John 18:12)
Struck (John 18:22)

Before Caiaphas
Spit on (Matt 26:67)
Blindfolded (Mark 14:65)
Mocked (Matt 26:68)
Struck/Slapped (Matt 26:67)
Beaten (Mark 16:65)
Insults (Luke 22:65)

Before Sanhedrin
Condemned (Matthew 27:1)
Bound (Matthew 27:2)

Before Pilate

Before Herod
Mocked (Luke 23:11)

Before Pilate
Flogged (Matt 27:26)

Soldiers
Stripped (Matt 27:28)
Thorns (Matt 27:28)
Mocked (Matt 27:28-29)
Spit on (Matt 27:30)
Struck (Matt 27:30
Disrobed (Matt 27:31)

Cross
Carried Cross (John 19:17)
Nailed to Cross (John 20:25)
Disrobed (Matt 27:36)
Mocked (Matt 27:37)
Insulted (Matt 27:39-44)
Forsaken (Matt 27:46)

Idol #10

2010-04-01T09:40:00.002-04:00

I was actually sad to see Didi Benami go. Certainly she had a bad week (she had the lowest score of the night on my ratings), but I still think she was better than a few of the remaining contestants. Her and Lilly Scott both had voices that made for enjoyable listening. On the other hand, the constant crying was probably getting annoying to America. Here are my weekly rankings (overall score in parenthesis):

18 Lee Dewize (92)
16 Crystal Bowersox (100)
16 Michael Lynch (92)
16 Casey James (90)
16 Andrew Garcia (81)
14 Siabhan Magnus (92)
14 Katy Stevens (81)
13 Aaron Kelly (81)
13 Tim Urban (72)
12 Didi Benami (84)

So the bottom 3 were indeed on the bottom 4 of my rankings and the one with the worst week did indeed get voted out. Hopefully Tim goes next week with Katy & Aaron to follow. I think Casey, Andrew & Michael will go after that. At this point I think the final 3 will be Crystal, Siabhan & Lee (but Crystal is the only lock)

Miss Layup

2010-03-30T08:08:00.002-04:00

I'm not a male chauvinist. Really, I'm not. But I have to say, anyone pushing for 'equal treatment' for women's college basketball is out of their mind. If an NCAA Men's Elite-8 game ended as pitifully as this women's game, it'd make shameful headlines. With the game tied, a Xavier player misses 2 wide-open layups! Then the Xavier defense allows a Stanford guard to go coast to coast in less than 5 seconds to make a game-winning layup! Ugly ugly basketball. And this is one of the top 8 teams?

But just to prove I'm not a male chuavinist, I will admit that the UCONN women's basketball team (winners of something like 76 in a row) could beat me 5 on 1.

American Idol 10

2010-03-25T17:36:00.003-04:00

For the last couple of years I've posted my statistical analysis of American Idol. I've been watching it and scoring them, but I haven't been blogging it b/c I watch it so late that by the time I'm done I just want to go to bed. Nevertheless, I will start blogging now that they are down to the top 10. I just want to say that it was really stupid that Lilly Scott didn't make the top 12. She was one of my favorites. I am glad Paige is gone, but I wish they could have voted both of the bottom 2 out last night.

Wii Bowling Night

2010-03-19T21:05:00.003-04:00

Gold
Scott 201

Silver
Bryan 182

Bronze
Jeff 179

Honorable Mention
Noel 149

Top 8 Qualifying and semi-final scores
Matthew 214, 168
Jeff 206, 170
Elise 205, 115
Bryan 200, 175
Samantha 186, 123
Fred 177, 167
Noel 174, 175
Scott, 168, 224

Qualifying Scores
Garrett 160
Robyn 158
Drew 165
Melanie 182
Katie 145
Mindy 182
Katlyn 160
Evelyn 159
Sharon 149
Donna 114
Brandon 129
John 167

A Case for Tirzah

2010-03-16T22:10:00.003-04:00

Ever since I first heard it, I have always liked the name Tirzah (pronounced Teer-Zah). It comes from the Bible (she's one of Zelephohad's 5 daughters), but I really began to like the name when I watched the movie Ben-Hur (Tirzah was his sister in the movie). My like turned to love when I added the middle name Joy. Tirzah-Joy (get it?). I thought this was my own creation, but in fact that are a number of Tirzah-Joy's (mostly in New Zealand it seems). I think it is a beautiful name and I've always imagined it for my first baby girl.

Here is my case for the name Tirzah:
1. Katie & I both like the name
2. It's always been my dream name for a baby girl
3. It's unique (Katie & I both like unique names)
4. It's connected to one of my favorite movies
5. It's a Bible name
6. Tears-of-joy is connected to childbirth
7. Hebrew means pleasent/delight

In the interest of full-disclosure I will admit that some people think the name could result in Tirzah being made fun of. But I don't think it's a name that will attract too much attention to be honest. All kids will probably be made fun of at some point anyways, but I don't think the name Tirzah, or even Tirzah-Joy is especially susceptable to peer-attack.

This is my quick case for the baby-girl name Tirzah :)

The Invention of Lying

2010-03-15T11:43:00.004-04:00

The Invention of Lying is like Jim Carrey's Liar Liar on Steroids. Rather than just one man telling the truth no matter how hard it hurts, everyone in this films' world does so. Ricky Gervais' character, as a chubby man with a snubby nose, is on the losing end of all this truth telling. But then he learns how to lie! Deception opens doors for Gervais' career, popularity, and romantic life. With everyone else so gullible, the sky is the limit for this fomer loser!

Of course, things get quite out of hand when Gervais tells his dying mother that, rather than nothingness, the afterlife is a wonderful place. The doctors, nurses, and soon the whole world want to hear more of this new information. Gervais invents the idea that there is a man in the sky that is in control of the world, but has trouble filling out this newly invented theology. His life gets even more complex as he begins to see the value of truth in relationships. Is it better to live a 'perfect' lie or an authentic reality?

I'd imagine that some Christians might find this film offensive in that it implies that the 'man in the sky' is the product of human invention. But we should not discount the reality that some religions (and aspects of all religions) are man-made. Technically the film does not deny the existence of God... the people of that world simply didn't have any information about such a being (and when they got some, it was made up).

All in all, the movie was worth watching and I'd recommend it to people who like my kind of movies. I like Gervais style of humor and there were quite a few funny lines. I doubt anyone would say the movie was all that it could have been, though, and at certain points the blatent honesty was either crude or annoying. Overall, I think Liar Liar was more funny and perhaps even more thoughtful.

Rating: 8.0 out of 10

Matthew Perry

2010-03-06T12:23:00.002-05:00

For the full ACTOR RANKINGS click here

A Great Movie earns you 3 points
A Good Movie earns you 1 point
An Average Movie counts for nothing
A Bad Movie costs you 2 points

Great

Good
Fools Rush In

Average
17 Again
The Whole 9 Yards
The Whole 10 Yards
Three to Tango

Bad
Almost Heroes
Numb

Total Score: -3

Rules I've Made Up Along The Way:
1. No animated/computerized/cartoon voice acting stuff counts
2. The actor must have played a major role in the movie, not some two minute cameo.
3. I had to have seen over 90% of the movie UNLESS it was so bad that I turned it off.
4. I must have seen them in at least seven movies that fit rules 1-3.

Apology Series

2010-02-23T12:12:00.003-05:00

I wanted to make a post of links to all the apology analysis for future use. This series focused on the strengths and weaknesses of word choices in celebrity apologies. Analysis of body language, tone, and future behavior would be necessary to fill out this study of apologies.

Introduction
Clinton
Baldwin
Rodriquez
McGwire
Jones
Phelps
Saul
David
Woods
Marks of a Bad Apology
Marks of a Good Apology

Apology 5 (Amended)

2010-02-22T17:57:00.002-05:00

As I'm sure you've all heard, Tiger Woods made a lengthy public apology the other day on television. Now, the public apology is a strange thing (after all, it's not really the public that are owed an apology!), but these famous statements do allow us to analyze the differences b/w a good and a bad apology (and that was the point of my previous series). So here is Tiger's official apology:

Good morning. And thank you for joining me.

Many of you in the room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me, or worked with me, or supported me, and now, every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply, and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife, Elin, and to my children. And while I have always tried to be a private person, there are some things I want to say.

Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As she pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words. It will come from my behavior over time. We have a lot to discuss. However, what we say to each other will remain between the two of us.

I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down. I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down, personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners.

To everyone involved in my foundation, including my staff, board of directors, sponsors, and most importantly, the young students we reach, our work is more important than ever. Thirteen years ago, my dad and I envisioned helping young people achieve their dreams through education. This work remains unchanged and will continue to grow. From the Learning Center students in Southern California, to the Earl Woods Scholars in Washington, D.C., millions of kids have changed their lives, and I am dedicated to making sure that continues.

But, still, I know I have severely disappointed all of you. I have made you question who I am and how I have done the things I did. I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position. For all that I have done, I am so sorry. I have a lot to atone for.

But there is one issue I really want to discuss. Some people have speculated that Elin somehow hurt or attacked me on Thanksgiving night. It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that. She never hit me that night or any other night. There has never been an episode of domestic violence in our marriage. Ever.

Elin has shown enormous grace and poise throughout this ordeal. Elin deserves praise, not blame. The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable. And I am the only person to blame. I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in.

I knew my actions were wrong. But I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have far -- didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife's family, my friends, my foundation, and kids all around the world who admired me.

I've had a lot of time to think about what I have done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. It is now up to me to make amends. And that starts by never repeating the mistakes I have made. It is up to me to start living a life of integrity.

I once heard -- and I believe it is true -- it's not what you achieve in life that matters, it is what you overcome. Achievements on the golf course are only part of setting an example. Character and decency are what really count. Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all of those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

It is hard to admit that I need help. But I do. For 45 days, from the end of December to early February, I was in inpatient therapy, receiving guidance for the issues I'm facing. I have a long way to go. But I've taken my first steps in the right direction.

As I proceed, I understand people have questions. I understand the press wants me to -- to ask me for the details of the times I was unfaithful. I understand people want to know whether Elin and I will remain together. Please know that as far as I'm concerned, every one of these questions and answers is a matter between Elin and me. These are issues between a husband and a wife.

Some people have made up things that never happened. They said I used performance-enhancing drugs. This is completely and utterly false.

Some have written things about my family. Despite the damage I have done, I still believe it is right to shield my family from the public spotlight. They did not do these things. I did. I have always tried to maintain a private space for my wife and children. They have been kept separate from my sponsors, my commercial endorsements, when my children were born, we only released photographs so they ... so that the paparazzi could not chase them.

However, my behavior doesn't make it right for the media to follow my 2½-year-old daughter to school and report the school's location. They staked out my wife and pursued my mom. Whatever my wrongdoings, for the sake of my family, please leave my wife and kids alone.

I recognize I have brought this on myself. And I know above all I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person. I owe it to those closest to me to become a better man. That is where my focus will be. I have a lot of work to do. And I intend to dedicate myself to doing it.

Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught.

As I move forward, I will continue to receive help because I have learned that is how people really do change. Starting tomorrow, I will leave for more treatment and more therapy.

I would like to thank my friends at Accenture and the players in the field this week for understanding why I am making this -- these remarks today. In therapy, I have learned that looking at -- the importance of looking at my spiritual life and keeping in balance with my professional life. I need to regain my balance and be centered so I can save the things that are most important to me: my marriage and my children.

That also means relying on others for help. I have learned to seek support from my peers in therapy, and I hope someday to return that support to others who are seeking help.

I do plan to return to golf one day. I just don't know when that day will be. I don't rule out that it will be this year. When I do return, I need to make my behavior more respectful of the game.

In recent weeks, I have received many thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls from people expressing good wishes. To everyone who has reached out to me and my family, thank you. Your encouragement means the world to Elin and me. I want to thank the PGA Tour, Commissioner [Tim] Finchem and the players for their patience and understanding while I work on my private life. I look forward to seeing my fellow players on the course.

Finally, there are many people in this room and there are many people at home who believed in me. Today, I want to ask for your help. I ask you to find room in your hearts to one day believe in me again. Thank you.

The Good
- Takes complete responsibility
- Expresses remorse
- Uses strong language
- Recognizes words aren't enough
- Clears Elin of wrongdoing
- Recognizes fallen spiritual condition

The Bad

The Questionable
- Comment on PHD's unnecessary in context
- Quite lengthy (militates against plea for action)

Previous Grade: C
New Grade: A-

Miller Time!

2010-02-21T22:00:00.000-05:00

I'm still a Wesleyan, but that was quite a hockey game!

Road to Find Out

2010-02-17T11:42:00.002-05:00

I'm going to recommend a downloadable radio show: The Road to Find Out w/host Steve Gregg. Steve is a Christian asking for non-Christians to call in and share their spiritual journeys, criticisms, etc. It's a good chance to learn about other world views and to observe what truly friendly and meaningful dialogue looks like.

2009 Episodes (10)
2010 Episodes (7)

1500th Post

2010-02-06T21:47:00.002-05:00

It's true. This is the 1,500th post on this blog. To celebrate I'll give 1,500 bullet points on recent happenings of my life.

1. This weekend I am home alone. Katie went to snow-camp with the teens.

2. I ran errands all by myself this morning. I felt very grown up until I cooked a frozen pizza with the cardboard bottom still on it.

3. I prepared a sermon on the rich young ruler. I admit I don't quite understand parts of that story.

4. The Sabres are really struggling right now.

5. My oldest sister will be having her 3rd baby boy any day now.

6. I predict the Saints will beat the Colts 37-35.

7. I also predict the Colts will beat the Saints 31-30.

8. I'm teaching a Sunday School class tomorrow on how sports can and has become an idol in our culture. Super Bowl Sunday is considered sacred.

9. Even this post has 3 bullet points about sports and only 2 about Christianity. For shame.

10. I'm going to stop at 10 instead of 1500. Goodnight!

Perfect Apology

2010-02-03T11:54:00.002-05:00

After looked at a bunch of famous apologies and learning how NOT to apologize, we should be ready to make some sound statements about the characteristics of good apologies...

1. A good apology uses strong language in describing the sin being repented of. This shows that the repenting party is taking their sin seriously. It wasn't an accident or a mistake. It was a sin.

2. A good apology focuses on the personal nature of the sin. Even if other people were involved, a personal apology is about the individual person. A good apology doesn't focus on other people's role in the sin or the aftermath.

3. A good apology is usually short. I say this for two reasons. First, long apologies, by the nature of their length, usually include some excuses and attempted justifications for the sin(s). Second, a short apology suggests that the person knows that words are not enough to make the situation right (a change of behavior couples a genuine apology).

4. A good apology isn't motivated by a desire to avoid all the consequences to the sin. Someone who is genuinely repentant is willing to take on the consequences if need be. They may even insist on them because they know they need help to change.

Apology Principles

2010-02-01T12:37:00.002-05:00

I've spent a peculiar amount of time analyzing apologies recently on this blog. Why? In large part, I did this because the nature of genuine repentance is one of the greatest themes of my life and ministry. Genuine repentance is vital to the initiation and continuation of the Christian life. So what has been learned by looking at numerous examples of various apologies? Today I will list what I've learned is the mark of a bad apology:

Marks of a BAD apology

1. A bad apology is late in arriving. Any apology that is initiated by the evidence rather than the guilty party is (and should be) automatically suspect. A time-gap between the sin and the apology probably means that conviction has been rejected and excuses/justifications have already been made. This leads to a 'sorry I got caught' mentality more readily than a genuinely repentant mindset.

2. A bad apology casts blame on others in addition to accepting some of the blame (if all blame is cast on others, it's simply NOT an apology). The more blame is cast on others, the worse the apology really is.

3. A bad apology changes the subject. I noticed that in many of the celebrity apologies the subject change was from the offense to the problem of media in America. Often the subject change is directed toward the person or people who exposed the sin.

4. A bad apology uses bland wording. Words like sin give way to words like mistake and accident (and countless other examples).

5. A bad apology claims pure motives for the sinful decision (or the decision to not repent sooner).

6. A bad apology compares the sin in question favorably against general human depravity. What was done was wrong, but it wasn't a very big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Apology 7 (David)

2010-01-29T13:23:00.003-05:00

For our final apology (though I'd be interested in adding to this series when future apologies are made known), I'm going to examine the apology of David. It's quite a contrast from that of Saul. We know the story, David was guilty of adultery and, essentially, murder. The prophet Nathan confronted him through parable and David's great sin was exposed. Here's his apology/repentance:

"I have sinned against the LORD."

Good
- Short and to the point
- Strong language (sin)
- Accepted consequences

Bad
- None

Questionable
- None

Grade- A

Next post, I will gather all the data from these examples of apology and develop a list showing the marks of a good or bad apology.

Apology 6 (Saul)

2010-01-26T10:34:00.002-05:00

I'm not really changing gears by switching, at this point, from contemporary apologies to biblical ones. Repentance, in its better and worse forms, is a constant of history. We're going to look at 2 more apologies (one from Saul, one from David) in the same way we've looked at the previous 7.

Saul had been told to completely wipe out the Amalekites, but came home with a captured king and some beautiful beasts. Below is the dialogue he had with the prophet Samuel after these events.

................
When Samuel reached him, Saul said, "The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD's instructions." But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?" Saul answered, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest."

"Stop!" Samuel said to Saul. "Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night." "Tell me," Saul replied. Samuel said, "Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.' Why did you not obey the LORD ? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD ?"

"But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."

But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king."

Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned. I violated the LORD's command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them. Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD." But Samuel said to him, "I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!"

As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." Saul replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God." So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
................

Good
- Using strong wording (sinned, violated)

Bad
- Initially denies wrongdoing
- Blames others (soldiers)
- Claims pure motives for his wrongdoing
- Sticks to his story
- Follows up apology with 'but'

Questionable
- Seems more interested in appearances than repentance

Grade: D-

Apology 5 (Phelps, Woods)

2010-01-21T19:17:00.004-05:00

I want to look at 2 more athlete apologies today. Once again we are dealing with very famous men (Michael Phelps & Tiger Woods), but this time very different offenses (drug use and multiple adulteries respectively).

Michael Phelps, after winning 8 gold medals at the 08' games, was pictured partying and using illegal substances. He gave the following apology:

"I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I'm 23 years old, and despite the successes I have had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner that people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public -- it will not happen again."

Good
- It's short and too the point
- Strongly worded (bad, inappropriate)
- Stated regret, sorry

Bad
- Partially blames his age (kids do this sort of stuff)

Grade: B
....................
Tiger Woods, of course, is now known to have been involved in a series of adulterous affairs (he seems to have since checked into a clinic for sex addicts). Though he is a very rich man for being a public figure, he hasn't made much in the way of public comment. In fact, this is about all we have:

"I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.

Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week, my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect. But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it's difficult.

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology."

Good
- Starts fine
- Makes clear wife is not at fault
- Some strong wording (transgression, profound)

Bad
- More mad at media than self
- Almost sees himself as a victim
- Paints himself as a great holder of principles!

Questionable
- I question whether someone who made millions on public endorsements has not surrendered the right to privacy

Grade: C

Apology 4

2010-01-19T12:27:00.003-05:00

I want to look at another apology in the same general genre as yesterday's. Marion Jones was a track star who cheated and later lied in court. Below is her apology:

................
"Good afternoon everyone. I am Marion Jones-Thompson, and I am here today because I have something very important to tell you, my fans, my friends, and my family. Over the many years of my life, as an athlete in the sport of track and field, you have been fiercely loyal and supportive towards me. Even more loyal and supportive than words can declare has been my family, and especially my dear mother, who stands by my side today.

And so it is with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you that I have betrayed your trust. I want all you to know that today I plead guilty to two counts of making false statements to federal agents. Making these false statements to federal agents was an incredibly stupid thing for me to do, and I am responsible fully for my actions. I have no one to blame but myself for what I have done. To you, my fans, including my young supporters, the United States Track and Field Association, my closest friends, my attorneys, and the most classy family a person could ever hope for -- namely my mother, my husband, my children, my brother and his family, my uncle, and the rest of my extended family: I want you to know that I have been dishonest. And you have the right to be angry with me. I have let them down. I have let my country down. And I have let myself down. I recognize that by saying that I'm deeply sorry, it might not be enough and sufficient to address the pain and the hurt that I have caused you. Therefore, I want to ask for your forgiveness for my actions, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I have asked Almighty God for my forgiveness.

Having said this, and because of my actions, I am retiring from the sport of track and field, a sport which I deeply love. I promise that these events will be used to make the lives of many people improve; that by making the wrong choices and bad decisions can be disastrous. I want to thank you all for your time."
................

Good
- Uses strong language (betrayed, guilty, dishonest, stupid)
- Takes full responsibility
- Gives people right to be angry
- Realizes saying 'sorry' is just a word
- Sees it has a spiritual offense
- Initiates consequences for her actions

In my opinion, this is a masterful apology. Of course, Jones cheated in her field and then lied about it in court, so we're really dealing with 2 separate wrongs. But this series is focused on the nature of genuine repentance in regards to wording. Jones says all the right things here and none of the wrong things. Grade: A

Apology 3 (Steroids & Stuff)

2010-01-18T11:28:00.003-05:00

I'm going to analyze 2 apologies today. Both are athletes apologizing for using performance enhancing drugs.

............
Alex Rodriquez (baseball star)
"When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day. And I did take a banned substance and, you know, for that I'm very sorry and deeply regretful. And although it was the culture back then and Major League Baseball overall was very - I just feel that - you know, I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time. I'm sorry to fans. I'm sorry for my fans in Texas. It wasn't until then that I ever thought about substance of any kind, and since then I've proved to myself and to everyone that I don't need any of that."

Good
- Admits he took a banned substance
- Short and to the point

Bad
- Partially blames peer pressure
- Compares his sin with others (everyone did it)
- Seems interested in protecting his statistical legacy

This is a pretty typical apology. He admits his wrong-doing, but focuses on the circumstances that led him to do it rather than the wrong choice. Like the next apology, he seems very concerned to protect his legacy. Grade: C
..............

Mark McGwire (baseball star)
* This 'apology' was given recently in an interview format. McGwire tried to make the case that his use of performance enhancing drugs didn't enhance his performance (he would have hit all those Homeruns without them). Here are some of the key statements:

"It's the most regrettable thing I've ever done in my life... It was the era that we played in. I wish I never played in that era. I wish we had drug testing. If we had testing when I was playing, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today. I guarantee you that... the pressures that I had to perform and what I had to go through to get through all these injuries is a very very regrettable thing. I wish it never came into my life. But we're sitting here talking about it. I wish I didn't have to. I apologize to everybody in major-league baseball, my family, the Marrises, Bud Selig. Today was the hardest day of my life... All I wanted to do was come clean. I wanted to come clean since 2005. I didn't know where when or how. I've just been holding this in... I want to add one more thing: I was not going to lie. I was not going to lie. I wanted to tell the truth. But because of the position I was in, and to protect my family and to protect me, I decided I would take the hits. I think anybody's going to take the hits. I've been taking hits for five years. It doesn't feel very good."

Good
- He specifically names some of those he hurt

Bad
- Blames the era rather than himself*
- Blames peer pressure
- Personifies steroids as if they came to him
- Blames lateness of apology on lack of venue
- Claims pure motives for not confessing

Questionable
- Unclear whether he regrets action or having to confess

Throughout the interview, McGwire was unwilling to admit that his home run totals were influenced by the drugs he was taking. Because of this, I think most will find it hard to view this as a full apology. Overall, his apology is even worse than that of Rodriquez. Grade: D
..............

Apology 2 (Baldwin)

2010-01-16T12:09:00.004-05:00

You may have heard about the irate message that Alec Baldwin left on his 11 year old daughter's cell phone back in 2007. If not, all you need to know is that he called her a thoughtless little pig and seemed to threaten her. Somehow, the recording found its way to the internet and Baldwin attempted an apology:

...............
"Thank you to everyone who has posted messages of support and understanding. Naturally, it is not best for a parent to lose their temper with their child. Everyone who knows me privately knows that I have endured a great deal over the last several years in my custody litigation. Everyone who knows me privately knows that certain people will go to any lengths to embarrass me and to disrupt my relationship with my daughter. In such public cases, your opponents attempt to take a picture of you on your worst day and insist that this is who you are as a person. Outside the doors of divorce court, I have friends, I have respect from people I work with and I have a normal relationship with my daughter. All of that is threatened whenever one enters a court room.

Although I have been told by numerous people not to worry too much, as all parents lose their patience with their kids, I am most saddened that this was released to the media because of what it does to a child. I'm sorry, as everyone who knows me is aware, for losing my temper with my child. I have been driven to the edge by parental alienation for many years now. You have to go through this to understand. ( Although I hope you never do.) I am sorry for what happened. But I am equally sorry that a court order was violated, which had deliberately been put under seal in this case. Once my book is published, I'm sure more people will understand the incredible strains created by parental alienation. In the meantime, I'm sorry to anyone who's taken offense from this episode."
..............

The Good
-He at least admits something happened

The Bad
- Uses bland wording like 'not best'
- Views himself as the offended party
- Casts the blame on others
- Considers his actions normal
- Admits he's mostly sad he got caught
- Thinks more info would explain his actions
- Uses opportunity to advertise new book
- 'Sorry to anyone who's taken offense' (their fault)

The Questionable
- Nothing questionable here

This is one of the worst apologies I've ever encountered. Only those 2 green lines even show that this is supposed to be an apology. Almost everything else Baldwin said was self-serving. I give him a grade of F.

Apology 1 (Clinton)

2010-01-15T13:32:00.002-05:00

Most of us know the story behind Bill Clinton's apology. He had lied about the kind of relationship he had with a female intern and later tried to 'come clean.' The text of his public apology may be found below, but I will do some color coded analysis to keep this process as quick as possible.

Green is good
Blue is bad
Red is questionable

..............
"Good evening. This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury. I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer. Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight. As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that. I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family.

The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too. In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago. The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people. Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on. We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face. And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century. Thank you for watching. And good night."
............

What can we learn from this transcribed apology? Are there any good indications of its genuineness? I think so. Below I'll explain my color choices:

The Good
- Claims complete responsibility
- Specifically names his sin
- Strong wording (wrong, failure, etc)
- Admits selfishness (lied to protect self)
- Willing to work to make it right

The Bad
- Still working to protect legal side of things
- Do lies really protect your family?
- Huge section complaining about investigation
- Attempt to change the subject

The Questionable
- Followed up green section with 'but'
- Are these 'motivations' really 'excuses'?
- Sense that he shouldn't have had to face this?
- Private matter jargon an easy way out?

Overall, this was a pretty average public apology. It had some good moments at the beginning, but had a bad middle. Remember, these evaluations are based only on word choice and given those parameters I'd give this apology a 'C' grade.

Anatomy of Apology

2010-01-14T16:58:00.002-05:00

What's the difference between being genuinely sorry (repentance) and being sorry that you got caught? In one sense, the difference can be discerned only be the apologizing person (they know the seriousness of their 'sorry'). In another sense, the level of authenticity can best be known with time (does the apologizing party change?). But what are the initial and external signs of genuine repentance?

Over the next week or so, I want to briefly analyze a small number of celebrity apologies. I think there are some clear marks that distinguish a genuine apology from an apology that come only because one got caught. I will analyze apologies by people like Bill Clinton, Marion Jones, Tiger Woods, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriquez, Alec Baldwin, Saul & David.

Who should I analyze first?

Amish Exemption

2010-01-12T08:55:00.004-05:00

Reason #258 for becoming Amish

It appears they will be exempt from being part of any new health insurance law (notice I didn't say health 'care' law). If I could grow a better beard, I'd be gone already!

2010

2010-01-08T22:24:00.002-05:00

The 1st week of January is already over and I haven't even posted yet! I have an excuse: Katie & I were on vacation in Amish country again from Monday through Friday. But now I'm back and refreshed. Tomorrow I will return to somewhat regular posting :)

Knew Awards 09

2009-12-30T14:25:00.003-05:00

I didn't do year-end rewards in 2008 b/c I was busy getting married. But I did them in 2005, 2006 & 2007 and I'll do them right now in 2009.

Favorite TV Show
2005 Winner: Lost
2006 Winner: Seinfeld Re-runs
2007 Winner: The Office
2009 Winner... Colbert Report
It hasn't been a good year for TV. Shows in contention for the prize were American Idol, The Office and Farscape (re-runs I watched for the first time). But Colbert Report has been the most consistently funny!

Favorite Artist
2005: Caedmon's Call
2006: Iron & Wine
2007: Weird Al
2009... Buffalo Chips
This is a local university A Cappella group that I really enjoy. Katie got me all of their past CD's and I listened to them a lot.

Favorite Game
I played a lot of SIMCITY4 in the 2nd half of 2009 and it was enjoyable enough to edge some Wii games like bowling, tetris, etc.

Favorite Website
In a new category, I award my favorite website of the year to REMAX.com. Not that it functions perfectly, but I really do enjoy looking for houses. Maybe we will even buy one in 2010.

Most Influential Person
2005: Steve Gregg
2006: Steve Gregg
2007: Steve Gregg
2009... Katie Rose
It's hard not to be heavily influenced by someone you spend every day with! I'll let her decide if it's been a good or bad influence :)

The Silent Monks

2009-12-24T11:56:00.001-05:00

Good Morning to Me!

2009-12-14T17:56:00.002-05:00

I thought this was cool, so I will blog it

The other night at the Sounds of Christmas concert my Kindergarten teacher was in attendance. Afterward she found me and we got to chat for a bit. A few memories came to mind (napping on a blue blanket, throwing up all over the place, losing a matchbox car under the heating unit).

That night (Saturday) I set my alarm to wake up for Lockport Wesleyan's service (for which I am the preacher). But when the alarm sounded, I turned it off thinking I would just rest for a few more minutes. Half an hour later I was having a dream about Kindergarten and the song we used to sing to start each day: "Good morning, good morning, good morning to you! Good morning, good morning, and how do you do?" The song kept replaying over and over, and getting louder and louder until I eventually woke up.

It was 7:37, leaving me just enough time to get ready and get to church on time (albeit in a hurry). I think it is neat that God (in my opinion) used my meeting with my Kindergarten teacher to get me out of bed in time to preach.

Parnevik on Woods

2009-12-04T11:19:00.004-05:00

Tiger Woods has been in the news a lot lately b/c of his car crash (it was obvious from the get go that there was a bigger story behind that) and his recent confession of transgression (though he was vague, it seems clear that he's referring to marital unfaithfulness). This post is not about bashing Tiger Woods, but about the response of his fellow-golfers, the media, and the companies that have invested in him.

Tiger wants to keep things private and pretty much everyone is willing to oblige (except that they insisting on publicly saying, over and over, that it is private). Most are speaking as if a hurricane knocked over Tiger's house ("He's strong an he'll get through this). Almost all the companies that invested in him as a spokesman are willing to keep him as the face of their company.

Everyone except fellow-golfer Jesper Parnevik. He has more at stake here since he partially played the role of match-maker:

"I would be especially sad about it since I'm kind of -- I really feel sorry for Elin -- since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him. We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably need to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of the 3-iron."

"It's a private thing of course, but when you are the guy he is, the world's best athlete, you should think more before you do stuff ... And maybe not just do it, like Nike says."

I think Parnevik's statements take the issue as seriously as it should be taken. Woods is a public figure. He chose a public life, not just in that he chose to be a PGA golfer but also because he signed multiple contracts to be the face of big companies. As Tiger once said:

“I think it's an honor to be a role model to one person or maybe more than that. If you are given a chance to be a role model, I think you should always take it because you can influence a person's life in a positive light, and that's what I want to do. That's what it's all about.”

Tiger considered himself a role model. I think the companies are wrong to keep him on as their spokesman. But I also think, in light of their reluctance, Tiger should volunteer. He saw himself as a role model and he's obviously not a good one. He's been a liar and a cheater.

Thanksgiving Scam

2009-11-28T11:29:00.002-05:00

After my family Thanksgiving get-together, Katie & I decided to stop at church to get my laptop. When I got into the office, the dreaded answering machine light was blinking. The message was very hard to make out. At first I thought it was a Doctor leaving a death notice (weird). But each time I listened I understood it a bit better. It was a guy named Scott asking for a pastor to call him in regards to a death. I figured I better check into it.

It was extremely difficult to make out the number. I tried 3 numbers, but finally did get an answer from this 'Scott.' He explained, with a southern accent, that his mother had been killed by a drunk driver a few days previous in Florida. He and his family had driven down for the funeral and to take care of her belongings. He also explained that he was struggling with the big 'Why' question. He quoted a few passages (God works all things out for good, God won't allow us to be tempted beyond what we can handle). He seemed to just want some counsel. But then the conversation changed gears.

Apparently, on their way back home, the family car had broken down on the Florida turnpike. Scott wondered how things could get any worse! He wanted to send his family home via a Greyhound bus, but he was short on cash (no credit card?). Why was he calling our church, you may wonder? Scott suggested that his family had visited our church a few weeks previous. I had met him, his wife, and their two little girls.

Now, I find these to be difficult situations. There is always the chance that I did meet such a couple and simply forgot. There's always the chance that this is a true story and helping out would be a very Christ-like thing to do. Of course, that's exactly why a con-artist would use such a story! I told Scott that he should contact a local church down there and that we wouldn't be be able to just 'wire' him some money. As soon as I indicated that I wouldn't be helping, Scott hung up.

Now, if my recent history has anything to do with it, it'll turn out that Scott was legit and I blew a chance to help a family in need. If, on the other hand Scott is a con-artist (as I suspect) then I have a few tips for him. First, if you want to succeed in the scam business, you have to leave clearer messages. I almost gave up trying to call you because I could not tell the difference between your 5's and your 9's. Second, be more persistent. Never hang up. Force the pastor to hang up on you. Work harder to live your lazy life.

I also have some tips for churches. Never send or give cash to strangers unless God audibly tells you to (though I'm sure that suggestion will give the con-artists a whole new strategy). Maybe I've just gone cold, but I think churches need policies against giving cash in such situations. At least in our area, there is just too much scamming going on. We get this sort of junk on an almost weekly basis (calls and actual visits). The story is always desperate, the cash needed immediately, and they're always eager to pay you back within the next few days. It's a scam.

7 Deadly Sins Series

2009-11-24T00:06:00.000-05:00

Below are the links to the 7 Deadly Sins Series

Introduction
Pride
Envy
Anger
Sloth
Gluttony
Greed
Lust

Lust

2009-11-23T12:14:00.001-05:00

Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart... and maybe every man present (and every future man) felt a good bit uneasy. If adulterers have no part in the kingdom and lustful thoughts qualify as adultery, won't the kingdom be lacking the important ingredient of citizenry?

However we answer that question, we must admit the problem of lust (apparently real even before the invention of the internet) has only gotten worse. As I type this I've just been looking at a long list of terrible statistics about the American addiction to pornography. I won't share the stats because we all know they're bad. Will Willimon states that "lust is an ancient malady, but one could argue that technology enables this sin to be worse for us... the Web is peculiarly well-suited for the exercise of, and encouragement of, lust, which tends to be one of the most secretive of the seven."

I'm not sure, though, that the problem is much worse now than it used to be (after all, the NT addresses the problem of lust and sexual immorality often, seemingly because it was indeed a problem). But certainly the secret is out. Our culture wants us to lust (for sex and for sales) and we find it difficult not to oblige.

I'll make an embarrassing admission. Though I've personally never struggled with pornography, I did, into my early 20's, keep a computer file full of pictures of pretty actresses. It was pretty innocent by most standards (they were all fully clothed, these weren't even swimsuit type pics). But what did God think of that file on my laptop? Why did I have it? In the end, I realized that it was keeping my focus on surface level beauty and could have become, were it not for repentance, a first step toward pornography.

If we are going to learn not to lust, we will have to identify and defeat dangers in their introductory forms. Sexually immoral people don't wake up after 20 years of faithfulness to their spouse and decide to commit adultery. More often, adultery comes after a series of decisions that tolerate a little 'yes' and a little 'no' to love.

FINALLY

2009-11-17T15:03:00.002-05:00

Dick Jauron has been fired!

Super Psoriasis!

2009-11-14T10:29:00.002-05:00

I have another medical theory that is almost certainly not true (but I pretend it is so as to gain a neat conversation piece). I have mild-plaque-psoriasis. This means that at certain times of year I get patches of silvery-white scaly skin the back of my lower leg and around the elbows. It is so mild that I never seek treatment and it's hardly noticeable to me (let alone others).

But in doing some research on psoriasis I discovered that it is a non-contagious auto-immune disease. Let's take the 2nd half of that first. What 'auto-immune' means is that my body loves fighting invaders so much, that when it can't find any it turns on its own cells. Now, the theoretical upside to this is that my body is very good at protecting against bad invaders. This may be why I almost never get sick. In doing some (read... I know 1 other person with psoriasis) polling, I discovered that nobody with psoriasis gets sick very often!

Now in this season of the year where everyone is getting sick, I wish I could change the 'non-contagious' aspect of psoriasis. I feel like if I could spread my psoriasis, it'd help others not to get sick. Maybe medical experts think it is non-contagious because they simply haven't tried to spread it hard enough!

And so I'm about to end this post with the strangest line in the history of my blog. I invite people to rub my psoriasis plaques.

Medical Question #2

2009-11-13T12:23:00.001-05:00

I just had a thought. I've always been interested in multiple personality disorder. How does that really happen? I just heard someone use the common phrase, "I've lost my mind." What if sometimes we literally loose our minds and other people stumble upon them and, therefore, pick up an extra mind/personality?

Check back tomorrow for another medical theory

Do I Eat Bugs?

2009-11-12T10:30:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I wake up in the morning with a tickle in my throat and a need to cough. The tickle pretty much doesn't go away for about half an hour. This just started happening in the past 3 years. It seems to come in spurts (like 4 times in a week, then not at all for months). Anyways, those are the symptoms.

So, am I eating bugs? Please tell me I'm not eating bugs.

I also wonder if it has something to do with my eating habits. I could start keeping stats on what I eat and how late I eat and whether or not it corresponds to the coughing. Last night, for instance, I ate 6 mini-butterfinger bars just before bed. I also wonder if it has to do with laying on my back longer than usual (I usually sleep on my stomach). I will investigate, but maybe some readers have had common experiences :)

Delayed Thoughts

2009-11-09T13:31:00.000-05:00

A couple Sunday's ago I had the opportunity to teach the 3rd-5th Grade Sunday School Class for one of my teachers who would be out of town. This year, they are going through the Old Testament with the Bible Story Cards, and the lesson was on Abraham offering Issac as a sacrifice.

With the teens we just wrapped up a couple weeks talking about different Bible Study Methods, and apparently I wasn't paying enough attention when I was teaching it..... or I was underestimating the 3rd-5th graders comprehension!!

Back to the Sunday School Class...we reviewed the previous lessons, memory verses, prayer, etc, and then I shared the "story" of Abraham and Issac. As we were discussing it, I got a couple questions that helped me stop and reevaluate a little bit my own understanding of the story. The one that stuck out with me the most was "Was it hard for Issac to forgive his dad for almost killing him?"

So often we read Scripture and just read the words that are there, not reading between the lines to think about how the characters may have felt or what it would have been like to be there. Some things are hard to comprehend because we don't understand the cultures, etc, but a lot of stuff is common to human nature and reactions! Every time we read Scripture we can pull something new from it.

~Katie

#10 Know When to Quit

2009-10-31T19:00:00.002-04:00

Way back in 2007, I was doing a series on the 10 Commandments of Blogging. For those of you who missed it, here are the first 9 Commandments:

#1 Pick a Platform
#2 Win the Name Game
#3 Find your True Colors
#4 Hit Your Target
#5 Be Consistent
#6 Comment Unto Others
#7 Think Themes
#8 Add On
#9 Track the Facts

Now, nit-picky people may have been upset that I never finished this series. Truth be told, I purposefully held out for a time such as this. The 10th Commandment for bloggers is... Oh wait, I already told you with my title!

There is a time and a place for everything. The time for blogging as we knew it seems to have ended. The place for blog-like practices seems to be facebook (or will it be twitter). If I'm serious about Commandment #9, then it inevitably leads to Commandment #10. When I blogged #9, my blog had just had it's been ever day, week & month. As I type #10, my blog is on the decline (and has been for a while).

2005: 47k hits
2006: 58k hits
2007: 62k hits
2008: 48k hits
2009: 31k hits (estimated)

In other words, my blog peaked in 2007 and is dying fairly drastically. And so, I'm retiring. Not from blogging... Just from caring! In the past I wanted readers. I wanted hits. I felt bad if I didn't post. But lately I don't care, I don't count, and I don't feel bad. The Matthew Never Knew is hardly ever new these days! From now on I'll post when I post (and Katie can do likewise).

Then again, I'm a big fan of Favre.

10...9...8...7...6...5...4....

2009-10-22T13:22:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to let you all know that the fog post controversy swept my feet out from under me, but I was just knocked down, not out. My lack of posting has had more to do with extreme business and lack of good internet connection at home, not fear of Matthew criticizing my writing!!!

Yesterday I was busying working on getting our teens registered for Snow Camp at Circle C Ranch. For those of you who don't know what/where Circle C Ranch is (and I'm sure that is most of you) you should visit their website here. If you are involved with leading a youth group and live in the eastern United States, you should think about renting a bus and taking your teens... It is located in Western New York and there are even groups from West Virginia that attend.

Our youth group has been attending snow camp for several years, even when I was a teen member, not one of the leaders. It's always been special to me. The owners of the camp have a true passion for working with teens and have excellent programs... our group is always anxious to attend to have a lot of fun and grow spiritually together.

On a more personal note, the founder of Circle C, Wes Aarum, is one of the key people the Lord used over the course of a couple years not long ago to help me realize I was holding out on God in a certain area of my life- trusting him with my personal relationships. Because of all that, I was able to become closer friends with Matthew, start dating him, and then get married last year.

So I think get just as excited (if not more) as the teens when it's Snow Camp time. I can't wait to see what God has in store for our group and for me personally!!

~Katie

Monstrosity

2009-10-18T13:08:00.003-04:00

Monstrosity: Frightful Forms of Faith

The Zombie Christian
A Zombie Christian is a person who has some of the same habits as a Christian (church attendance, Bible knowledge, etc), but has actually never made a commitment to follow Christ. They are dead men walking.

The Vampire Christian
A Vampire Christian is a person who has asked that the blood save them in their sins, but they have no intention of recognizing Jesus as their Lord. They just want a little blood.

The Werewolf Christian
A Werewolf Christian is a person who is generally committed to Christ, but there is 1 area that they refuse to surrender and/or repent of. They have a secret that they hope no one will discover.

The Head-Hunter Christian
The Head-Hunter Christian is a person that claims to have a deep spiritual relationship to Christ, but has no interest in being connected to Jesus' body. They only want the head, a decapitated Jesus.

TV show Survivor

2009-10-14T18:16:00.000-04:00

I too get very frustrated with TV shows that get canceled in the middle. I like there to be an ending!!! I've come up with a solution to what shows get cancelled. I don't have any idea how it would work, but if there was some way to pull it off, I think it would be very interesting.

The title of this post gave me away, I'm sure... The TV shows that are to be cancelled go on a sort of Survivor game, so the public ultimately decides what show gets cancelled. They could have cast members/writers/directors of the shows competing.. or fans.. I don't know. But that way, the people who love a show couldn't complain too much when it was cancelled (there's going to be complaining anyways, for sure) but this way at least we'd get some more entertainment from it.

Or... what if they would at least FINISH a show with some type of wrap up so we're not left hanging. Wouldn't that make sense?? I like the way they are doing some new shows, like the Starter Wife... each season is kind of like a mini movie with a resolution at the end. If they don't do anymore, you don't feel like something is missing. They wrap up the loose ends in a way that you are satisfied if that's it.

(Steps Off Soap Box)

~Katie

Books Left

2009-10-12T10:41:00.002-04:00

Bible books I have not taught thru yet...
Deuteronomy
Joshua
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Isaiah
John
2 Corinthians
Ephesians

Why have I avoided these? :)

TV Executives

2009-10-09T16:45:00.002-04:00

I have been bewildered, a number of times, by the decisions of network executives. To me, they have a really neat and influential job. They get to decide what shows Americans will pick between when they want to spend an evening watching television. There are basically two parts to such a job: 1) Identifying potential shows and 2) Deciding when to cancel a show.

Now, if the same executives are making both of those decisions, then I'm very confused. Every decision in part 1 is a risk. But the person who makes decision #1, if he/she is good at his/her job, must feel confident that it is a risk that will be rewarded. Why would such a person give up on a show before giving it a chance to succeed? Yet many shows are canceled after a handful of episodes (or just a couple of seasons).

To me it seems obvious that a show would need at least 3 seasons to prove itself. An network executives job is to decide what potentially new show will eventually catch on. To cancel it before it has a legitimate chance to catch on is quite absurd. This makes me think 2 different people have these two jobs, but how stupid is that? You hire one person (or group) to make good selections and then another person (or group) to cancel their selections just because they aren't getting extremely good ratings from the gate (and the ratings system, as a whole, is not as good an indicator of what people are watching as they might imagine).

My rule: Give every show 3 seasons. If after three seasons its getting worse in quality and in the quantity of people watching it, then you're executive(s) made a bad decision to which they should be held accountable. But by no means should a network cancel a show before it's 3rd season. That's either not showing enough confidence in your highly paid employees, or dividing up your employees against one another.

Desperation

2009-10-07T16:51:00.002-04:00

A while back I was perusing the pages of facebook. I enjoy reading the 'info' pages where people declare their favorite music, shows, movies, books and quotes. On Elliott's page I read quotes from Ravi Zacharias, Newt Gingrich, Peter Sagal, and C.S. Lewis. I then read a familiar sounding quote and was taken aback when I realized the author was me!

"The problem with our prayer lives is not so much that we only pray when we are desperate, but that we're only desperate when we pray. We're not desperate nearly enough. Our greatest need, then, is a greater sense of need." (Matt Rose)

This week I preached on prayer. But only since then have I re-grasped my own quote. This week has been bigger than me. It's too big. There's too much to handle. I can't handle it. And so I find myself quiet, thoughtful, and prayerful. I pray because I need to pray. How unfortunate that, perhaps, next week or next month I may return to the routine life of feeling sovereign. Do we need such times or should I be seeking a state of constant desperation?

Favre

2009-10-06T10:29:00.003-04:00

I don't think there is a more entertaining athlete than Brett Favre.
This is my fog post.

* I have now taught thru 73.3% of the Bible

Is it better, or worse?

2009-09-30T13:23:00.004-04:00

Some of you may have noticed that I haven't posted in a while, more specifically since September 9th when I had a very short post about fog. I can't lay all the blame at Matthew's feet for this, because it has been a very busy couple weeks for me, and I admit that I didn't try very hard to make time to post. BUT, the main contributor to the no-posting was a conversation Matthew and I had 2 weeks ago immediately after the fog incident. For those of you that have facebook, you can see a similar version of the conversation in that note.

ANYWAYS,

According to Matthew, if you don't have anything good to say (and per him my fog post was NOT anything good), the best course of action is to say nothing at all.

Now, I admit that the fog post was most definitely a boring filler, since I didn't really have anything to say. BUT, in my defense, I didn't know I was allowed to make the executive decision to post nothing, since it is Matthew's blog, and he gave me the job of posting each Wednesday.. with no mention of "if you don't have anything good to say, say nothing."

SO, the past two weeks, since I haven't had anything "good" to say, I've chosen to say nothing.

I guess this could bounce into another discussion about whose definition of "good" we are using, but I'll let Matthew pick up that ball if he's interested in continuing this debate.

What do you think??? Should I continue to skip the Wednesdays that I'm brain-blocked, or keep it up and possibly be pleasantly surprised by what comes out?

~Katie