Michael Horton opens his provocative new book, The Gospel Driven Life, by explaining his intention in writing it: "The goal of this book is to reorient our faith and practice as Christians and churches toward the gospel: that is, the announcement of God's victory over sin and death in his Son, Jesus Christ."
The stated need "to reorient" implies that Dr. Horton believes that the church has gotten off track. However, it would be incorrect to suppose that this is primarily a negative book. He has previously written Christless Christianity, a book that outlines in depressing detail where the church has become wrongly oriented. In this work, he places primary focus on what Christians and churches should be focused on. In so doing, he has written a book that is relentlessly Christ centered and gospel centered. It is a vigorous call for the church to recenter itself around the gospel of Christ. For many churches, both liberal and conservative, this would represent a change of Copernican proportions.
While Dr. Horton's book is more prescriptive than critical, he does helpfully draw some contrasts throughout the book that help the reader understand what he is getting at. For example:
The gospel is not good advice; it is good news.
The gospel is not about God writing himself into our story; it is about Him givins us a new script, writing us into His story.
The gospel is not something that happens within us; it is something that happened outside of us in real space and time.
The gospel is neither personal nor primarily about our transformed lives; it is a public and objective set of events that occurred in real space and time.
The gospel creates a cross cultural community that has no power other than the gospel and the Spirit; the church does not effect change through coercive means.
Even the modern terminology of the church points to its tendency to conceptually move Christ and the gospel to the periphery. Thus, when we speak about having a "worship experience," we place more emphasis on our pursuit of the experience than we do on the God who is supposed to be worshipped. And, such emphasis on experience in the end leads to burnt out believers.
While Dr. Horton argues that the church should "avoid resorting to hostile rhetoric," he criticizes the church for caving into mindless sentimentality. He writes:
Lazy minds breed lazy hearts and hands.... The greatest threat to Christianity is never vigorous intellectual criticism but a creeping senility that transforms truths into feelings, public claims into private experiences, and facts into mere values. Christianity is either true or false, but it is not irrational.... We must recover our distinctively biblical commitment to rigorous, inquisitive, and persuasive thinking before there can be a genuine renewal of Christian conviction, faith, repentance, and discipleship. It is time once again to love God with our minds.
Indeed. The book suffers from some repetitiveness and as a result is not the most brisk of Dr. Horton's writings. However, it is a worthy exposition of a subject of great import. I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, November 20, 2006
Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord
Up until this point, the Apostle’s Creed has focused on the first person of the Trinity, God the Father. Now, it begins to address belief in God the Son. This portion of the Creed can be divided into two sections: the first provides several names or titles for Christ; the latter portion focuses on a summary of his life and work.
The Creed focuses on four specific names or titles for the second person of the trinity:
Jesus
Christ
His only Son
Our Lord
Each of these names emphasizes some specific aspect of His life or work, and all of them should be a regular part of the vocabulary, especially in prayer, of believers. Christians nowadays tend to use these names indiscriminately, based largely on personal preference, but the New Testament writers did not do so. They used these names intentionally, speaking of Him using nomenclature that was relevant to whatever it was about Him that they were discussing at the time.
Thus, for example, there are many Christians who speak of Him almost exclusively as “Jesus,” with no title appended (i.e., Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, etc.). I have heard some Christians even speak as though there is something especially spiritual in doing so, though there is no biblical basis for that idea. Interestingly, while the Gospels frequently refer to Him in this way, the rest of the New Testament rarely does. The name “Jesus” by itself in the Bible always looks back to something that Jesus said or did during his earthly ministry.
I might also add that many Christians have misconstrued Jesus’ promise to answer prayers made in Jesus’ name. This is not a promise to answer prayers when those magic words are spoken: it is a promise to answer prayers consistent with the character and will of Him.
The term “Christ” speaks of His saving work. He was the promised Messiah who died and rose again in order to save his people from their sins. As there is much about this in the part of the Creed devoted to describing Christ’s life and work, I will leave further discussion to that time.
The phrase “God’s only Son” focuses on relationships within the Trinity. God the Son is not inferior to the Father, but has submitted to the Father in order to accomplish the Godhead’s eternal purposes. The terms Father and Son reveal the eternal and perfect familial love within the Godhead. That love has only been broken once in all eternity: when the Father punished the Son upon the cross because of the sins for which He died. Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The incredible prophetic passage in Isaiah 53 says that “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.” It is a remarkable thought that the eternal fellowship between God the Father and God the Son was broken at Calvary as Christ died for our sins.
“Our Lord” refers to the enthronement of Christ, who is the ruler over all Creation. One day, He will be acknowledged by all as the King of kings and Lord of lords.
It may be that those who speak of Him primarily as “Jesus” have focused on His humanity or his closeness to the exclusion of His other attributes, while those who talk only of “the Lord” may have lost sight of His closeness or His saving work. Of course, these are only words, and they may not say anything about the thoughts of one’s heart, but it is certainly worth taking a look inward to see if we are thinking of the Lord Jesus Christ in a way consistent with all of His majesty and glory.
Learning to think and speak His names and titles in this way is a difficult habit to start, and in the beginning it may seem stifling. However, in learning to do so there is great devotional value, as intentional thinking can help to produce intentional worship that focuses more clearly and dearly upon the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only Son.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Change the Names to Protect the Innocent
A while back, I googled my own name. Because my first name is not a particularly common one in the United States, I was actually surprised at the number of notable people, real and fictional, who share my first and last name. I learned the following people have (or had) the same first and last name that I do:
A person who has the same first and last name as I do is a former Catholic priest who has been accused of molesting young boys in Indiana between 1979 and 1984. 11 lawsuits have been filed against him to date.
Last night, around 6:30 p.m., my phone rang. After asking for me, the caller identified himself as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star. He wanted to ask me some questions. I was confused at first as to why he would want to talk to me, but I remembered my Google finding about the same time that he realized that this was going much too easily and that I might be the wrong guy. He apologized for bothering me, and explained that no one was sure where the child molester lived, but that it was commonly believed that he lived somewhere in Nashville. Because he has never been convicted of a crime, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender.
Oh, great. I had previously had some fear about name association when I read about him in another state. Here in the same city as me? I groaned.
The reporter then had a request. He now explained that he was at the entrance of the apartment complex I had just moved into. He had driven all of the way from Indianapolis based on finding my newly listed address and phone number. Would I mind if he just came by to look at me to confirm I am not the perpetrator?
I figured my choices were to meet him or to have someone waiting outside my door to see me, so I said I would do so. I told him that I would be standing outside the apartment when he drove up. He asked what I looked like. I'm in my 40's, have brown hair....
He interrupted, telling me if I had hair I wasn't the guy he was looking for.
The reporter and I talked briefly. He looked close to my age -- a little younger perhaps-- and he actually seemed like a nice guy, though he was obviously disappointed. He was going to be headed back to Indianapolis, but he had one more request:
Would I let him see my driver's license? He needed to make sure I wasn't someone that was sent out to cover for the real one.
I shook my head in disbelief and pulled out my wallet. He looked at my license, half chuckled, and, realizing that his whole day had been a wasted effort, said, "Well, there you have it."
In some ways, the incident was amusing at first, but the more I think about it, the more I am frightened by the whole thing. I was still in high school when that man began abusing boys as a priest, so clearly there is no way that a rational person could confuse me with him. But what about an irrational one? Could the association of name and place impact my professional life if people I am working with from a distance hear a story and draw a wrong conclusion? Will someone else find my address the same way that the reporter did and assume that I am the perpetrator? Is it possible that I will open my door some morning and see a shotgun pointed at my face? Will they take time to look? If I protest, will they believe me?
I don't blame the reporter for raising these concerns. He's doing his job. I suspect that in preparing his series of stories that he has heard heart wrenching stories of the aftermath of abuse. But, this has scared me. It has scared me a lot.
- The director of the Pacific Garden Rescue Mission in Chicago who was responsible for the conversion of a baseball player named Billy Sunday, who became the Billy Graham of his day.
- The character portrayed by Richard Pryor in the movie Stir Crazy.
- An on air personality who works for Voice of America.
A person who has the same first and last name as I do is a former Catholic priest who has been accused of molesting young boys in Indiana between 1979 and 1984. 11 lawsuits have been filed against him to date.
Last night, around 6:30 p.m., my phone rang. After asking for me, the caller identified himself as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star. He wanted to ask me some questions. I was confused at first as to why he would want to talk to me, but I remembered my Google finding about the same time that he realized that this was going much too easily and that I might be the wrong guy. He apologized for bothering me, and explained that no one was sure where the child molester lived, but that it was commonly believed that he lived somewhere in Nashville. Because he has never been convicted of a crime, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender.
Oh, great. I had previously had some fear about name association when I read about him in another state. Here in the same city as me? I groaned.
The reporter then had a request. He now explained that he was at the entrance of the apartment complex I had just moved into. He had driven all of the way from Indianapolis based on finding my newly listed address and phone number. Would I mind if he just came by to look at me to confirm I am not the perpetrator?
I figured my choices were to meet him or to have someone waiting outside my door to see me, so I said I would do so. I told him that I would be standing outside the apartment when he drove up. He asked what I looked like. I'm in my 40's, have brown hair....
He interrupted, telling me if I had hair I wasn't the guy he was looking for.
The reporter and I talked briefly. He looked close to my age -- a little younger perhaps-- and he actually seemed like a nice guy, though he was obviously disappointed. He was going to be headed back to Indianapolis, but he had one more request:
Would I let him see my driver's license? He needed to make sure I wasn't someone that was sent out to cover for the real one.
I shook my head in disbelief and pulled out my wallet. He looked at my license, half chuckled, and, realizing that his whole day had been a wasted effort, said, "Well, there you have it."
In some ways, the incident was amusing at first, but the more I think about it, the more I am frightened by the whole thing. I was still in high school when that man began abusing boys as a priest, so clearly there is no way that a rational person could confuse me with him. But what about an irrational one? Could the association of name and place impact my professional life if people I am working with from a distance hear a story and draw a wrong conclusion? Will someone else find my address the same way that the reporter did and assume that I am the perpetrator? Is it possible that I will open my door some morning and see a shotgun pointed at my face? Will they take time to look? If I protest, will they believe me?
I don't blame the reporter for raising these concerns. He's doing his job. I suspect that in preparing his series of stories that he has heard heart wrenching stories of the aftermath of abuse. But, this has scared me. It has scared me a lot.
Monday, July 03, 2006
"Maker of Heaven and Earth"
When reading this portion of the Creed, one immediately thinks of the first verse in the Bible, which declares, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The remainder of chapter one and the first half of chapter two proceed to discuss God's creative acts.
Much discussion of God as Creator nowadays revolves around debates about the age of the earth, whether the concepts of divine creation and Darwinian evolution can be reconciled, and the relationship between science and religion. I have opinions on those issues, about which both many Christians and many scientists sometimes are guilty of making statements that go beyond their areas of expertise, but for this discussion I want to focus on a couple of different questions -- one that should be thought about before discussions of science begin, and the other a consideration of the implications of divine creation.
There are some Christians who both believe that Scripture is divine revelation from God and accurate in all that it teaches who also believe that the Bible is not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Again, I am not going to debate that point today. What I will say is that, regardless of the relationship between faith and current scientific viewpoints, philosophical naturalism is not consistent with Christian belief. Naturalism, simply put, is the belief that nature is all there is. Thus, there is no God and no soul. There is only nature.
Of course, nature is the subject matter of science. Nature is what scientists study. However, some scientists are guilty of folding the philosophical definition of naturalism into the meaning of the scientific method and, by extension, the definition of science itself. That confluence should not be allowed to stand without debate. It is one thing to say that nature is what scientists study. It is something quite different to say that what scientists study is all there is. That supposition is both unproven and unprovable empirically, as it outside the realm of what scientists study.
Just as some Christians may be guilty of arrogance in making statements about scientific matters about which they have no knowledge, some scientists may be guilty of an intellectual and philosophical arrogance that claims that nothing is beyond their realm. As to whether God, either by a sudden act of creation or by a guiding hand on what we would otherwise regard as natural processes, created all that there is, the scientist really has no ultimate answers. That is not to say that there are no answers; they just cannot be found conclusively by means of the scientific method.
Christians have faith that God created all that exists, and we find ample evidence in the order, complexity, and beauty of the universe in support of that faith. The question of creation, however, is not merely an intellectual one. Along with the notion that God created comes the thought that God created for a purpose, and that ultimately what God knows about both our lives and his purposes creates accountability for us, as well as the realization that the One who made us best understands how we should live. That accountability and submission to God's wisdom and purposes, which are ultimately sources of joy for those who accept them, are also the ultimate reasons for much -- some would say all -- unbelief. The first sins in the garden were committed in response to a claim that Adam and Eve could be like God, and ever since humanity has desired to have things our own way.
God, as our Creator, has the ultimate say about what our lives should be. To live in the light of his purposes brings freedom and joy. Resisting Him is both temporally and eternally destructive.
This is the latest in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. For my previous post, which includes links to all of the others, see here.
Much discussion of God as Creator nowadays revolves around debates about the age of the earth, whether the concepts of divine creation and Darwinian evolution can be reconciled, and the relationship between science and religion. I have opinions on those issues, about which both many Christians and many scientists sometimes are guilty of making statements that go beyond their areas of expertise, but for this discussion I want to focus on a couple of different questions -- one that should be thought about before discussions of science begin, and the other a consideration of the implications of divine creation.
There are some Christians who both believe that Scripture is divine revelation from God and accurate in all that it teaches who also believe that the Bible is not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Again, I am not going to debate that point today. What I will say is that, regardless of the relationship between faith and current scientific viewpoints, philosophical naturalism is not consistent with Christian belief. Naturalism, simply put, is the belief that nature is all there is. Thus, there is no God and no soul. There is only nature.
Of course, nature is the subject matter of science. Nature is what scientists study. However, some scientists are guilty of folding the philosophical definition of naturalism into the meaning of the scientific method and, by extension, the definition of science itself. That confluence should not be allowed to stand without debate. It is one thing to say that nature is what scientists study. It is something quite different to say that what scientists study is all there is. That supposition is both unproven and unprovable empirically, as it outside the realm of what scientists study.
Just as some Christians may be guilty of arrogance in making statements about scientific matters about which they have no knowledge, some scientists may be guilty of an intellectual and philosophical arrogance that claims that nothing is beyond their realm. As to whether God, either by a sudden act of creation or by a guiding hand on what we would otherwise regard as natural processes, created all that there is, the scientist really has no ultimate answers. That is not to say that there are no answers; they just cannot be found conclusively by means of the scientific method.
Christians have faith that God created all that exists, and we find ample evidence in the order, complexity, and beauty of the universe in support of that faith. The question of creation, however, is not merely an intellectual one. Along with the notion that God created comes the thought that God created for a purpose, and that ultimately what God knows about both our lives and his purposes creates accountability for us, as well as the realization that the One who made us best understands how we should live. That accountability and submission to God's wisdom and purposes, which are ultimately sources of joy for those who accept them, are also the ultimate reasons for much -- some would say all -- unbelief. The first sins in the garden were committed in response to a claim that Adam and Eve could be like God, and ever since humanity has desired to have things our own way.
God, as our Creator, has the ultimate say about what our lives should be. To live in the light of his purposes brings freedom and joy. Resisting Him is both temporally and eternally destructive.
This is the latest in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. For my previous post, which includes links to all of the others, see here.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
God the Father Almighty
Parents frequently teach their children a prayer that begins, "God is great. God is good."
Those words are simple enough for children, but they are also profound. They capture two important aspects of the character of God. He is great -- that is, he is almighty, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also good -- great in mercy and kindness, a Father and friend to those who are His.
Healthy Christianity maintains thoughts of God's greatness and goodness in a careful balance. Unfortunately, that balance is frequently not maintained, and that lack of balance has at times seriously harmed those who grew up under it. If God is seen as great, but not good, he may be seen as harsh, distant, irrelevant, and an object of unhealthy fear (I say unhealthy, because there is a healthy kind of fear of God).
If God is seen as good, but not great, He is seen as a sort of kindly old man -- good hearted, but not terribly helpful or relevant to life.
Fortunately, the true God is both great and good. God is described in the Bible as a Father, a Friend, and as one who knows how to give good gifts to His children. He is merciful and full of grace. Believers can call upon Him with familial love and approach Him boldly because of what Christ has done in our behalf.
He is also the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
Isaiah Chapter 40, which is addressed to hurting people who have fallen under God's judgment, is one of the most eloquent in all of the Bible describing God's goodness and greatness. Following is a quick laundry list of what we learn about God in this chapter. Read it for yourself, and you may find great joy in meditating on these thoughts about God:
Those words are simple enough for children, but they are also profound. They capture two important aspects of the character of God. He is great -- that is, he is almighty, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also good -- great in mercy and kindness, a Father and friend to those who are His.
Healthy Christianity maintains thoughts of God's greatness and goodness in a careful balance. Unfortunately, that balance is frequently not maintained, and that lack of balance has at times seriously harmed those who grew up under it. If God is seen as great, but not good, he may be seen as harsh, distant, irrelevant, and an object of unhealthy fear (I say unhealthy, because there is a healthy kind of fear of God).
If God is seen as good, but not great, He is seen as a sort of kindly old man -- good hearted, but not terribly helpful or relevant to life.
Fortunately, the true God is both great and good. God is described in the Bible as a Father, a Friend, and as one who knows how to give good gifts to His children. He is merciful and full of grace. Believers can call upon Him with familial love and approach Him boldly because of what Christ has done in our behalf.
He is also the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
Isaiah Chapter 40, which is addressed to hurting people who have fallen under God's judgment, is one of the most eloquent in all of the Bible describing God's goodness and greatness. Following is a quick laundry list of what we learn about God in this chapter. Read it for yourself, and you may find great joy in meditating on these thoughts about God:
- He speaks through Isaiah words of comfort and tenderness to a people who have gone through a period of judgment because of sin (vv. 1, 2).
- His glory will be revealed to all mankind (v. 5).
- His Word stands forever (v. 8).
- His presence is a reason to proclaim good tidings (v. 9)
- He is the Sovereign Lord who comes with power (v. 10)
- He gathers his flock in His arms and carries them close to His heart (v. 11)
- He has measured the waters and the Heavens with His hand (v. 12).
- His mind is beyond our understanding or counsel (vv. 13, 14).
- Nations are like a drop in the bucket and islands are like fine dust compared to Him (vv. 15-17).
- He is beyond comparison and cannot be worshipped by means of any physical image (v. 18-20).
- His throne is the earth and people are as small as grasshoppers next to Him (v. 22-24).
- He has no equal and has created all things. He is Holy (v. 25-26).
- He is the everlasting God who never gets tired (vv. 28).
- He gives strength to weary and weak people (v. 29).
- To those who hope in Him, He gives renewed strength to soar on wings of eagles, run and not grow weary, and walk and not be faint.
Those who do not know such a God should fear one of such power. Those who know Him should find comfort and confidence in God's goodness and greatness.
This is the fourth in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. The others can be found here, here, and here.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A Higher View of Jesus
He calls it a rant and invites readers to ignore it, but the Evangelical Outpost pens a post that would benefit every believer.
The flimsy disagreements of several commenters at that site perhaps reveal the sad state of American evangelicalism.
The flimsy disagreements of several commenters at that site perhaps reveal the sad state of American evangelicalism.
I Admit It: I Am the AntiChrist
For all of those strange people concerned about this date being 6/6/06, I can alleviate your concerns. I am guilty. I am the anti-Christ. Here's the proof: if you are trying to find me in a company phone directory, and enter into the phone keypad the first three letters of the name "Monroe," you will have entered 6-6-6.
This could hurt my status as a religion blogger.
This could hurt my status as a religion blogger.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
What about the Emergent Church
Bill Hobbs has an interesting post in which he provides a lengthy excerpt from an article on the "emergent church movement." Although I have been aware of that movement for some time, I have not delved deeply into it due to my sense of ambivalence about it. The excerpt that Mr. Hobbs provides emphasizes both the positives and negatives that contribute to my indifference regarding the significance or value of this movement.
Positively, the movement is being described as one that is Christocentric, focused on worship, and that is seeking to energetically involve disciples in service to their communities. These emphases correct deficiencies that have tended to characterize both the "traditional" churches of the mid and late 20th century and the "contemporary" churches that have tried to supplant them. Such churches have all too frequently turned out to be self-centered in worship and other emphases and overly programmatic in their orientations.
On the other hand, the movement is described as "fueled by postmodern philosophical perspectives," engaged in narrative theology and indifferent to doctrine, and "more at home with blogs than books."
Given postmodernism's indifference regarding truth, it will be interesting to see how attempts to join it with Christian belief play out. Early returns are not encouraging, as all too frequently those who claim to be informing their faith are instead inundating it with those philosophical suppositions. Indifference to doctrine has been a problem, not a characteristic, of modern evangelical Christianity. Indifference to doctrine does not mean that there are no doctrines, and narrative theology is always refracted through the doctrinal lenses of the reader. Everyone believes in doctrines -- Christian or otherwise. The question is not whether we have doctrines, but it is whether we are aware of them and thoughtful about them.
Finally, the reliance of the emergent church on new media is not necessarily a positive. One of the strengths of the movement has been its rediscovery of early Christian forms. Every major movement of the church in American history has suffered from its parochialism and lack of connectedness to Christian traditions. Forsaking deeper reading than what is provided through blogs risks the development of the emergent church becoming atrophied by that narrowness.
In which case, the emergent church will not be a movement: it will be just a fad.
Positively, the movement is being described as one that is Christocentric, focused on worship, and that is seeking to energetically involve disciples in service to their communities. These emphases correct deficiencies that have tended to characterize both the "traditional" churches of the mid and late 20th century and the "contemporary" churches that have tried to supplant them. Such churches have all too frequently turned out to be self-centered in worship and other emphases and overly programmatic in their orientations.
On the other hand, the movement is described as "fueled by postmodern philosophical perspectives," engaged in narrative theology and indifferent to doctrine, and "more at home with blogs than books."
Given postmodernism's indifference regarding truth, it will be interesting to see how attempts to join it with Christian belief play out. Early returns are not encouraging, as all too frequently those who claim to be informing their faith are instead inundating it with those philosophical suppositions. Indifference to doctrine has been a problem, not a characteristic, of modern evangelical Christianity. Indifference to doctrine does not mean that there are no doctrines, and narrative theology is always refracted through the doctrinal lenses of the reader. Everyone believes in doctrines -- Christian or otherwise. The question is not whether we have doctrines, but it is whether we are aware of them and thoughtful about them.
Finally, the reliance of the emergent church on new media is not necessarily a positive. One of the strengths of the movement has been its rediscovery of early Christian forms. Every major movement of the church in American history has suffered from its parochialism and lack of connectedness to Christian traditions. Forsaking deeper reading than what is provided through blogs risks the development of the emergent church becoming atrophied by that narrowness.
In which case, the emergent church will not be a movement: it will be just a fad.
I Believe (Part II)
The Apostle's Creed begins, ""I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord...." In this post, I want to focus on the word "believe." Faith is a very important concept for Christians (the most frequent name for Christians in the Bible is "believers"), but it is a very misunderstood one.
In the original language of the New Testament, the words "believe" and "faith" come from the same root word, with "believe" being the verb form of the root and "faith" the noun form. I once heard a preacher on television make much ado about the fact that he was going to do more than just "believe" something: he was going to "faith it." However, there was really no point to that kind of statement, since biblically belief and faith are the same thing. As I am sure this gentleman had not studied Greek, perhaps he should be forgiven this little display of ignorance.
Perhaps.
The word "faith" is also used frequently in popular culture -- sometimes with religious overtones -- in ways that differ markedly from the biblical conception of faith. Probably the most common popular use of the word makes faith to mean something along the lines of positive thinking or stubborn optimism. While those may be good things, they are not Christian faith. In addition, they have less foundation than biblical faith. I am reminded of a Celine Dion song from a few years ago: "Don't give up on your faith. Love comes to those who believe it." That sounds wonderful. Where does that confidence come from. With her voice rising in a joy not justified by the hollow words, she concludes, "That's the way it is."
That was good for Walter Cronkite talking about what had already made news, but its not much of a foundation for faith. Fortunately, Christian faith rests on much more.
When defining faith, the most common verse that Christians turn to is Hebrews 11:1 -- "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." That passage goes on to describe Old Testament figures who manifested faith. For example, Noah built an ark based on God's command even though he had never seen anything that warranted such an effort. Abram left his home and set out for a new country he had never seen, because ultimately he looked for a land "whose builder and founder is God."
With those introductory thoughts in mind, here are a few statements concerning the nature of Christian faith:
In the original language of the New Testament, the words "believe" and "faith" come from the same root word, with "believe" being the verb form of the root and "faith" the noun form. I once heard a preacher on television make much ado about the fact that he was going to do more than just "believe" something: he was going to "faith it." However, there was really no point to that kind of statement, since biblically belief and faith are the same thing. As I am sure this gentleman had not studied Greek, perhaps he should be forgiven this little display of ignorance.
Perhaps.
The word "faith" is also used frequently in popular culture -- sometimes with religious overtones -- in ways that differ markedly from the biblical conception of faith. Probably the most common popular use of the word makes faith to mean something along the lines of positive thinking or stubborn optimism. While those may be good things, they are not Christian faith. In addition, they have less foundation than biblical faith. I am reminded of a Celine Dion song from a few years ago: "Don't give up on your faith. Love comes to those who believe it." That sounds wonderful. Where does that confidence come from. With her voice rising in a joy not justified by the hollow words, she concludes, "That's the way it is."
That was good for Walter Cronkite talking about what had already made news, but its not much of a foundation for faith. Fortunately, Christian faith rests on much more.
When defining faith, the most common verse that Christians turn to is Hebrews 11:1 -- "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." That passage goes on to describe Old Testament figures who manifested faith. For example, Noah built an ark based on God's command even though he had never seen anything that warranted such an effort. Abram left his home and set out for a new country he had never seen, because ultimately he looked for a land "whose builder and founder is God."
With those introductory thoughts in mind, here are a few statements concerning the nature of Christian faith:
- Faith is not merely intellectual assent. In that sense, the modern way of using the word "believe" is not always helpful. Faith involves the intellect, the emotions, and the will. It is not merely a matter of deciding that certain things are true, but it is about trusting in those things for our eternal salvation.
- Faith is both a human responsibility (Acts 16:31) and a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).
- Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive concepts. Christian belief is not based on philosophical rationalism, as Christians ultimately rest their faith in God's self-revelation found generally in creation and conscience and specifically in the words of the Bible and in the living Word, Jesus Christ. However, reason and revelation are not in opposition. Christian belief is both internally coherent and externally consistent. Talk about faith as though it is a leap into darkness involves theological constructs that are not consistent with Christianity.
- Faith in the Bible always has an object: faith in God, God's promises, Christ, the finished work of Christ, and so forth. Thus, faith is not merely positive thinking. It involves trust in who God is or what he does and provides.
- Because faith always has God or His work as its object, faith is not found by looking inward, but by looking up. To have faith is not to find a great internal resource -- it is to find that we have a great God in whom we can confidently rest.
- The Bible teaches that salvation comes by faith alone. As such, the Christian message to outsiders is not to reform their lives: it is to be reconciled to God by repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.
- While salvation is by faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone. When I was younger and didn't know better, I used to say that human works have nothing to do with salvation. It is true that we are in no way justified by our deeds; however, saving faith inevitably produces a changed heart and life (see Ephesians 2:10).
- Faith is not merely the response that initiates a person into the family of God; it characterizes the life of the believer throughout.
As this has become a long post, I think I should stop. I have benefited from writing it, and I hope someone gains something from reading it.
Monday, May 29, 2006
"I Believe"
The Apostle's Creed begins with the words, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord...." These opening phrases contain much that will take us several posts to work through. Today, I will begin with just the first two of those words: "I believe."
How much can you say about that? Well, it turns out a great deal.
First, it may seem curious that the Creed begins with the statement of an individual ("I"), even though it is most often recited by a group in a church. Yet, this is entirely appropriate. Christianity is both personal and communal, and the Bible describes the Spirit of God specially inhabiting both the individual believer and the gathered church. Thus, while faith should be expressed corporately, it also should be declared by persons who are trusting in and adhering to that faith individually. This is poignantly occurring when church members join together in expressing the individual faith that binds them to God and also joins them to one another.
Second, it has been said that much of what it means to be a Christian is understood in pronouns: God is not just "the Lord;" He is "My Lord." Christ is not merely "the Savior;" He is "My Savior." Of course, this is not intended to be self-centered, as though I am saying that God belongs to me. It is rather the opposite: I belong to God, and in belonging to Him I can find the greatest joys of life. Christian belief includes propositional truths, but it is not merely a set of propositions. These truths tell us of Christ, to whom we have entrusted our life and souls, and with whom we shall enjoy eternal fellowship.
Finally, many people misunderstand the notion of Christianity (or religion generally) being a personal matter. Christianity is personal, but not in the sense of it being private -- which it must never be. For a person who believes, Christianity has implications for every aspect of life. However, Christianity is personal in the sense of being individual. My faith in Christ is not a matter of birth, family affiliation, or of the willing of another. Rather, faith is a gift of God to an individual.
Which brings us to the second word: "believe." That one will have to wait for the next post. And, I promise I will not take the entire Creed one word at a time.
How much can you say about that? Well, it turns out a great deal.
First, it may seem curious that the Creed begins with the statement of an individual ("I"), even though it is most often recited by a group in a church. Yet, this is entirely appropriate. Christianity is both personal and communal, and the Bible describes the Spirit of God specially inhabiting both the individual believer and the gathered church. Thus, while faith should be expressed corporately, it also should be declared by persons who are trusting in and adhering to that faith individually. This is poignantly occurring when church members join together in expressing the individual faith that binds them to God and also joins them to one another.
Second, it has been said that much of what it means to be a Christian is understood in pronouns: God is not just "the Lord;" He is "My Lord." Christ is not merely "the Savior;" He is "My Savior." Of course, this is not intended to be self-centered, as though I am saying that God belongs to me. It is rather the opposite: I belong to God, and in belonging to Him I can find the greatest joys of life. Christian belief includes propositional truths, but it is not merely a set of propositions. These truths tell us of Christ, to whom we have entrusted our life and souls, and with whom we shall enjoy eternal fellowship.
Finally, many people misunderstand the notion of Christianity (or religion generally) being a personal matter. Christianity is personal, but not in the sense of it being private -- which it must never be. For a person who believes, Christianity has implications for every aspect of life. However, Christianity is personal in the sense of being individual. My faith in Christ is not a matter of birth, family affiliation, or of the willing of another. Rather, faith is a gift of God to an individual.
Which brings us to the second word: "believe." That one will have to wait for the next post. And, I promise I will not take the entire Creed one word at a time.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Upcoming: a Series of Posts on the Apostle's Creed
I am going to begin a series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. The words of the creed are as follows:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hades.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
The Apostle's Creed was not actually written by the Apostles. Composed in the second century A.D., it is so named because it is an apt summary of the basic teachings of the Apostles. In fact, for nearly two millenia, the Apostle's Creed has provided a basic definition of what it means to be orthodox. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant Christians disagree over a great deal, but historically they all would agree with the basic statements formulated in this creed.
Those readers who know me as a Baptist might be surprised that I am choosing to expound on the creed. Both conservative and liberal Baptist leaders commonly tell their flocks that Baptists are not a creedal people. Those who do so simply do not know Baptist history. Though Baptist confessionalism has been on the decline for the last two centuries, Baptists historically have made use of creedal confessions of faith and have taught their children using catechisms. Indeed, the loss of their usage has resulted in the growing ignorance of basic Christian teaching that is all too frequent in Baptist churches today. It is an indictment on Baptist churches that all too frequently their teens, having grown up in church, leave it without any real understanding of what it is they are leaving behind.
Baptists, like all other Protestants, do not regard this or any other creed as being authoritative. However, creeds may be instructive tools regarding the teaching of Scripture. Although many people in Baptist pews who don't know their history would likely revolt, their churches would actually benefit if their ministers would use the creed as a part of worship.
The statements in the Apostle's Creed are deceptively simple. Their exposition could fill volumes. I will deal with them in a dozen or so posts -- I hope in a manner that will be both theologically instructive and devotional for anyone that comes across them.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hades.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
The Apostle's Creed was not actually written by the Apostles. Composed in the second century A.D., it is so named because it is an apt summary of the basic teachings of the Apostles. In fact, for nearly two millenia, the Apostle's Creed has provided a basic definition of what it means to be orthodox. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant Christians disagree over a great deal, but historically they all would agree with the basic statements formulated in this creed.
Those readers who know me as a Baptist might be surprised that I am choosing to expound on the creed. Both conservative and liberal Baptist leaders commonly tell their flocks that Baptists are not a creedal people. Those who do so simply do not know Baptist history. Though Baptist confessionalism has been on the decline for the last two centuries, Baptists historically have made use of creedal confessions of faith and have taught their children using catechisms. Indeed, the loss of their usage has resulted in the growing ignorance of basic Christian teaching that is all too frequent in Baptist churches today. It is an indictment on Baptist churches that all too frequently their teens, having grown up in church, leave it without any real understanding of what it is they are leaving behind.
Baptists, like all other Protestants, do not regard this or any other creed as being authoritative. However, creeds may be instructive tools regarding the teaching of Scripture. Although many people in Baptist pews who don't know their history would likely revolt, their churches would actually benefit if their ministers would use the creed as a part of worship.
The statements in the Apostle's Creed are deceptively simple. Their exposition could fill volumes. I will deal with them in a dozen or so posts -- I hope in a manner that will be both theologically instructive and devotional for anyone that comes across them.
Monday, May 22, 2006
The Bible in Public Schools
The Tennessean has an article today discussing the fact that the Bible is taught in a few history or literature courses in public high schools in Tennessee. Although the usually reliable first amendment scholar Charles Haynes says that the practice is inappropriate, there really should be nothing controversial about teaching the Bible in such a manner. Whatever one's views of the Christian religion, the Bible is a text that has had tremendous influence over western civilization and western culture, and a basic understanding of it is a legitimate public school enterprise for that reason.
That being said, I doubt that very many public school teachers are qualified to teach such a course, which would require both an understanding of ancient middle eastern culture and the ability to read the Bible from a historical/literary approach -- an approach that is also used, by the way, by the best of evangelical theologians and pastors (that is, not very many). However, the teacher who is referenced in the article, Mike Brown, appears to be handling the course appropriately and competently.
Mr. Haynes counters that some Christians may be offended to learn that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. As a Christian, as long as the text is treated with an appropriate academic demeanor, I say, "Who cares?" There are multiple interpretations of most, if not all, aspects of history and of literary texts. If we are to have that level of sensitivity, then we will have to eliminate all course work. The study of the Bible is an academic subject, and not just a devotional one.
That being said, I doubt that very many public school teachers are qualified to teach such a course, which would require both an understanding of ancient middle eastern culture and the ability to read the Bible from a historical/literary approach -- an approach that is also used, by the way, by the best of evangelical theologians and pastors (that is, not very many). However, the teacher who is referenced in the article, Mike Brown, appears to be handling the course appropriately and competently.
Mr. Haynes counters that some Christians may be offended to learn that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. As a Christian, as long as the text is treated with an appropriate academic demeanor, I say, "Who cares?" There are multiple interpretations of most, if not all, aspects of history and of literary texts. If we are to have that level of sensitivity, then we will have to eliminate all course work. The study of the Bible is an academic subject, and not just a devotional one.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Show Me the Money
I have been involved in a lot of funerals over the years, but have never seen this in an obituary:
"Expressions of sympathy may take the form of contributions to the family."
Out of respect for the deceased, I won't link to the obituary or provide the name or city.
"Expressions of sympathy may take the form of contributions to the family."
Out of respect for the deceased, I won't link to the obituary or provide the name or city.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us
I had not intended to write about the current controversy over The Da Vinci Code because I am not interested in it. A decade ago, when I was in a position of church leadership, I would have read the book and possibly planned to see the movie for the purpose of preparing myself to answer the questions that would be raised by church members and others in the community. Those days are well in the past, with the result that I can limit my reading to those things that interest me. Having heard about the broad themes and the pseudo-history that is central to the work of fiction, I decided long ago that I wasn't interested. I am also not interested in participating in the predictable and counterproductive calls by numerous evangelicals to boycott this "dangerous" movie. Such calls are counterproductive both because they provide the movie with free publicity and because they make it appear as though Christians are afraid of the debate. All of that being said, I changed my mind about ignoring the matter after reading an article regarding the book's popularity that I thought made an important point regarding the current state of the church.
As far as the controversy itself, my own views as to the Church's proper response is largely similar to that expressed by Kat Coble (and those she links to favorably) here.
In an article that appeared in Sunday's The Tennessean (it was a syndicated article not written locally, and I regret that I can't locate a link), it was argued that Christians are largely responsible for the book and movie's popularity. In short, the author contended that the Church's failure to teach American Christians about church history has created a vacuum into which The Da Vinci Code's historical background has entered. The supposed history behind the novel is so discredited that it seems almost silly when serious historians and theologians bother to dispute it. However, most of those who grew up around churches learned virtually nothing about church history, with the result that the book seems mysterious and interesting.
It has been said that American Christians sometimes act as though the Bible fell out of heaven last week. To put it a different way, many American Christians have been exposed to such limited information as to seemingly suggest that the period of the Apostles ended just before we were born and was immediately followed by the current era. Of course, Protestants don't regard history and tradition as authoritative; however, they should regard it as instructive. The failure of Christians to understand their heritage separates them from Christendom's glories and leaves them vulnerable to repeating its mistakes.
As is shown by the public's hunger for a novel featuring an alternative church history, it should not be said that there is no interest in the Church's story. In fact, I used to find that classes featuring discussions of where various denominations came from and sermon illustrations recounting high or low moments and teachings from ages past generated considerable interest. Religious history, like all other history, is not about names and dates, but about people and ideas. People and ideas are interesting if their stories are well told.
Christian leaders in the United States over the last two centuries have not cared enough about that. It is part of the reason that American Christianity can be characterized as 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep. When spiritually hungry people, many of them former or current church members, take interest in the false history presented in The Da Vinci Code, they give evidence that this failure has a cost.
As far as the controversy itself, my own views as to the Church's proper response is largely similar to that expressed by Kat Coble (and those she links to favorably) here.
In an article that appeared in Sunday's The Tennessean (it was a syndicated article not written locally, and I regret that I can't locate a link), it was argued that Christians are largely responsible for the book and movie's popularity. In short, the author contended that the Church's failure to teach American Christians about church history has created a vacuum into which The Da Vinci Code's historical background has entered. The supposed history behind the novel is so discredited that it seems almost silly when serious historians and theologians bother to dispute it. However, most of those who grew up around churches learned virtually nothing about church history, with the result that the book seems mysterious and interesting.
It has been said that American Christians sometimes act as though the Bible fell out of heaven last week. To put it a different way, many American Christians have been exposed to such limited information as to seemingly suggest that the period of the Apostles ended just before we were born and was immediately followed by the current era. Of course, Protestants don't regard history and tradition as authoritative; however, they should regard it as instructive. The failure of Christians to understand their heritage separates them from Christendom's glories and leaves them vulnerable to repeating its mistakes.
As is shown by the public's hunger for a novel featuring an alternative church history, it should not be said that there is no interest in the Church's story. In fact, I used to find that classes featuring discussions of where various denominations came from and sermon illustrations recounting high or low moments and teachings from ages past generated considerable interest. Religious history, like all other history, is not about names and dates, but about people and ideas. People and ideas are interesting if their stories are well told.
Christian leaders in the United States over the last two centuries have not cared enough about that. It is part of the reason that American Christianity can be characterized as 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep. When spiritually hungry people, many of them former or current church members, take interest in the false history presented in The Da Vinci Code, they give evidence that this failure has a cost.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
The Church Is Full of Sinners -- and I'm Glad
The writer at The Evangelical Outpost reflects on deficiencies in his attitude toward churches:
Why am I so dumb that I expect the church to be something its not? Why can’t I recognize that the trouble with the church is that it accepts sinners like me? If they excluded the people who could ruin it church might be a better place. But it would also be empty.
Read the rest of the post here.
Why am I so dumb that I expect the church to be something its not? Why can’t I recognize that the trouble with the church is that it accepts sinners like me? If they excluded the people who could ruin it church might be a better place. But it would also be empty.
Read the rest of the post here.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Beyond Caricature
Nearly two decades ago, I joked, that given trends in Christian worship, that sometime soon a church might regard Rod Stewart, with a slight alteration, as a source of church music:
Tonight's the Night;
Gonna Be all right.
Because I love you [Lord]
Ain't nobody gonna stop us now.
In light of that, perhaps I was not completely surprised at Tom Ascol's post about a Lutheran Church that took up Beatles' songs for a weekend worship service. Don't get me wrong: I like the Beatles, and Rev. Ascol seems to, as well. But not for worship.
But perhaps they still are more popular than Jesus....
Tonight's the Night;
Gonna Be all right.
Because I love you [Lord]
Ain't nobody gonna stop us now.
In light of that, perhaps I was not completely surprised at Tom Ascol's post about a Lutheran Church that took up Beatles' songs for a weekend worship service. Don't get me wrong: I like the Beatles, and Rev. Ascol seems to, as well. But not for worship.
But perhaps they still are more popular than Jesus....
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Free Speech and Free Offers of the Gospel
Numerous bloggers are commenting on a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that a school had the right to require s student to cover up a tee shirt with an anti-homosexual message printed on it. The shirt had the words "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the back. After the school required the student to put another shirt on over it, the student sued the school.
Because the 9th Circuit is so frequently overturned, and overturned unanimously, the enduring validity of its decisions is always an open question. However, a number of political conservatives have commented negatively on the decision as a free speech issue. The Volokh Conspiracy calls the decision "deeply unsound." Mark Rose calls it "typical liberal elitism and intolerance." Taking a different direction, Ann Althouse questioned an analogy in the dissent and asked commenters to opine as to whether the school's response resulted from the shirt's disruptiveness or whether the school was attempting to support its official viewpoint.
Because I am no longer doing legal or political issues at this site, I want to open a discussion in a little bit different direction. From the standpoint of Christian ethics and practice, why would a student do such a thing? What was he trying to accomplish? Was he trying to prove his supposed courage by calling out those people? If not that, then what?
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Of course, the Bible teaches that numerous other things are also sins -- things that we do, fail to do, think, fail to care about, and so forth. While the Bible teaches that such sins have rather disturbing implications regarding our standing before God, it does not require us to deny civil rights or human compassion to sinners. If it did so, all of us would be in a great deal of trouble. Homosexuality is not a sin with which this author struggles, but there are many others -- pride, greed, lust, and on and on, I am sorry to say -- with which I do. No one, to my knowledge, is insisting that I should be treated rudely based on the fact that I am a self-acknowledged sinner.
Sinners are the sort of people that the Christian message is made for. The most notable spokesman for the early Christian message, the Apostle Paul, even referred to himself as the "chief of sinners," perhaps recalling his own pre-conversion complicity in a Christian's persecutorial murder. This is not to say that Christians should not call sin by that name; but it does mean that people should not be treated obnoxiously. They need the Gospel.
Messages of condemnation unaccompanied by offers of hope and forgiveness found in the gospel do not reflect the message of Christ.
Because the 9th Circuit is so frequently overturned, and overturned unanimously, the enduring validity of its decisions is always an open question. However, a number of political conservatives have commented negatively on the decision as a free speech issue. The Volokh Conspiracy calls the decision "deeply unsound." Mark Rose calls it "typical liberal elitism and intolerance." Taking a different direction, Ann Althouse questioned an analogy in the dissent and asked commenters to opine as to whether the school's response resulted from the shirt's disruptiveness or whether the school was attempting to support its official viewpoint.
Because I am no longer doing legal or political issues at this site, I want to open a discussion in a little bit different direction. From the standpoint of Christian ethics and practice, why would a student do such a thing? What was he trying to accomplish? Was he trying to prove his supposed courage by calling out those people? If not that, then what?
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Of course, the Bible teaches that numerous other things are also sins -- things that we do, fail to do, think, fail to care about, and so forth. While the Bible teaches that such sins have rather disturbing implications regarding our standing before God, it does not require us to deny civil rights or human compassion to sinners. If it did so, all of us would be in a great deal of trouble. Homosexuality is not a sin with which this author struggles, but there are many others -- pride, greed, lust, and on and on, I am sorry to say -- with which I do. No one, to my knowledge, is insisting that I should be treated rudely based on the fact that I am a self-acknowledged sinner.
Sinners are the sort of people that the Christian message is made for. The most notable spokesman for the early Christian message, the Apostle Paul, even referred to himself as the "chief of sinners," perhaps recalling his own pre-conversion complicity in a Christian's persecutorial murder. This is not to say that Christians should not call sin by that name; but it does mean that people should not be treated obnoxiously. They need the Gospel.
Messages of condemnation unaccompanied by offers of hope and forgiveness found in the gospel do not reflect the message of Christ.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Years Restored
I was reading the Old Testament book of Joel earlier this week. It has a remarkable message.
Much of the book concerns the judgment of God. The people had sinned, and as a result God had sent an extended plague of locusts, destroying their land to an extent that they had never seen.
And, then God made a promise. Not only would judgment cease and mercy return, but He would also "restore the years that the locusts had eaten."
All of us who have wasted years and underachieved or paid a price for personal failures, whether we regard those wastes and failures as divine judgment or merely the residuals of bad decision making, can find hope in that thought. Whatever potential or hope seems to have been lost, there is hope in a gracious God who can restore wasted years.
Much of the book concerns the judgment of God. The people had sinned, and as a result God had sent an extended plague of locusts, destroying their land to an extent that they had never seen.
And, then God made a promise. Not only would judgment cease and mercy return, but He would also "restore the years that the locusts had eaten."
All of us who have wasted years and underachieved or paid a price for personal failures, whether we regard those wastes and failures as divine judgment or merely the residuals of bad decision making, can find hope in that thought. Whatever potential or hope seems to have been lost, there is hope in a gracious God who can restore wasted years.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Gone for Good this Time
Blogging is a hobby. Sure, I would love to write for a living, but I don't. So it is a hobby. I golf. I read books that no one else would ever read. I used to occasionally write book reviews for a newspaper where I lived. I write a blog.
The problem is that my golf, while poor, and my reading habits, while dull to some, don't pose a threat to my livelihood. It appears that blogging now does.
I am not as widely read as Bill Hobbs, though I have thought that I would like to be. I am also probably not as argumentative as Bill, though I don't shy away from controversy. Now that paid media in Nashville have shown a willingness to take down voices that they disagree with, or that they find uncongenial, I am going to have to pay attention. I have an employer who could be pressured. I have a family and bills.
So, here goes: I won't ever put anything publicly in writing on the internet or elsewhere again unless it is a part of a job for which I get paid. It's just not worth the risk.
Overly dramatic? Perhaps. But no more over the top than paid media intentionally going after a person's job. Someone will likely point out that my blog is not that big, but I don't want to assuage my fears by assuring myself I will always be insignificant. I have too much ambition for that.
Oh, and the next time someone over at the Scene decides to write on a right winger threatening free speech, they should take a careful look in the mirror. Fascism can be found on both ends of the political spectrum.
The problem is that my golf, while poor, and my reading habits, while dull to some, don't pose a threat to my livelihood. It appears that blogging now does.
I am not as widely read as Bill Hobbs, though I have thought that I would like to be. I am also probably not as argumentative as Bill, though I don't shy away from controversy. Now that paid media in Nashville have shown a willingness to take down voices that they disagree with, or that they find uncongenial, I am going to have to pay attention. I have an employer who could be pressured. I have a family and bills.
So, here goes: I won't ever put anything publicly in writing on the internet or elsewhere again unless it is a part of a job for which I get paid. It's just not worth the risk.
Overly dramatic? Perhaps. But no more over the top than paid media intentionally going after a person's job. Someone will likely point out that my blog is not that big, but I don't want to assuage my fears by assuring myself I will always be insignificant. I have too much ambition for that.
Oh, and the next time someone over at the Scene decides to write on a right winger threatening free speech, they should take a careful look in the mirror. Fascism can be found on both ends of the political spectrum.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Romney's Health Care Plan
For a careful and favorable look at the health care reforms adopted in Massachussetts, see the Heritage Foundation's Edmund Haislmaier here.
If these reforms appear to be effective, Governor Mitt Romney may be on the inside track to being elected President in '08.
If these reforms appear to be effective, Governor Mitt Romney may be on the inside track to being elected President in '08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)