Two-Step Leadership (The Presence-Driven Church)

(I gave these flowers to Linda on Mother's Day, 2025.)

The Presence-Driven Leader does not know where they are going. For the most part. This is because they are being led, by God's Spirit.

The Presence-Driven Leader has a long-term strategy, for themselves and for their people. It is simple: abide in Christ. Dwell in God's presence. Resolve to know only one thing: Christ, and him crucified.

Out of the abiding relationship comes The Call. This is a call to follow. The Presence-Driven Leader is the consummate follower.

Presence-Driven Leadership is Two-Step Leadership.

• Step 1 is: Abide in Jesus.
• Step 2 is: follow Jesus.

Then, teach your people to do the same.

That's it. (This is Theological Minimalism.)

In Hebrews 11:8 we read that Abraham went out, not knowing where he was going. Oswald Chambers comments:

"Have you ever “gone out” in this way? If so, there is no logical answer possible when anyone asks you what you are doing. One of the most difficult questions to answer in Christian work is, “What do you expect to do?” You don’t know what you are going to do. The only thing you know is that God knows what He is doing." (Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest)

Linda and I had never been to Israel. One day the opportunity was provided, as a gift. When we arrived we immediately got on a bus, and headed north from Tel Aviv to Mount Carmel. We had an excellent tour guide in the great Bible scholar Hal Ronning. Hal knew the land, we did not. Hal led us. We followed, willingly.

Presence-Driven Leaders lead by following. And teach their flock to do the same. This is more like adventure, a redemptive expedition, a clash of kingdom civilizations, led by the One who holds the future in his hands.


***

My leadership book is: 

Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

Mental Health and Suicide - at Redeemer in Monroe

 

Greg Boyd on Progressivist Diminishment of Scripture

 

 

                                                     (Maumee Bay State Park, Ohio)

I know Greg Boyd, a little bit. We've had him at our church, twice. Greg is an excellent scholar, and a great preacher. And, he is his own person. It would be a mistake to try and label him. For example, his belief in a real Satan immediately places him outside true progressivism. (See here.)

In a recent book, where Greg argues for the plenary inspiration of Scripture (more non-progressivism), he expresses concern over the progressivist diminishment of Scripture. PC diminishes the authority of the Bible. It undermines faith, especially the faith of young believers. Greg Boyd, in his recent book Inspired Imperfection, has a similar concern. 

He writes, 

“[Some are abandoning] the plenary inspiration of Scripture, which is precisely what I fear some progressive evangelicals are doing. I consider this a grave mistake. Among other things, denying Scripture’s plenary inspiration is inconsistent not only with the church tradition, but, as I will later argue, with the teachings of Jesus and some New Testament (NT) authors.

Not only this, but history demonstrates that when groups relinquish the church’s traditional view of Scripture, they tend eventually to float outside the parameters of historic orthodox Christianity.*

I consider the recent Emergent Church phenomenon to be a case in Point.”

This is tragic because, as Greg writes, 

“If we imagine the church as a ship on a tumultuous sea, the Bible has always served as the rudder that keeps her on course. In our postmodern, post-Christendom, and (some are claiming) post-truth world, the sea in the Western world is as tumultuous as it has ever been. Which means, the Western church arguably has never needed its rudder more than it does right now.”

(Boyd, Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance Its Divine Authority) 

Pride and Receiving Criticism

 

                                                                       (Our lilac bush)

I'm now using Tim Keller's 365-day devotional book on Proverbs. I love Proverbs! It's straight-shooting, in-your-face, no-nonsense wisdom about how to live a godly life (and how to avoid destruction).

Yesterday's entry Is on Proverbs 16:5; 18.

The LORD detests all the proud of heart. 

Be sure of this: 

They will not go unpunished. . . . 

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 

Keller writes:

"The Bible does not say that pride might lead to destruction—it says it will. Why? The practical reason is that pride makes it difficult to receive advice or criticism. You can’t learn from your mistakes or admit your own weaknesses. Everything has to be blamed on other people. You have to maintain the image of yourself as a competent person, as someone who is better than other people. Pride distorts your view of reality, and therefore you’re going to make terrible decisions."  (Keller, God's Wisdom for Navigating Life: A Year of Daily Devotions in the Book of Proverbs, p. 134). 

Keller asks us this. "What negative practical results of pride have you seen recently worked out in your own life or the lives of others you know?" 

Pride is the root of so many things that are wrong with us. This is why C. S. Lewis called pride "the great sin."

Physics and the Philosophy of Time

 

(I have aged. Linda has not.)

(I'm re-posting this for a friend.)

I will be seventy-seven years old tomorrow. Where has the time gone!? And what, anyway, is "time?"  

Here are some thoughts. For more, you might read Now: The Physics of Time, by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, and Why Time Flies: A Mostly Scientific Investigation, by Alan Burdick. Especially helpful is God and Time: Four Views. 

Scientific American has published several essays on the nature of time -  A Question of Time: The Ultimate Paradox. One of my favorite physicists, Paul Davies, has an essay called "That Mysterious Flow." Here are some of his thoughts on time.

"Nothing in known physics corresponds to the passage of time. Indeed, physicists insist that time doesn’t flow at all; it merely is."

Our commonsense view is that time is "slipping away." It feels like there is a "flow" to time. However, Einstein said, “The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones.”

Davies writes: "Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety— a timescape, analogous to a landscape— with all past and future events located there together. It is a notion sometimes referred to as block time. Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged, special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow."

Time is just as real as space, but "the flow of time" is unreal. 

Time is unidirectional. For example, an egg dropped on the floor will break into pieces. But the reverse process - a broken egg spontaneously assembling itself into an intact egg - is never witnessed. "Nature abounds with irreversible processes." But there is no "arrow of time." Yes, time is unidirectional, but...

..."this does not imply, however, that the arrow is moving toward the future, any more than a compass needle pointing north indicates that the compass is traveling north. Both arrows symbolize an asymmetry, not a movement. The arrow of time denotes an asymmetry of the world in time, not an asymmetry or flux of time. The labels “past” and “future” may legitimately be applied to temporal directions, just as “up” and “down” may be applied to spatial directions, but talk of the past or the future is as meaningless as referring to the up or the down."

Remember - this is physics. We may feel some flow of time, but in reality time is not something that moves or flows. 

Note this: We do not really observe the passage of time. "What we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time but of the asymmetry of time." Think of individual movie frames. As we watch a movie we experience individual states of affairs that are different from previously experienced states of affairs. That's all.

Think again of the "broken egg" example. Imagine a movie of the egg being dropped on the floor and breaking. Then imagine the film sequence being run backwards. We would see that the backwards sequence was unreal, even though there would seem to be a "flow" to the backwards series. This shows the illusion of the "flow of time." Yes, time is asymmetrical, but "time’s asymmetry is actually a property of states of the world, not a property of time as such."

When I remember the past and the many birthdays I have already celebrated, but do not remember the future birthdays that (hopefully) are forthcoming, this is "an observation not of the passage of time but of the asymmetry of time." Note: only conscious observers register the "flow of time." "Therefore, it appears that the flow of time is subjective, not objective."

I think the biblical distinction between chronos and kairos may help us here. Chronos is "clock time," and the experience of a flow of time. But kairos is more like a discrete, individual frame in a movie isolated from all other events. Kairos is the "right time," or the "appointed time." 

All of this is good news for me. Time has really not "passed me by." Time is not "slippin', slippin', slippin'... into the future."  

Davies writes: 

"What if science were able to explain away the flow of time? Perhaps we would no longer fret about the future or grieve for the past. Worries about death might become as irrelevant as worries about birth. Expectation and nostalgia might cease to be part of human vocabulary. Above all, the sense of urgency that attaches to so much of human activity might evaporate."


*** 
Here's a review of some philosophical ideas about time. (Special thanks to Manuel Velazquez's excellent Philosophy: A Text With Readings, 11th edition)

PLATO (Ancient Greek philosopher, 429-347 BCE)

• "Time" exists independently of events that occur in time.
• "Time is like an empty container into which things and events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of what (if anything) is placed in it." (SEP) 

ARISTOTLE (Ancient greek philosopher, 384-322 BCE)

• Time does not exist independently, contra Plato, of the events that occur in time.
• This view is called "Reductionism with Respect to Time."
• This means that "all talk that appears to be about time can somehow be reduced to talk about temporal relations among things and events." (SEP)
• The idea of a period of time without change is seen as incoherent.
• Thus, "time" cannot exist independently of what is placed in it. Apart from events, no time exists.

AUGUSTINE (Augustine of Hippo, 354-430)

• Time, in a sense, does not exist.
• The past no longer exists.
• The future does not yet exist.
• Only the present moment is real.
• But the present moment has, in itself, neither a past nor a future.
• The present moment is timeless.
• "Time," from God's perspective, is different from our perspective.
• God is outside of time.
• Time is like a line of events stretched out before God.
• Every moment - past, present, and future - lies on this line. Everything on the "line of time" is fixed. This is God's perspective. (Cmp. C.S. Lewis who, in Mere Christianity, employed Augustine's view of time.)

McTAGGERT (British philosopher M.E. McTaggert, 1886-1925)

• Compare McTaggert to Davies, who cites McTaggert in his essay.
• The flow of time as we experience it is unreal.
• "Time" is a fixed series of moments, each moment either "before" or "after" the other moments. This is "objective time."
• We can also think of "time" as a sequence of flowing moments. Each moment changes or flows from "future" to "present" to "past." This is "subjective time."
• "Past," "present," and "future" are incompatible with each other. Therefore it is impossible for the same thing (viz., the same "moment") to be simultaneously future, present, and past.
• But if time did "flow," then every moment would have to be future, and then present, and then past.
• So the idea of subjective time as a sequence of flowing moments is unreal.
• Subjective time is unreal. Our experience of time as "passing" is an illusion.
• Following this McTaggert said, "I believe that nothing that exists can be temporal, and that therefore time [subjective] is unreal." (The Nature of Existence)
• "Time" is an unchanging, fixed series of events frozen onto the "line of time" that makes up the series. But this is not really time, because there is no flow or change here. And, since subjective time is unreal, time cannot be real.

KANT (German philosopher Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804)

• Time - whether subjective or objective - is simply a construct of the human mind.
• "Time" and "space" are categories of the mind that the mind uses to organize the flow of changing sensations.
• Kant said, "Time is therefore given a priori." "Time" as a mental category is "prior to experience" and organizes or categorizes experience.
• Time is not real but is a mental construct.

HUSSERL (German phenomenological philosopher, 1859-1938)

• See Husserl's The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness.
• Husserl is in the Kantian stream of thinking. He is not interested in the metaphysical status of time, but time as transcendental, as lying at the base of consciousness, and giving shape to our experience. 
• Husserl "considers the present, past, and future as modes of appearing or modes by which we experience things and events as now, no longer (past) or not yet (future)." (IEP)

BERGSON (French philosopher Henri Bergson, 1859-1941)

• "Objective time," the "time" of the scientist, is just a conceptual abstraction, a construct of the mind.
• The image of time as a line is simply an image; the concept of objective time is only a concept. Neither images nor concepts can get at the reality.
• Only what we directly experience is real; viz., what we "intuit."
• We directly experience or intuit the flow of time. Bergson says we have the "intuition of duration."
• Real time is subjective time. This is the "flow of time" that I experience moving from future, through present, and into the past.
• Objective time is an intellectual reconstruction and thus is an illusion. "Time" does not actually exist "out there" in the world (it's not a reality transcendent to human subjectivity).

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG (Christian theist, 1947 - present)

• Apart from events time does not exist.
• Prior to creation time did not exist.
• A personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental events. "God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition." (See Craig, "God, Time, and Eternity")
• "The proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation."
• There are no "events" prior to creation. Therefore, since God exists prior to creation and is an "eventless" being, "time" does not exist prior to creation. At the creation of the universe time begins. On a relational view of time God now relates to the universe, "and God subjects himself to time by being related to changing things."

STEPHEN HAWKING (Physicist, author of A Brief History of Time, 1942-present)

• Time is understood in relation to events. Hawking writes: 
• 
  
• "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them... [T]he universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time would have been a singularity at which the laws of physics would have broken down." (See here) 

(For diagram + explanation, see here.)

FOR MORE READING: God and Time: Four Views. 

And: W.L. Craig, "God, Time, and Eternity"

***


In my book Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God I write about hearing and discerning the voice of God and not much about time. But subjectively praying brings us into kairos moments, felt timeless experiences that are nondirectional because one's heart has arrived in the presence of God.

Why Isn't Everyone Healed?

(Some of Redeemer's youth praying for someone.

Over the years I’ve seen people healed of emotional and physical illnesses. One of them was my grandmother. She lived with my family 6 months out of every year when we were growing up. When she was in her mid-80s she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She decided not to have it medically treated. The cancerous tumors in her breasts grew. My mother used to bathe her, and visually and physically saw and felt the hard, growing tumors.

Grandma knew she was going to die. She had lived a long life, and was ready to leave this world for another one. She even bought the dress she wanted to be buried in.

When Grandma had spent what we assumed would be her last 6 months in our home, she went to live with my aunt and uncle, who cared for her during the other 6 months. One day my aunt called. She told my mother that, while bathing Grandma, she noticed that the tumors did not appear to be there. My mother could not believe this, yet wanted to. Mom packed her bags and traveled 400 miles to visually inspect Grandma and confirm this.

Grandma lived for 12 more years. She bought two or three more dresses to be buried in. She died at age 97. What happened? How can we explain this? I, and my mother, knew this:

1. Grandma once was cancer-filled, and then one day the cancer was gone.
2.  God healed Grandma.

I’ve heard of, and personally seen, other things like this. (For some really good, current, encouraging stuff see Eric Metaxas's book Miracles. For simply the best academic presentation see Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.)

I’ve also prayed for people who have not been healed, at least as far as I can tell. Which raises the question: Why? Why do I not see everyone healed when I pray for them? 

I’ve thought long and hard about this over the years. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t think I can, given my quite-limited epistemic access, expect to have all the answers. Nonetheless, when I am asked this question, here’s how I respond.

1. Sickness and disease are not caused by God. God hates sickness and disease.
2. Sickness and disease are in this world because we live in, as Jesus referred to it, “this present evil age.” We live in a fallen world that’s ruled by Satan, who is called “the Prince of this world.”
3. Some diseases are part of living in this fallen world. The entire world is crying out for redemption (release) from this bondage.

4. The "age to come" in all its fullness is not our present reality. So, my physical body wastes away even as my spirit is being renewed.

5. See some of the resources I cite below.

Why did God create a world like this? Why a world where such suffering was even allowed? For me the answer is this:

- God is love. That is, God, in His essence, IS love. God cannot not-love.
- Therefore love is the highest value for God.
- God created persons (and spiritual beings) out of love.
- Genuine love is only possible if created agents have free will.
- Therefore God gave created agents free will.
- This is risky, since free will implies that one can choose to not love God.

From God’s end, giving his created agents (that's us) free will is worth it,. This is because God is love, and love is the highest value for God. Much of this world’s suffering happens because of people exercising free will to hurt themselves and others.

This is no mere theory, no abstraction from reality. It is an explanation of reality. As a pastor I’ve been around a lot of death and dying, to include in my own family, even my son David. How do I continue to find hope in such a world?

My understanding of what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God provides answers for me. Jesus talked about “the age to come” where will be no sickness, no struggle, no tears. When God invaded earth in the form of a Person, the “age to come” invaded this present evil age. Jesus once said that, “If you see me cast out demons by the finger of God, you can know that the kingdom of God is in your midst.” That is why I pray for the sick to be healed today, and will continue to do so.

I am part of a faith community. This makes a huge difference. I know people (even Christians) who would never pray for someone to be healed. In a faithless community one should not be shocked that healings are not seen.

Sometimes a deeper spiritual healing is needed. Some illnesses are, at root, spiritual and emotional. I have found that, for example, a person who lives for years with bitterness towards others and refuses to forgive others can be especially subject to physical illnesses. The account of Jesus' healing the lame man let down through the roof (Mark 2:1-12) implies that the forgiveness of the man's sins had some connection with his ability to pick up his mat and walk.

Don't lay blame on the person who is sick. When Jesus prayed for sick people he never blamed them for their sickness. For example, Jesus rejects his disciples’ assumption that the blind man in John 10 was blind because either he or his parents must have sinned.

Persist in prayer. When some sick people are not healed through prayer, it may simply be because we haven't prayed long enough to bring the healing to completion.

***

FOR FURTHER READING SEE:

Randy Clark, "Creating an Atmosphere for Healing."

In Francis MacNutt’s classic book Healing he is gives 11 reasons why people may not be healed:

1. Lack of faith
2. Redemptive suffering
3. False value attached to suffering
4. Sin
5. Not praying specifically
6. Faulty diagnosis (is it inner healing/ physical healing/ deliverance that is needed)
7. Refusal to see medicine as a way God heals
8. Not using natural means of preserving health
9. Now is not the time
10. Different person is to be instrument of healing
11. Social environment prevents healing taking place

J. Lee Grady, "When Christians Die of Cancer"

John Wimber, Power Healing. Chapter 8, "Not Everyone Is Healed."

Charles Kraft, Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression In the Believer's Life.

The Supremacy of Jesus in Hebrews

 I preached this morning at Redeemer on Hebrews, chapter 3.

A main theme in Hebrews is the supremacy of Jesus.

To illustrate, I shared this slide.

Manifestations of the Spirit (Spiritual Gifts) Are for Everyone

Somewhere in California

In churches I've been in I have handed out "Spiritual Gift Inventories," so people could find out what their spiritual gift was. Now, I think that's a misunderstanding. Obviously, the early church in Acts did not use inventories. The situation was more fluid and organic than that. 

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-7 Paul writes:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Note that what was given were manifestations of the Spirit. Here is God, giving himself to us, in his infinitely variegated personality.

James McDonald writes: “God’s provision for all that we need is His manifest presence with us. God doesn’t dispense strength, wisdom, or comfort like a druggist fills a prescription; He promises us Himself— His manifest presence with us, as all that we will ever need— as enough! We must be terrified at the thought of a single step without it, without the Lord.” (McDonald, Vertical Church) 

Gordon Fee, in his brilliant commentary on First Corinthians, writes:

""Each one," standing in the emphatic first position as it does, is [Paul's] way of stressing diversity; indeed, this is how that diversity will be emphasized throughout the rest of the paragraph. He does not intend to stress that every last person in the community has his or her own gift...  That is not Paul's concern. This pronoun is the distributive (stressing the individualized instances) of the immediately preceding collective ("in all people"), which emphasizes the many who make up the community as a whole." (589)

Fee writes that what "each one" was "given" was not a "gift,' but a "manifestation of the Spirit." "Thus each "gift" is a "manifestation," a disclosure of the Spirit's activity in their midst... [Paul's] urgency, as vv. 8-10 make clear, is not that each person is "gifted," but that the Spirit is manifested in a great variety of ways. His way of saying this is that, "to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit."" (Ib.)

This is about the Spirit manifesting himself within the Jesus-community. It is not a statement about spiritual gifts being given to people once and for all. Paul's emphasis is on the variety and diversity of the Spirit's manifestations. Fee writes:

"Contrary to so much of the popular literature, Paul does not intend by this to stress that every last person in the community has his or her own gift. That may or may not be true, depending on how broadly or narrowly one defines the word charisma. But that is simply not Paul's concern. This pronoun is in the distributive (stressing the individual instances) or the immediately preceding collective ("in all people"), which emphasizes the many who make up the community as a whole...
[Paul's] urgency, as vv. 8-10 show [1 Cor. 12], is not that each person is "gifted," but that the Spirit is manifested in a variety of ways. Paul's way of saying that is, "to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit." (Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 163-164)

The Church is to desire the manifestations of the Spirit. (1 Cor. 14:1) This is Paul's way of saying that a variety of manifestations can be expected in the community. Craig Keener writes:

"Many churches and ministries today use “spiritual gift inventories,” which often tend to be interest or personality tests similar to those used in Christian counseling. While interest and personality tests are often useful and God sometimes gifts us in ways that correspond to our interests interests and personalities, we should not limit God’s gifts to those discovered in such inventories. This is especially true when we are speaking not about gifts we are born with but those we seek from God in prayer to build up Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1)...

Paul also calls us to consider what gifts are most necessary for the church in our time. Having considered them, we should ask God to give those gifts to his body and be open to him using us if he chooses." (Keener, Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today, pp. 113; 136)

John Wimber held to a similar interpretation as Fee. Contextually, this makes sense to me. Wimber writes:

"Another theological barrier is what I call an incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor­inthians 12, verses 8-10 and verses 20-31, in which the gifts are frequently understood as given individually, and unilaterally to each member of the body. My perception is that we've wrongfully interpreted that text, that if we go back to 1 Corinthians 11, verses 17-18, where Paul says, "When you gather together there are divisions among you," the em­phasis in the entire section (from chapters 11 through 14) is that he is speaking to the church corporately, the congregation at Corinth. Therefore the emphasis on the gifts is that they are not primarily given to the individual but to the whole body.

Another way to understand this is to see them as situational—they are given in the situation, for the use of the individual and for the blessing of others. First Corinthians 12, verse 7, deals with the whole issue of the purpose of the use of spiritual gifts and teaches that the gifts are given "for the common good." In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul emphasizes the multiplicity of gifting that's available to the individual: "If you speak in tongues, pray that you might interpret." Whereas in chapter 12, he says, "One interprets, and one speaks in tongues." In chapter 14 he tells us all to prophesy, whereas he tells us in chapter 12, verse 29, that some are prophets and some are not.

The emphasis returns strongly in the 14th chapter on each individual having a multiplicity—or a potential for multiplicity—of expression of gifts, rather than for just singular expression. This means any individual Christian might prophesy, speak in tongues, interpret tongues and so on, but he should do it in the body, in good order and for the common good." (Wimber, "Spiritual Gifts Ignite Diverse Gospel Expressions")

Harshness Polarizes; Gentleness Disarms

                                                                               (Grand Haven, MI)

I begin the day reading from Proverbs 15.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, 

but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 15:1

Harshness adds nothing to a disagreement.

Harshness subtracts from the truth.

Harshness polarizes; gentleness disarms.

Harshness depletes; gentleness adds.

Gentleness subtracts nothing from a disagreement.

Gentleness provides the atmosphere in which truth can shine.

Avoid harshness. Exude gentleness.

I read this verse from my NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. Below it is a link to the following list.


Character Traits in Proverbs 

Traits to be avoided 

• anger 29: 22 
• antisocial behavior 18: 1 
• beauty without discretion 11: 22 
• blaming God 19: 3 
• dishonesty 24: 28 
• greed 28: 25 
• hatred 29: 27 
• hot temper 19: 19; 29: 22 
• immorality 6: 20– 35 
• inappropriate desire 27: 7 
• injustice 22: 16 
• jealousy 27: 4 
• lack of mercy 21: 13 
• laziness 6: 6– 11; 18: 9; 19: 15; 20: 4; 24: 30– 34; 26: 13– 15 
• maliciousness 6: 27 
• meddling 26: 17; 30: 10 
• pride 15: 5; 16: 18; 21: 4, 24; 29: 23; 30: 13 
• quarrelsomeness 26: 21
• self-conceit 26: 12, 16 
• self-deceit 28: 11 
• self-glory 25: 27 
• self-righteousness 30: 12 
• social disruption 19: 10 
• stubbornness 29: 1 
• unfaithfulness 25: 19 
• unneighborliness 3: 27– 30 
• vengeance 24: 28– 29 
• wickedness 21: 10 
• wicked scheming 16: 30 

Traits to be promoted 

• avoidance of strife 20: 3 
• compassion for animals 12: 10 
• contentment 13: 25; 14: 30; 15: 27 
• diligence 6: 6– 13; 12: 24, 27; 13: 4 
• faithful love 20: 6 
• faithfulness 3: 5– 6; 5: 15– 17; 25: 13; 28: 20 
• generosity 21: 26; 22: 9 
• honesty 16: 11; 24: 26 
• humility 11: 2; 16: 19; 25: 6– 7; 29: 23 
• integrity 11: 3; 25: 26; 28: 18 
• kindness to others 11: 16– 17
• kindness to enemies 25: 21– 22 
• leadership 30: 19– 31 
• loyalty 19: 22 
• nobility 12: 4; 31: 10, 29 
• patience 15: 18; 16: 32 
• peacefulness 16: 7 
• praiseworthiness 27: 21 
• righteousness 4: 26– 27; 11: 5– 6, 30; 12: 28; 13: 6; 29: 2 
• self-control 17: 27; 25: 28; 29: 11 
• strength and honor 20: 29 
• strength in adversity 24: 10 
• teachableness 15: 31 
• truthfulness 12: 19, 22; 23: 23

(From the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible)

Abortion Is Not a Political Issue for Me

 

(Bolles Harbor, Michigan)

(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)

I have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy (Northern Illinois University), and a PhD in philosophical theology (Northwestern University). I was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Monroe County Community College for eighteen years. I have taught courses in theology at several seminaries since 1977. I recently taught, again, at Faith Bible Seminary in NYC, and will teach, again, at Payne Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, Ohio (Feb. 28-March 3).

Philosophers study morality and ethics. Here, e.g., is a book I read last summer on metaethics - The Morality Wars: The Ongoing Debate Over the Origin of Human Goodness.  

Philosophers and theologians study morality and ethical systems without reference to political outcomes. Then, they often state the implications of certain moral judgments for human existence, some of which concern how to govern the polis. (See, e.g., Plato's Republic; or Hobbes's Leviathan; et. al. ad infinitum.)

Occasionally, someone accuses me of being political when I speak out against abortion. My response to them is to explain the distinction between moral matters and political matters. Yes, moral beliefs can influence certain political outcomes, But many, to include myself, have long believed abortion to be immoral and unrighteous, regardless of whether a vote is involved.

Philosophers mostly use logic to formulate and evaluate moral claims. Christian theologians use Scripture, and logic, to formulate and evaluate moral claims. All this kind of discussion precedes political application, and can be done without spinning political implications into  the discussion. (An exception to this might be utilitarianism.)

The statement It is morally wrong to kill innocent, defenseless human beings requires no support from political thinking. Moral judgments, such as Abortion is wrong, stand independently of political implications. 

I have, and will continue, to write against abortion because I believe it is wrong to kill innocent, defenseless human beings. Anyone who thinks such a philosophical and theological position is "political" simply does not understand the distinction.

***

Abortion - Links to Some of My Posts

(Bolles Harbor, Michigan)

(I'm reposting this to keep it in play.)

Someone (again) asked me about abortion. Here are some things I have written on this issue.

Briefly, the dialogue went like this.

Q: John, why are you against abortion?

A: Because I am against killing innocent, defenseless human beings.

More below!

Why I Am Against Abortion

Against Abortion: A Logical Argument

Against Abortion: More from Francis Beckwith

"Viability" Is Irrelevant to Personhood (and Abortion)

Statement on the New York State Abortion Law of 2019

Abortion and the "Whatever" In the Womb

Elective Abortion has Nothing to Do with Health Care

Christopher Hitchens Against Abortion

The "Handmaid's Tale" Argument for Abortion

A Scientific Argument Against Abortion

Eminem, Ed Sheeran, and the Pain of Abortion