Every Statement Marginalizes Someone

(Flowers in our front yard)

I believe the following propositions (i.e. 'statements') are true:

1 - God exists.

2 - Jesus is God incarnate.

3 - The only way to God is through Jesus (Jesus is, e.g., "the door").

My beliefs marginalize many people. 

Proposition 1 (P1) marginalizes atheists. 

P2 marginalizes atheists, Muslims, and most Jews. 

P3 marginalizes all non-Christians and even some Christians who deny the truth of P3.

Such is the nature of truth. Truth-claims marginalize. "Truth," whatever it is (e.g., as a property of statements), is not all-inclusive. (I'm now reading philosopher Simon Blackburn's book Truth: A Guide.) 

Here is something that shocks most of my logic students, because they are so postmodern-relativistic: If a proposition (statement) is true, it is true for everyone. 

To illustrate: Consider the statement The lights in this room are on. If it is true, it's true for everyone, everywhere, cross-temporally. If someone thinks this statement is false (while it is true), then they are wrong. 

But aren't some things "true for me" but "false for you?" For example: For me, it is false that God exists. But this statement, if true, is true for everyone; viz., X thinks it is false that God exists. If that is true, then it's true for everyone. 

Note what is not being claimed here; viz., It is false that God exists. That's an entirely different proposition. And, if it is true, it is true for everyone. On the "subjectivist fallacy" see the text I use to teach logic - The Power of Critical Thinking, by Lewis Vaughn; Chapter 3.)

All persons have a worldview, a belief system. One's beliefs can be articulated in a series of statements. The beliefs of other people sometimes marginalize me, when I think they are false. 

Consider these three beliefs (propositions):

4 - God does not exist.

5 - Jesus is not God incarnate.

6 - There are many ways to God.

P4 marginalizes all theists, such as myself. 

P5 marginalizes most Jesus-followers. 

P6 marginalizes Christian exclusivists such as myself. (See here Alvin Plantinga's essay "Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism," Found in Louis Pojman's Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology.)

To say that P4, P5, and P6 "marginalize" me is to say they do not include me. I am outside the margins of any worldview that believes P4, P5, and P6. 

P6 may sound inclusive, but it is not. I am not included in the inner circle of P6-ers, because I believe P6 to be false. 

If P6 is good news to some, it is not good news to me, and I am not included in the celebration. (I think P6 is untenable for reasons that, e.g., Stephen Prothero gives in his book God Is Not One.)

Every proposition has a certain level of arrogance attached to it. Consider, e.g., the following:

7 - I am now writing this sentence.

P7 is, I believe, true. Or, a moment ago, P7 was true, but now P7 is false. But still,  P7's truth was only probable, and someone could reasonably believe it was false. Nonetheless, P7's arrogance-level seems to me to be low. Which means that most would accept P7 as having been true a moment ago.

Now try this:

8 - One should never try to convert others to one's own way of thinking.

P8 seems to have a high arrogance-level. Because P8 is itself a way of thinking that is being forced on someone like me who thinks P8 to be inherently false. P8 functions for me in the same way that P3 functions for others. P8-ers are trying to convert me.

Let me try one more.

9 - Christian theists like Piippo think they are right and that people who disagree with them are wrong.

Of course. But so what? That is the nature of propositional thinking. 

A proposition is a sentence that is either true or false. In logic, there's no "true for me" stuff (i.e., don't commit the "subjectivist fallacy"). Every proposition contains a level of epistemic arrogance that necessarily marginalizes those who dissent.

This is unavoidable. 

Every proposition marginalizes. 

Every belief that engages you disengages someone else. 

Every belief disinvites someone to the party.

A Fool Scoffs and Mocks Others

 

A Fool Scoffs and Mocks Others

 

                    (It's going to be 80 today. I thought I'd post a winter scene. Bolles Harbor.)

I'm using Tim Keller's devotional book on Proverbs. It's excellent. Like Proverbs, it's relevant and applicable.

Here is one of the entries, in its entirety. 

If a wise person goes to court with a fool, 

the fool rages and scoffs, 

and there is no peace. 

(29:9) 

CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES. Fools rage or, we would say, “rant.” They scoff and mock their opponents, rather than making an argument or a case. Ranters and scoffers do not persuade or build bridges They merely “energize the base”—that is, they preach to those who already agree with them and confirm the views and biases people already have. Today this is the main form of public discourse. 

The realism of this proverb shows that sometimes engaging a ranter is unavoidable. We are told to expect a long and painful process. But we must enter it maintaining other commitments, such as not despising the ranter (July 25) and always treating people respectfully (May 10). We are never to do to the ranter what the ranter is trying to do to us—to marginalize and demonize rather than convince. In the New Testament we are directed to, as much as it is within our control, live at peace with the people around us (Romans 12:18), even those who rage and scoff. 

Do you rant? Do you enjoy reading or listening to ranters?

Prayer: Lord Jesus, you answered your opponents wisely and brilliantly but patiently and constantly. How I want to give back to my critics—with verve—the same disdain they show me. But I want to be like you, not them. Change my heart to make it so. Amen.

(Tim Keller, Kathy Keller. God's Wisdom for Navigating Life: A Year of Daily Devotions in the Book of Proverbs.)

The Differences Between American Christianity and Biblical Christianity

 

 

(Sea of Galilee, Israel)

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

***

From Joseph Mattera's "13 Contrasts Between American and Biblical Christianity." The differences are:

1. American Christianity focuses on individual destiny. The Bible focuses on corporate vision and destiny. Correct. It's the tribe, the community, and less the individual. American churchianity is individuated. Note that the apostle Paul's use of the pronoun "you" is overwhelmingly plural.
2. American Christianity focuses on individual prosperity. The Bible focuses on stewardship. "Much American preaching today focuses on "our rights in Christ" to be blessed. However, in Scripture the emphasis regarding finances has to do with being blessed by God in order to be a blessing by bringing God's covenant to the Earth (Read Deut. 8:18; 2 Cor. 9:10-11). Jesus promised material blessing only in the context of seeking first His Kingdom (Matt. 6:33)."
3.  American Christianity focuses on self-fulfillment and happiness. The Bible focuses on glorifying God and serving humanity. In contrast to the Bible "much of the focus from the American pulpit has to do with individual fulfillment and satisfaction."
4. American Christianity appeals to using faith to attain stability and comfort. The Bible encourages believers to risk life and limb to advance the Kingdom. Read Hebrews 11, THE premier biblical text on the meaning of "faith," the kind of faith that, without which, it is impossible to please God.
5. American Christianity usually focuses on individual salvation. The Bible deals with individual and systemic redemption.
6. The American apologetic focuses on human reason. The Bible's apologetic focuses on the power of God and experience. "If the foundation of your faith is human reason, then the first person that has more knowledge than you in science could talk you out of being a Christ-follower. Truly, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not human reason (Prov. 9:10; 1 Cor. 1:17-23)." BTW - anyone who reads apologists like Bill Craig and J.P. Moreland (and even myself), and thinks our interest in rationally defending our faith is about the primacy of human reason over the God-encounter, has misunderstood us.
7. American believers have a consumerist mentality regarding a home church. The biblical emphasis is being equipped for the ministry. See here, and here. Mattera notes: "Americans shop for a church today based on what meets their personal and family needs the best. It is almost like a supermarket mentality of one-stop shopping." The Consumer Church, as Eugene Peterson has said, is an Antichrist Church.
8. American Christianity promotes a culture of entertainment. The Bible promotes the pursuit of God. See here.    
9. American Christianity depends upon services within a building. The biblical model promotes a lifestyle of worship, community and Christ following. Mattera writes: "Most of the miracles in the book of Acts and the gospels took place outside a building in the context of people's homes and in the marketplace. In Acts 2 and 4, the churches met house-to-house, not just in the temple. The man at the gate was healed before he went into the temple (Acts 3), which caused an even greater revival to take place."
10. American Christianity is about efficiency. The biblical model is about effectiveness. "Often, the American church is modeled more after the secular corporate model rather than the biblical model. The church is not an organization, but an organism that should be organized!"
11. In American Christianity the pastor is elected. In the biblical model God calls the pastor. 
12. In American Christianity the individual interprets the Bible. In the New Testament the hermeneutical community interprets the Bible.
13. American Christianity trains its leaders in Bible colleges. Biblical Christianity nurtures leaders through personal mentoring. "Biblically, leaders were not sent outside of the context of a local church to be trained for the ministry. They were nurtured personally in the context of congregational life by church leaders acting as mentors (as the Apostle Paul did with Timothy; as Aquila and Priscilla did with Apollos in Acts 19; and as Barnabas did with John Mark in Acts 15)."

This is going to be a tough one. Most people won't want the biblical model. They won't recognize it. 

Pastors - if you transition from the American Church to the Biblical Church you will lose some people, and gain some disciples.

Why Pray, If God Already Knows What I Am Going to Pray?

 

                                      (Green Lake Christian Conference Center, Wisconsin)

If God already knows what I am going to pray before I pray it, why do so? 

Because: This is about a relationship, not a religious ritual. 

Think of a loving parent who already knows what their child is going to say, and allows them to say it without interrupting. This is about us, being real and authentic, in that relationship. 

Like a loving parent is proud of their child’s transparency before them. 

“We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us,” wrote C. S. Lewis. 

To put it another way, we must trust God with what God already knows.

As you pray, you can trust God with what he already knows.

(From my book Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God, pp. 303-304.)

Teaching Spiritual Formation at Payne Theological Seminary for Nine Weeks

 

Beginning July 27 and ending October 2, on Zoom, I will again teach my Spiritual Formation class to Payne Theological Seminary (A.M.E.) M.Div. students. Here are some photos of Payne and my former students. I love these people!

The Presence of God Is Disconnected from Performance

 

                                                        (Cancun)

Do not mistake the presence of God for performance.

It has nothing to do with entertainment.

Instead of an audience voting thumbs up or thumbs down on what they thought of the church “service,” faces and thumbs are on the ground before our holy God.

Our people don’t need great sermons or great music; they need a great God. 

Thinking and learning about God is vital, but the idea all along has been “Emmanuel,” God with us.

A. W. Tozer expresses this when he asserts: “The presence of God is more important than the program.” - A. W. Tozer

As Leonard Ravenhill said, “You can have all of your doctrines right—yet still not have the presence of God.”

It’s true that God’s presence can be mediated through preaching and worship. But, as people leave the sanctuary on a Sunday morning, we know the real thing has happened if they say, not, “What great preaching,” and not, “What an awesome worship band,” but rather, “What a great God!”

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.”

15 MINUTES with Psalm 23 and God

 

15 MINUTES with Psalm 23 and God

- John Piippo, PhD

This exercise is at the heart of what I teach pastors and leaders and seminary students. If we have more time, I ask them to spend an hour with God and Ps. 23.

This shortened version could work as a small group exercise. Or, for a leader's meeting or committee meeting. 

THE INSTRUCTIONS

Take a minute to prepare to meet with God. Put your cell phone and any other distractions away.

Use Psalm 23 for your meditation. Biblically, to meditate is to ponder something. Meditation is repetitive. Meditate on Ps. 23 for 15 minutes.

During this time, keep a spiritual journal. A spiritual journal is a record of God’s voice and activity in your life. When God speaks to you about you, write it down. (On the other side of this paper.)

If your mind wanders, it will wander towards something like a burden. Write down where it wanders to. “Cast your burdens on Him, for He cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:7)

 

When the 15 minutes are over, ask the group: Is there anyone who would share what God said to you during this time?

PSALM 23

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
² He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside still waters.
³ He restores my soul;
He leads me in paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.

⁴ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

⁵ You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil, My cup overflows.
⁶ Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Anthropic Non-Progressivism

 

 

In technology, in medicine, in the sciences, humanity has progressed. For example, when I was in grad school at Northwestern University, I bought a refurbished IBM Selectric typewriter for $900. This thing was heavy enough to do serious medieval damage to anything it was launched at. My dissertation was 450 pages long. If I had to edit something on page 20, guess what I had to do. I typed and re-typed and re-typed my doctoral dissertation on this thing which, at the time, was state of the art.  Thankfully, at this moment, I am writing this post on my Asus laptop computer. 

That's technological progress. But humanity, as a whole, has not morally and spiritually progressed. I am calling this anthropic non-progressivism. Here's an example from Walter Rauschenbusch's Christianity and the Social Crisis. He writes,

"History is never antiquated, because humanity is always fundamentally the same. It is always hungry for bread, sweaty with labor, struggling to wrest from nature and hostile men enough to feed its children. The welfare of the mass is always at odds with the selfish force of the strong. The exodus of the Roman plebeians and the Pennsylvania coal strike, the agrarian agitation of the Gracchi and the rising of the Russian peasants—it is all the same tragic human life.

(Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church, p. 1.) 

Hebrews 6:4-6

 

I'm preaching, on May 17, at Redeemer, on Galatians 6:4-6.

You can listen to my message here.

Here are a few resources to dig deeper.

Craig Keener article - Once-Saved-Always-Saved? Maybe not - Bible Backgrounds

Craig Keener two minute video - Different Views of Hebrews 6:4-6

John Piper - 7 minute video - Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?

Ben Witherington - John Piippo: Ben Witherington on Eternal Security

William Lane Craig - 20 minute video - Can We Lose Salvation? | Doctrine of Salvation pt 21: Assessment of Perseverance || Defenders LIVE!

Al Mohler - 7 minute video - (1) Video | Facebook

Greg Boyd - Free For All Q&A - Can I lose my salvation?

Book - Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews: Bateman IV, Herbert W.: 9780825421327: Amazon.com: Books

In Praise of Purity

"How little people know who think that holiness is dull. When one meets the real thing (and perhaps, like you, I have met it only once) it is irresistible." 

- C.S. Lewis, in Letters to an American Lady

(I'm re-posting this for a friend who is choosing sexual purity.) 


Linda and I have counseled premarriages and marriages for decades, and have many stories of couples who waited to have sex until they were married. Linda and I waited, too. This helped secure a foundation of trust to build our relationship on.

Here is one story about relational purity. It's an example of the beauty of holiness.

A few years ago Linda and I did premarital counseling with an engaged couple. We use the FOCCUS premarital inventory. It's so well-put-together, giving us an MRI of the relationship. It asks all the questions related to issues we want to get into. Most couples enjoy taking the inventory, and end up talking about a number of important things they have not yet thought of.

Jason and Andrea had known each other for many years. They dated for several years. She was working on a graduate degree, and he managed a business. The FOCCUS survey led us to talk about sex.

"Have you had sex together?" we asked them.

"Neither of us have ever had sexual intercourse or come close to it," they responded in unison. Andrea said, "When Jason told me he loved me and was interested in pursuing marriage, I immediately told him, 'There's no way I'm having sex before I get married.'"

"How did Jason respond to this?"

"He respected me for it," said Andrea, "and never has pressed himself on me."

Jason added, "It's not always been easy, because I love Andrea and look forward to sex in marriage. But I agree with her. God wants us to wait, and we are waiting."

I stopped.

I was stunned.

This was a holy moment.

Jason and Andrea are two attractive, intelligent, and successful people with great futures. Yes, they are Jesus-followers, but many Jesus-followers who get married have premarital sex because "they can't wait." 

I don't wish to judge them for that. Yet, I want to bow before Jason and Andrea and do a little worship! Who are these rare, unusual people who take the road less traveled and delay gratification? Especially in our sex-addicted culture where sex is used to sell everything from hamburgers to vacuum cleaners.

We told Jason and Andrea that we were proud of them. Delayed sexual gratification displays self-control and breeds trust.

Linda and I abstained. In my abstinence I was not some religious legalist. I was so screwed up sexually that I just wanted God to heal the garbage of my heart so that, should I marry, I would not infect my life partner and children. When I told Linda I would not be asking her to have sex with me, I asked how this made her feel. She said, "Safe." I didn't love her only for her physical beauty. I wanted her heart. The two are different.

While dating, I waited several months before I kissed her. I will never forget that kiss! We were walking in a park, and it began to lightly rain. A little voice told me, "It is time!" I asked for her permission. She said yes. That kiss lasted only one second, but mega-volts of lightning came through her lips! From then until we got married we kissed only occasionally, and then only for a second or two. Our love and trust and respect only grew. This was wild and unbelievable to me, a former drug-alcohol-fraternity-sex-womanizer. A foundation of faithfulness was being laid from which we have never diverted (for forty-six years).

I don't see that often. When I sat in my office with Jason and Andrea, I got those feelings that have to do with my understanding of real, deep, growing Jesus-love that lasts a lifetime. Because Jason and Andrea have no history of sexual partners and have not sex-partnered with each other, I predict they will stay faithful to one another. They are disease-free, physically and spiritually. In this they are...  pure.

The odds are greatly in their favor. Their children will be blessed. They will pass marital fidelity to their kids. And maybe a couple of children whose parents are named Jason and Andrea will lead the counter-revolution to purity?