If you have not yet read the lead article in the December Salt and Light about Christmas meaning, traditions, and memories written by some of the women of Riverwood, be sure and do so. It is a wonderful collection and you will be in turn amused, filled with joy, and inspired at these testimonies. You can access it on this site under “Ministries” and then “Newsletter.” Thanks to everyone who participated.
I guess true fans already know this, but Sufjan Stevens has released a 5-CD set of Christmas music.
You can listen to all five albums online (via streaming thru Quicktime) here:
http://www.asthmatickitty.com/sufxmas/sufxmas.php
Let the yuletide begin…
(Riverwood’s connection with Sufjan? Remember Vito Aiuto? Vito plays with Sufe’s band. And he also gave us permission to use a segment of his rendition of “Holy, Holy, Holy” for our podcast.)
Recently, someone sent me this link: http://www.sermonspice.com/listings/2/sermon-illustrations/
Basically, it’s an online version of a sermon illustration book—the bane of all diligent ministers. It has “powerful illustrations” indexed by topic and user rated for its heart-rending effectiveness. Once the perfect illustration, video, or movie is discovered, you simply add it to your virtual cart. Prices range from $15 to $89 (from what I perused).
There are many things wrong with this approach, but I will only highlight several
1) It prevents the minister from properly dividing the Word of Truth.
Instead or reading the Greek, Hebrew, commentaries, and other fine literature, I can just “click to download.” It doesn’t promote labor, good thinking, or habitual discipline.
2) Sermons are reduced to ear-candy
Sermons begin to be rated by their interesting stories, not by their truth-laden content.
3) Promotes sensationalism and emotionalism (read: manipulative)
User-rated responses highlighted the illustrations that evoked the most powerful emotive response. (Yes, illustrations can be emotional, but that cannot be their primary attribute for selection)
4) Promotes moralism through topicality
Since these illustrations are not tied to specific texts under examination, it easily leads to superficial, topical fluff, that is devoid of a broader (redemptive-historical) and specific (textual) contextual considerations.
5) A steady diet of fiction leads to sentimentality
Akin to email forwards that relay an emotional and/or fictional story, this leads well-meaning Christians down a road of the “unreal and fantastical.” Our faith should always be grounded in reality. Justification in the midst of the grit and pain of reality. It reminds me of the well-intended WWJD fad—based on a completely fictional book that “transformed an entire town” because they uttered, “What would Jesus do?” before every action.
Please comment on this site’s validity and worthwhile nature, because I might have written this during an excitable state of mind.
It never ceases to amaze me what passes for scholarship at universities today. Yes, apparently the next wave in victim-identity pseudo-studies is upon us, and it’s fat. The New York Times has a write- up that you can read here.
Honestly, I suppose it’s just easier to sit around and philosophize about why fat folks are mistreated in the world rather than to do the hard work of education and true scholarship. According to the Washington Post, only 31% of college graduates can read and process written information properly.
According to the Times, “Fat scholars believe they are serving justice and many hope that one day fat studies will be as ubiquitous on campus as Shakespeare.” But if the students can’t read and comprehend either, what difference will it make? The Times article provides the disturbing answer, from Professor Robert Bucholz, a history prof at Loyola University in Chicago:
There’s an element of trying to right the balance,” he said. “It’s time for the fat to receive their due.
So there you go. It’s not really about teaching or learning, it’s about the fat getting their due, which obviously does not include an education.
Intro
Every year around Thanksgiving, we hear pretty much the same thing, “We should be grateful for everything we have.” And, that statement is correct: We should be grateful for the abundance of blessings that we possess—if it’s wealth, health, or relationships. However, another question has always lingered in my head: Why is it increasingly more difficult to be thankful when we are faced with overwhelming and unprecedented material riches? Is it a spiritual deficiency? Are we too jaded and calloused to the varied exhibitions of leisure and entertainment? Or is it simply because we don’t pause and reflect enough? Well, most likely, it’s a little of all of those possibilities, but I think there is more beneath the surface.
Diminishing Marginal Return
The academic world of economics has described (in fancier terms) what Job’s friend, Zophar, describes in Job chapter twenty. As Zophar describes the behavior and eventual outcome of the wicked, he makes this comment in verse twenty:
“Because he [the wicked man] knew no contentment in his belly, he will not let anything in which he delights escape him.”
Unsatisfied and ungrateful, the wicked man chases every possible fancy and pleasurable pursuit, and, yet, the more he plunges headlong into hedonism, the more he is dissatisfied and, consequently, ungrateful. This, in turn, leads to an increased drive to quench his discontentment—and the ugly cycle continues. Increased pleasure-seeking yields less and less return. Economists refer to this as the Law of Diminishing Returns or Diminishing Marginal Return. These erudite terms describe the benefit that you will receive from each additional unit that is purchased or gained. Although I was unable to fully articulate this concept, I discovered Diminishing Marginal Return during high school. Since money was tight, I was only able to purchase one CD at a time. My third CD that I purchased was Tom Petty’s Full Moon Fever. (Right behind AC/DC’s The Razor’s Edge, and UB40’s Promises and Lies). I listened to it non-stop. I can still hum every song on that album. I appreciated that album. You might even say I was even “grateful” for that album. And then I got a job. Those early paychecks were spent rather quickly. In fact, I blew an entire paycheck at the music store—buying more than 20 CDs at once. Although those CDs were purchased for around $15, I wasn’t getting my $15 worth of enjoyment, because my time was limited. With each additional CD that I would subsequently buy, their individual worth was decreased, because I could not possibly listen to all of them during the course of a day, week, or month. The following principle emerges from this example: With every additional car, house, or toy that is acquired, their relative value (or “return”) decreases (or “diminishes”). We will experience less and less fulfillment from buying luxury items, because they can do less and less for us.
Value and Cost
Traditionally, scarcity has defined value—if something is rare, then it must be valuable (diamonds, for example). However, modern economists have updated that concept with, yet another term, “maximization.” Since time is scarce, there is a limited amount of hours to be given towards any certain activity. So “value” or “cost” becomes what you are willing to give up for what you really want. One can get more money by working harder, but it will also come at the expense of having less leisure time. One can eat more turkey, but it also means that you will eat less of the pumpkin pie. One can drive the Hummer, but it also means you will not be driving the Mercedes. Jimmy Hopper recently expressed this sentiment when he told me that he “doesn’t have any time to read inferior books.” That statement was neither snobbery nor moral restraint. He was simply saying that reading pulp would mean that he could not be reading excellent literature during the same time span. Inevitably, there are trade-offs. And so “value” or “cost” can be properly referred to as “opportunity costs”—or, what you would give up to get something.
Mundane Yet Fulfilling
Although paying our monthly bills is a boring (and, at times, depressing) task, we receive the most fulfillment and contentment when we spend our money on these things. According to a recent study, Americans feel the most “fulfilled” when they spend their money for the basics of survival: food, shelter, warmth, and clothing. Surprisingly, it was not an act of generosity, tithing, or as a result of hard labor that produced this gratification. However, this can be described using the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. The basics to survival have a high Marginal Return. We will trade an enormous amount of “money” or “opportunity cost” to insure that these things are in place. Miss a meal, forget your jacket, spend the night camping somewhere, or get a toothache—and these things become far more important than the paint-color in your living room.
Conclusion
Following this line of reasoning, it is not surprising (nor cliché) to hear what everyone is thankful for around the Thanksgiving holiday. The usual suspects make their appearance: nourishment, family, God, and clothes. At one time I would have thought that these would have been shallow responses. However, they powerfully demonstrate what people view as a high Marginal Benefit. Today, in the Tuscaloosa News (Tuesday, November 21, 2006, Section D, page 1), there was a column that highlighted a group of local junior high students. Each student was asked the perennial question: “What are you thankful for?” Almost to a person, the responses were identical: food, family, God, house, school, and clothes. Coincidence? No. Shallow? Another resounding “no.”
We are not discontented or ungrateful because we do not have, we are not thankful because we have too much. And if we are thankful, it is precisely because God has, indeed, supplied “our daily bread.”
Go here, click the link, and enjoy a good laugh.
Hat Tip to Herb Saunders.
This was brought to my attention by Mr. Corley Odom:
Check out www.monergism.com
This site has an amazing amount of free resources. (Sermons, eBooks, and reading material.) The speakers and authors who present “Reformed Calvinism,” are from many varied denominations— which makes it very appealing to those who are trying to evangelize thoroughly “Christian” coworkers, friends, and neighbors.
Leave it to a Presbyterian minister to take all the fun out of cursing. I realize that this discussion could possibly be quite volatile. But, again, leave it to a Presbyterian minister to coldly and systematically approach the subject.
Most importantly, as the Shorter Catechism (Q#2) reminds us, the Scriptures should be our only rule and appeal for the glorification and enjoyment of God. In other words, we should let Scripture guide our beliefs, not cultural mores or conventional sentiment. This is especially important when it comes to swearing and cursing—since it is not an issue where you find many moderates.
There are 5 basic groups [my personal arrangement only] of “swear/cuss” words that I will address. I have addressed them in the order of their severity (#1 being the worst offense).
1) Profanity There is actually only ONE form of true “profanity.” Profanity is to directly blaspheme or attack the Creator. Profanity is “to treat the sacred with abuse or irreverence.” Profanity demeans what is good, holy, and pure. This is done in many ways. For example: “Oh my G-d!” or “G-dd-mnit” or “Jesus Christ” (In a perjorative /exclamatory way) or “Jesus H. Christ.” And there are others. Many people do not realize that saying “Oh my God” is really much, much, worse than saying the “F-Bomb.” Profanity blatantly trivializes and dismisses our holy, powerful God as common and capable of defamation. In effect, profanity is “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” which is clearly laid out in the third of the 10 commandments. I have told many people that I would actually rather hear the “f-word,” than to hear the Lord’s name in vain. People do not understand the gravity of this sin. Instead of mocking or deriding the creation— they boldly and brazenly mock the Creator. Yet, you will hear this with greater frequency: “Oh my God!” And, yet, it does not carry the negative stigma across our social strata. The remaining categories are simply an intellectual discussion compared to this one. This one is non-negotiable. The ancient Hebrews referred to God as YHWH(Yahweh), and yet, in prayers, they referred to him as Adonai. With any other verbal reference to God they used “Jehovah,” (transposing the vowel pointings of Adonai over the vowel pointings YHWH) so that they would not even come close to violating the third commandment. Even in historical rabbinical literature and modern English, orthodox Jews will type “G-d” to show the greatest reverence for his name.
2) Cursing The biblical definition/and record of cursing is very clear: Cursing is the act of wishing ill fortune to come to the hearer. Job cursed the day he was born, and he also cursed the life of the person who told his parents that he had been born. (Job 3) Almost every single prophet was used by God to pronounce cursings on the people of Israel and also the alien outsiders/foreigners/invaders (eg. like Babylon, etc…) The biblical definition of cursing does not include swearing. Cursing is wholly limited to the calling out for bad things to descend upon the one being cursed. Also check out Prov. 26:2 “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, so a curse without cause does not alight.” In other words, there are times when cursing is fully godly and appropriate— if there is just cause. However, curses are meaningless if there is no real reason for you to utter them. Are we to believe that we must be holier than Job— the “most righteous man on earth?” Must we be cleaner than the bible itself and all of the prophets. That is being a Pharisee. (Making stronger rules to prevent from breaking the real ones.) Another word that must be inserted in this category is “d-mit.” Most likely, in its etymology there almost certainly is an implied “(‘God’)d-mit.” I would agree that frequent/undiscerning/loose use of this word is not advisable nor godly. However, there are times that the human soul finds proper expression of the longing and ache for the heavenly kingdom by this very utterance. What do I mean? Affected by the Fall, man AND creation are constantly falling apart. The works of man are always frustrated by imperfection and sin. Nothing will be perfect until Christ comes back again. And anything that is not perfect will not find a place within the future kingdom. One of my professors gave this example: If a chair that was poorly designed to accomplish what it should do (hold a person up), and then, the chair breaks, a possible response to that occurrence would be to say “d-nit!” Why? We are expressing that all bad things— even badly designed things should be dismissed from the heavenly kingdom. That badly designed chair has no place in the kingdom of God. However, due to ignorance and our own times of when our anger becomes sinful, the proper usage of this seems to be very rare. An additional caveat: God alone has the right to damn or to redeem, so it is imperative that we “damn” the things that God himself damns.
3) Swearing/Oaths This is probably the most misunderstood of all the biblical references to “swearing.” The biblical intent and definition of “swearing” is the act of taking an oath based on the validity and power of the one sworn by/to. We are commanded not to “swear” in God’s name. In other words, this is never appropriate: “I swear to God.” Why? Because you are making God culpable and responsible for the act that we are swearing to. This is not good. The bible also places “oaths” in this category. Unless vows/oaths/swearing are taking place within the context of accountability, then they are improper. In fact, our Book of Church Order views “oaths/vows” as one of the elements of worship. It happens every time we accept new members, perform a baptism, or ordain a new minister.
4) Perversion and Degradation This category is somewhat difficult to exhaustively explain, since there is an endless supply of sexual euphemisms available to the human language. However, this category represents all words that demean, belittle, pervert, or soil the created order, creation, and the beautiful acts of creation. Most often, it is a reference to sexual activity. Since this is an ordained and beautiful creation of God— it would be wise to not to treat these words lightly. I would include “hell” in this category, as well. An often ignored word is also in this category: “fool.” The Proverbs warn about the gravity of calling someone a “fool.” Sometimes, it is biblically warranted— but it shouldn’t be thrown around loosely, either. One other item might be mentioned here: it doesn’t take a “cuss word” for us to communicate hate or perversion. The most innocuous word could be used in a context of rage and perversion.
5) Linguistic inelegance/Rough language This final category can hardly be in the same discussion with the first 4 categories. But because of misunderstandings, I will include it. Dorothy Sayers(fellow Inkling with CS Lewis) writes that these words are “at worst, inelegance— no more.” This would include words like “-ss,” “sh-t,” “b-tch,” “b-stard,” and others….These words have been simply ascribed severity by their social context. There are other acceptable words that mean exactly the same thing. We MUST pay attention to what words mean— NOT what they sound like! Would you find it cute if I said “arse” or “butt” or “gluteus maximus” or “heiney” or “backside?” They all mean “-ss.” Someone once wrote this response to this assertion: “When used in a way that is meant to bring down people, or even to interject strong feeling, it is morally and biblically wrong.” I could not dissagree more with this sentence! Our friend has said that these words are morally and biblically wrong! Evidently she does not know her own Bible! Paul uses the word “scubelo” or “sh-t” in Philippians 3. But the NT is a kindergarten classroom compared to the OT. All of the major translators (RSV,NIV,NAS) have chosen to render “explicit” words with more amenable word choices. Are we cleaner than God’s holy word? NO. A thousand times no! These strong words were used for a reason! Are we to change them so they suit are social context? I know that this is merely an introduction, however, the serious OT scholar would want to investigate the scribal transmission of text (especially concentrating on the use of “Kethibh” and “Qere”(the actual text and the marginal notations of explicit material) Kethibh is the term used for the original uncorrected text which would remain in all copies of the Scriptures. Qere would be any marginal notation that would actually be the words used in public reading (to preserve decorum, we presume.)
The final thought: We reserve our mouths at times— not because the specific speech is intrinsically or spiritually “bad,” but, rather, through our propriety we are showing deference and respect to all of our weaker brothers and sisters. Similarly, we are preserving the witness of Christ to an unbelieving world who may misunderstand and associate these words with “anti-Christian” beliefs. It is my wish that we 1) regain awesome reverence for God’s name 2) respect those around us 3) and not attach improper moralistic restraints to words that are not truly profane, curses, or perverse.
Commence the firestorm.
This morning at 7 AM I was on the RiverWalk with two excited Shelties, walking northeast toward the morning directly beside the Warrior River. It was partly sunny, cool, and absolutely glorious; with the river running strongly to the southwest, the wind rippling it, and the trees in Fall colors. As is usually the case on Monday, I was considering the previous Sunday worship as I walked, since the walk has become an occasional prayer and devotion time. Because of the beautiful installation service on Sunday evening, there was a lot to consider.
Tim had preached in Philippians 3; “Expatriates in the Land of the Belly God,” and had spoken of Christians being set apart and living for different goals than those who lived for a materialistic filling of appetites. Dr. Kay preached from Mark 16 on Christ’s ascension, and on how our future, as God’s children, was being prepared for us even now by the Savior. Then Kevin Ball, in a remarkble few minutes, gave Tim and the Congregation their respective charge from Malachi 3. He spoke of the proud and arrogant, who spoke out against God and said that they had nothing to gain by worshipping Him and how they seemed to proper. He then spoke of the believers of his day who feared the Lord and who joined together to worship and honor Him. A “scroll of Rememberance” was made by them in the presence of the Lord. Of these, God said that He would make them His “treasured possession” in the day of judgment and that men would again see the difference “between those who serve God and those who don’t.” His charge was that when our church wasn’t perfect, Tim was to remember that we were God’s treasured possession; and that when Tim wasn’t perfect, the Church was to remember that he and his family were God’s treasured possession. Kevin’s charge and Tim’s sermon were on much the same theme and I contemplated this on my walk.
About that time, the wind rose and the tops of the trees began to move and we were suddenly standing in a rain of golden leaves as the wind loosened them and swirled them around us. The dogs stood looking, almost rapt, it seemed, at the beauty of the leaves falling around us with the sun shining through them in the woods by the river. I was certainly enraptured with this coming on thoughts of our worship.
It lasted several minutes, and when the wind died down again, I considered my estate, my status in the great scheme of things. God has given to me knowledge of Him; both in worship and in the river and the wind. He has given me a wife that I love, my very own “treasured possession.” He has given me children, godly friends, and a “family” in Him at Riverwood, a place that holds Him and His Gospel sacred and holy. But most of all, I know that I am His very own “treasured possession,” that the God of all things and all creation knows me and cherishes me; which is surely the most incredible fact in all of history. It is a high status indeed. Standing there, in that moment, I fully understood the peace Paul spoke of ” that transcends all understanding.”
I suppose that everyone is now aware that Saddam has been sentenced to death by hanging.
I noticed, though, that the President of the European Union has seen fit to condemn the death sentence. Now, that’s probably to be expected, but notice that it’s done without the slightest hint of the internal self-contradiction that it demonstrates.
Nowhere on earth does post-modern moral relativism reign more unchallenged than in Europe. Now, if a moral relativist were true to himself, he’d look at Saddam’s sentence and conclude that, since every value system is different, and none is either right or wrong, that the local Iraqi value system that allows for death by hanging must be respected and cannot be criticized. Yet, the EU does the exact opposite. They condemn the sentence of hanging. Why? Well, because they’re against it, of course. Get this, from the EU’s official statement:
The EU opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and it should not be carried out in this case either.
Is that a scream or what? It reminds me of the end of Animal Farm: “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
There is a prevailing thought in our society that one must be a pastor or employed by a ministry in order to help further the Kingdom. We often think that because we are not good public speakers, don’t have the gift of teaching, or are employed in the “secular” job market that we are inferior to those who spend their days in study and preaching. In response to this, I would like to explore some of the research I conducted this summer.
This summer I had the opportunity to serve in Cambridge, England, where I interned with Christian Heritage, a rather small ministry. Among my other duties, I was required to research some aspect of English Christian history and I chose Admiral Sir Charles Middleton, a naval administrator of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. While he did indeed do some pretty amazing things, such as giving Nelson his final instructions before the Battle of Trafalgar, arguably Middleton’s most important contributions came not because of his influential position as a naval administrator, but through his kindness and generosity to others.
I refer to his involvement in the abolitionist movement in Britain beginning in the 1780’s. One of the most influential things that he did in his entire lifetime was simply to open up his home to friends and strangers alike. Among the numerous guests of his house, Barham Court, were Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce. You will undoubtedly know who Wilberforce was, but Clarkson was just as important to the abolitionist movement (he is the one who produced those drawings of slaves packed in ships like sardines). Through simply opening up his home to these two gentlemen, Middleton helped influence all of Britain. For example, it was during one of Clarkson’s visits to Barham Court that he dedicated his life to the cause of slavery. Also, Middleton opened up his home to Wilberforce and his group of abolitionist friends when they were preparing for his first appeal to Parliament for legislation to end the slave trade (which, by the way, lasted three hours!).
During the four-decade long fight to end slavery, Wilberforce, Clarkson, and others used Middleton’s home for rest and planning. While Middleton made many more contributions to help end the slave trade, by opening up his home to others, he helped end an evil institution throughout the British Empire. We shouldn’t worry when we feel incapable of doing profound things for the Kingdom; it is through our weaknesses that the Lord often uses us. Furthermore, you never know how the Lord will use those “simple” things such as just opening up your home to others.
There’s a Bette Middler song by that title that suggests that God is merely watching what we’re doing down here on earth “from a distance.” (Bryan Bond, are you out there?)
Apparently, according to a recent Harris Poll, that’s the most prevalent belief among Americans about what God does. 44% agreed with that view, whereas only 29% believed that God controls events on Earth.
There are some other disturbing findings in the poll, reflecting the sorry state of the Church today. And though I think it’s indisputable that the Church is doing an abysmal job of educating its members (or even knowing what it stands for), and needs to do much, much, better, that’s really nothing new, is it? After all, the people God has chosen have always wandered. I’m reminded about God’s telling Hosea to go and take an adulterous wife (See Hosea 1) as an illustration of this.
It also reminds me of Jimmy’s excellent post yesterday. God really does choose the unlovely, low, and unexpected to be His, be it a tiny nothing of a planet in the vastness of the universe, or an unfaithful, wrong-headed, and disbelieving Church.