Books: “Through the River” by Jon and Mindy Hirst
November 25th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Through The River: Understanding Your Assumptions About Truth
Jon and Mindy Hirst, with Dr. Paul Hiebert
Colorado Springs: Authentic Books, 2009, 201 pp.
by Matthew Raley
This short book on epistemology will be useful to its intended audience, and, as with any book, potentially frustrating to others.
I take the intended audience to be evangelicals who hold a high view of the Bible, and who wrestle with how to engage the many perspectives in contemporary society. This audience wonders whether one can engage them at all with a high view of Scripture, or whether to believe the Bible is to opt out of today’s culture. Put another way, the question is whether one can engage without compromising truth.
The Hirsts, in their popularization of the late Dr. Paul Hiebert’s work, argue that truth remains an objective category. Truth really exists outside our own heads. They write (p 22), “Simply put, we know that God is truth. He is the Creator of all that is sure, all that is known, and all that is to be.” They add, “Our pursuit of truth may begin in ourselves, as we struggle with our finite humanity, but it ends in Christ.”
Knowledge of the truth, however, comes through a process. That process is not best conducted in debate, with systems built and defended, and competing systems attacked — one of the “truth lenses” the Hirsts describe. Nor is the truth found by isolating ourselves inside our own passions and priorities — a second lens. The process of knowing the truth is a collaborative one, in which we discover truth relationally through dialogue — a third lens, which Hiebert called “critical realism.”
In other words, evangelicals shouldn’t have a dilemma between engagement with diverse perspectives and truth. Rather, truth is learned through engagement.
The Hirsts expound this thesis using two stories, one about a river, another about a boat. Some readers will respond very well to this approach, though for me the narratives required too much explanation to be enlightening. But that is an issue of preference.
Many evangelicals need to encounter these ideas, and Through the River is a tool I will use. But those who think evangelicals should have ditched the Bible long ago, and who can’t understand why anyone should trouble herself over objective truth, will have little use for this book.
On Patriotism and the Christian Life
November 19th, 2009 § 3 Comments
by Matthew Raley
Put the words patriotism and evangelicalism in the same sentence and you conjure the stars and stripes waving on a massive screen behind a megachurch pastor — a use of symbols that I see as sentimental and dangerous.
I am reassessing the evangelical alliance with conservatives these days, seeking to find a theology of citizenship that is biblical. Covering various aspects of the conservative movement, we have surveyed the Bible’s teachings about the state, about work, property, and profit, and about the unity of generations.
Today, I examine the idea that our country deserves our honor and loyalty.
I am not in sympathy with the way this idea has been expressed in churches over the last decade.
In waving the flag next to the cross, we’re in danger of perpetuating two theological aberrations. One is that America is the New Jerusalem, or should’ve been, and that God gave an Israel-like benediction to our founding. The other is that, in order to advance Christ’s Kingdom on earth, we have to take political action. (Dominion theology advocates have been pretty cagey about this agenda as they’ve raised money from dispensationalists.)
Digital flag-waving at church is also egregious sentimentality. It stirs populist emotions by using images to evade questions. Typical mass media schlock.
But …
Patriotism belongs in the Christian life.
Consider the significant role that Jewish patriotism played in Paul’s trial speeches (Acts 22-26). Paul’s repeated emphasis on his good conscience as a Jew was not a rhetorical ploy, but a key point of honor.
The scene: Paul returns to Jerusalem after establishing churches around the Roman empire. He goes into the temple to keep a vow, and is spotted by Jews from Asia, who seize him and whip up a crowd (Acts 21.17-27).
The charge (Acts 21.28): “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
During the trials focusing on this charge, there are several ways Paul communicates that he is a faithful Jew.
Paul addresses the temple crowd in Aramaic, not Greek (21.40-22.2), a signal of identification that the crowd recognizes. In the Sanhedrin, he submits to the high priest, even though the priest is treating Paul unjustly (23.1-5).
Before the Roman governor Felix, Paul expresses the depth of his commitment to his nation in at least three statements: that he worships “the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the prophets” (24.14), that he went to Jerusalem “to bring alms to my nation” (24.17), and that the Jews found him “purified in the temple” (24.18).
When Paul arrives in Rome, having appealed to Caesar, he summons the local Jewish leaders to make his case (28.17-22). He states that he had “done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers.” Even though he was unjustly accused, Paul states that he has “no charge to bring against my nation.” He is imprisoned “because of the hope of Israel.”
Two observations about Paul’s example.
Paul might have found many reasons to disavow his nation, both theological and pragmatic. Had he been motivated by bitterness, he might have abused his people before the Romans. But he did none of these things, consistently identifying as a Jew, and doing so with evident devotion.
Further, Paul makes all these points before both Jewish and Gentile audiences because they concern his personal honor, and therefore the honor of Christ. A person cannot glorify Christ by being disloyal to his nation. Paul makes no pretense of having been liberated from such bonds.
Patriotism, biblically considered, is a species of humility and gratitude.
We will not bring honor to Christ by bashing our homeland. The fashionable self-hating American is only aping humility, being someone who benefits from freedom and wealth while decrying it. It is decadent and self-serving.
It is a blessing to be an American. Our freedoms are precious because, among other things, they secure a peaceful society. The heritage of laws we have received is a marvel. The dignity that comes with self-government is priceless.
I fear that because many evangelicals have embraced consumerism, mass media, and populism, we are not nurturing patriotism in churches, but merely engaging in rabble-rousing. Churches could go so much deeper in fostering citizens who serve their nation and glorify their eternal King.
And churches must.
Audio: The World Is Not Your Family
November 17th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Outside," Michal Rovner, 1991, Museum of Modern Art
In the upper room discourse, Jesus teaches his disciples about their conflict with the world. He is not abandoning them in a hostile environment and telling them to survive. As we see in this sermon, Jesus is calling them to participate with the Triune God in the new family of redeemed sinners.
Honor Your Father, Unless You’re At Church
November 12th, 2009 § 3 Comments
by Matthew Raley
The ten commandments get plenty of evangelical attention if they are engraved on courthouses. But tucked away in Exodus 20, not so much. The reason, I think, has to do with evangelicals’ informal hermeneutic: the parts of the Bible that are “culturally specific” do not apply today because “culture has changed.” Like other people with the issue of ethics, evangelicals preserve their wiggle-room.
So, some parts of the Decalogue fare better than others. The command against murder is still cited, as is the command against bearing false witness. The commands against coveting or breaking the Sabbath are usually ignored. The other commands receive lip-service, like the command against making idols, but only scant consideration.
The command to honor your father and your mother is in this last category. Groups of children are guaranteed to hear that they should obey their parents, and they will also hear Paul’s comment about an attached promise in Ephesians 6. But there’s a little detail you’ve probably never heard — just a bit of trivia, I suppose, but I find such arcane matters entertaining. The original audience for this command was composed chiefly of adults.
The idea was that every grown-up would honor his father, and not just while his father lived, but also in memory. In this way, children would be taught by example, not just homily, that an elder is to be treated with reverence, deference, and attention.
I bring this up because I’m thinking through the political alliance evangelicals have maintained with the conservative movement. I’ve noted that there are three strains that constitute the movement, and that each one needs fresh biblical evaluation so that evangelicals can reform their view of citizenship. We’ve looked at the Bible’s broad teaching about the state, and about the concern of the libertarian strain of conservatism for property, work, and profit.
A second strain of conservatism is traditionalist. As I’ve already written, these conservatives are primarily concerned with the preservation of inherited ways of life, and of the union of generations.
This kind of conservatism grew out of biblical soil.
Consider what it meant practically for an Israelite man to honor his parents. In the first place, the God his father and mother worshiped would remain his God. The fidelity his parents maintained — fidelity to God, to each other sexually, to truthfulness and the rights of others to their lives and property — he would continue to foster in his own heart and in the hearts of his children. Doing so, he would ensure “that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”
In other words, the command to honor father and mother is the command to pass on the Decalogue itself, and to reform practices that have departed from it, as an expression of familial loyalty. It is a command to guard the comprehensive inheritance you have received, materially and spiritually. It creates a society that measures itself from the past forward, not from the future backward.
There is no way to keep this command on the surface of your life. It can’t be done with postmodern irony. It can only be kept from the depths of your heart.
Further, this is not a “culturally specific” item that can be discarded. It is essential to the ethical world of the Bible. A society that has “outgrown” this command is a society we must defy.
Here’s what bothers me.
Evangelicals have devoted vast resources to political battles for conservative policies. They have poured money into state referenda, gaining majorities on councils, and electing candidates for national office, all with a rhetoric that calls for “traditional values.”
But if you look at the local churches evangelicals have built, you find no emphasis on honoring your father and your mother — the molten core of biblical civics.
Indeed, evangelical churches have transformed into youth-oriented, age-denigrating activity centers. Bill Hybels and his ilk have spent the last three decades railing against “dead traditions” and effacing the inheritance of symbols, songs, and doctrine from public worship. Most churches will not consider pastoral candidates over 50 anymore. I know a man in his 60s who has led international organizations, whose churches have grown, and who is wiser than ever, but whose resume cannot attract attention. The Christian psychology industry, when it is not busy advising divorce, is telling adults to cut off their parents.
In politics, traditional rhetoric. At church, wisdom-deleting practice. I am not denying the many complexities of staying flexible in a changing society, but the degree of evangelical refusal to pay honor to elders is hypocrisy — or lunacy.
For churches truly to advance traditionalism, they would have to teach and practice the 5th commandment. And that would turn their operations upside down. Instead of age-segregation, they would mix generations. Instead of dumbing down their preaching, they would restore accurate measures of greatness — the measures of biblical history, not youthful fantasy.
The Bible teaches that the ethics of the people rule the nation. And the fruits of evangelical rule are . . . ?
Audio: The Devil Is Your Enemy
November 10th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Temptation of St. Anthony," by Odilon Redon, 1896, Museum of Modern Art
The upper room discourse in John 13-16 feautures Jesus’ teaching about his adversary and ours. In this sermon, we survey various aspects of this doctrine, finding that Jesus does not describe a pesky gremlin determined to cause us problems, but a quite different level of malice.
The Bible, the Market, and the Meltdown
November 5th, 2009 § 4 Comments
by Matthew Raley
When I started this series on the evangelical alliance with political conservatism, I noted three questions to explore biblically. Evangelicals should act as citizens from a biblical framework, not an ideological one. So, does the Bible teach a worldview of citizenship that coheres with conservatism?
Last week, we surveyed the Bible’s view of the state in general, finding that government is set up by God for a nation’s justice and security, and that government must not control worship. The real governor of a nation is the ethic of the people, the way citizens live day-to-day.
In this context, the first of my questions is, “What does the Bible teach about work, property, and profit — the preoccupations of contemporary libertarianism?”
The Bible teaches that work is one of the most basic ways human beings glorify God. Proverbs 22.29 is typical: “Do you see a man skillful in his work? He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men.” Working skillfully to generate a return of abundance is at the heart of the mandate God gave human beings in the beginning (Genesis 1.28; 2.5-15).
Laziness is condemned, sometimes in comical terms, as in Proverbs 26.13-16. “As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed. The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth.” In Proverbs 24.30-34 the wise man passes by the field of a sluggard, “and behold, it was all overgrown with thorns; the ground was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down.”
The Bible teaches at length about caring for the poor, but it always calls for work as an expression of their dignity. For instance, farmers were to leave the corners of their field unharvested so that the poor could glean what they needed (e.g. Ruth 2). This perspective continues in the New Testament, as in 2 Thessalonians 3.6-12, where Paul commands, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”
I was struck by PBS’s American Experience this week, which told the story of the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt envisioned building up a generation of young men through hard work, a vision that came from a biblically formed worldview. Anything like the CCC today would be viewed as heinous cruelty because our concept of work is messed-up.
The Bible’s teaching on property is summed up in the 8th commandment (Exodus 20.15): “You shall not steal.” The words of Proverbs 22.28 are frequently repeated: “Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.” (Note the cross-references.) The act of taking property is, in biblical terms, one of the lowest forms of wickedness. A key proof of King Ahab’s villainy, for instance, is his seizure of a vineyard (1 Kings 21).
Indeed, it’s not too much to say that the entire law of Moses is founded on the distinction between Mine and Not-Mine.
We have a society today in which we call things Mine when they are purchased with unsecured debt, and in which asset-backed notes can back other notes (which the Bible would call fraud, since the same surety backs two debts). We have a messed-up concept of property.
One of the best places to see the Bible’s teaching on profit is Proverbs 31.10-31, a description of the wise woman. She works hard, directs laborers, trades goods, manages and expands the family’s properties, and makes a clear profit. Her life is ennobling, both for herself and her community.
The Bible puts limits on the profit motive by making a distinction between work and exploitation. The 4th commandment about the Sabbath, or ceasing, applied to all servants and animals, not just masters, on the seventh day of every week (Exodus 20.8-11). Every seventh year there was a Sabbath for the land (Leviticus 25.1-22). There were also strong protections against the exploitation of the powerless in the law, comprehended in Proverbs 28.8.
Two observations about all of this.
First, the Bible’s concept of civil rights is strong, but is not founded on abstractions. It is tied tangibly to work, property, and profit. This is the most fundamental problem between the Bible and the political left, which abstracts a growing list of entitlements based on nothing but egalitarian rhetoric. This is great for the lawyers, and promises to get even better. But it has nothing to do with the biblical concept of justice.
Second, the tendency of libertarianism to see the profit motive as the cure for all social problems often produces exploitation, which the Bible calls sin. No state can overlook exploitation without destroying civil society.
What does all this have to do with last year’s financial meltdown?
Just this: no legislature passed a law saying American households had to run up unsecured debts, deplete what little equity they had by refinancing their mortgages, and bet on ever-escalating home prices to make them rich in retirement. The American people themselves did this because their degraded ethics of work and property left them with an exploitative view of profit.
The Bible’s view of national life is accurate: the ethics of the people rule.
Audio: The Spirit Is Your Helper
November 4th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Studies," Annibale Carracci, Metropolitan Museum of Art
In this sermon we survey Jesus’ teaching about the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Our continual reaching for God through mysticism can come to an end with Jesus’ doctrine. God has already reached us.
