Plymothian

I think of good Bible teaching as building a reference system.  The Bible is studied systematically and in its entirety from the cradle to the grave.  It forms a filing cabinet of all the scenarios that God deals with and the truth God gives us for each situation we could ever encounter.  We learn to pull the right text for the right challenge in life.

Now, how extensive is your filing cabinet?  Have you built an understanding of each book and why it is there for you?  Do you make one small file of 1 Corinthians 13 or Romans 8 fit all of life’s trials?  If someone came to you and was putting belief in angels before God, which passages would you turn to?

The problem is that people are biblically illiterate.  They do not know much of the Bible anymore and try to misapply verses where they don’t fit, just to make it through.  Each section of the Bible was given to us for a different reason.  There are thousands of principles to be drawn from the text that transcend time. 

Also, the Bible is a unified whole.  The cabinet makes more sense the more complete it is.  Just using one file on its own doesn’t make sense unless it is placed alongside other files.  For example, standing for ‘truth in the face of adversity’ needs to be matched with ‘unity in the face of adversity’.  It seems that many in North America have their standing for truth file in place, but they don’t have their unity file.

What are you going to do to develop your filing cabinet?

It seems like we don’t value the Bible much in Christian practice.  It’s lost its place as the source of what we do and become a reference book that we refer to when we’re done.  Our Bible curriculum in schools reflects this and the way we teach in churches reflects this.

The Bible curriculum in schools is being influenced by the mindset of starting with the child instead of God.  We also start with ideas that the child should know.  Bible curriculum starts with brainstorming sessions where a publishing group will decide what values the children should be taught, or what topics might be interesting or novel.  It is truly novel today to find a Bible curriculum that goes to the Bible and lets it communicate the message that God originally communicated using the words on the page.

Firstly, the King James Only crowd find themselves with a Bible that no-one before twelfth grade can understand and no-one after twelfth grade cares to understand.  When writing a Bible curriculum with the King James too little of the Bible is included for it to truly be a Bible study.  Age appropriate Bibles are needed in putting together a curriculum which encourages children to get into the text.  The NIV is at an eighth grade reading level and we use that for kindergarten.  Choosing a simplified translation like the NIrV for third grade allows the children to get into the text.  However, even when we have an age apropriate translation, the children do not look at the text and draw the meaning from (FROM!) the Bible.  In other words, Bible curriculum does not teach kids to reverence their Bibles and use them properly.

As I stated above, the writers of curriculum often start with topics and ideas.  This bypasses the proper use of the Bible as a standard of development.  The Bible verses are added later so that the use of the Bible is more like a dictionary or encyclopedia rather than as the narrative/historical/poetical book it is.  Kids might learn a verse, but they do not learn the concepts behind the verses because that only comes with context.  Or they read a story and it has an alien main idea because the writer of the curriculum started their thought process with the idea rather than the Biblical text. Memory verses are notoriously in conflict with the message that is being taught.  Sometimes they are chosen from a random place in the Bible because they have a vague reference to the idea or word that the writer is trying to get across.

In summary, the Bible curriculum that is written today starts with the mind of the writer and not with the mind of God.  If we believe that the text is inspired we should get the kids into dynamic Bible study where THEY draw the meaning from the TEXT.  We as teachers can then validate their perceptions as to whether they conform with what the original author was really trying to say to the original audience. 

What do you think?

As an objection to Christian education, I hear that parents want their children to be salt and light in the public schools.  In Matthew 5 Jesus tells his audience to be involved in the world so that the salt and light is clearly seen.  When they see your good works, says Jesus, they will praise God. 

The assumption of Christian parents is that they have Christian children who are able to carry this out.  Jesus is obviously addressing people who have reached spiritual maturity.  What I see is the thrusting of children into the public sphere before they are disciples.  They are not salt and light because they haven’t got the maturity. 

Of course, mature Christians should redeem the public schools and make them the Christian bastions of truth that they once were.  However, before leaping into public education ask yourself whether the one being thrusted actually IS salt and light.  If the child is mature enough to shine, if the adult is truly a disciple, there is a case for letting their light shine before men so that they may see the good works and praise their father in heaven.  If the child is still just that, a child, do not be surprised when the good intentions backfire and the child falls away through an internal conflict that was never anticipated. 

There is no neutral instruction.  When is a child salt and light enough to counter the hedonism, naturalism, postmodernism and nihilism that they will receive?

Why should God prove himself?  Is it really true that God is under some kind of obligation to make himself known?  In what ways might a person be satisfied?  Jesus pointed out that we have accurate accounts of Moses and the prophets, but many in Israel only gave verbal assent to God whilst really continuing in unbelief.  The Bible offers us the book of John as an account “written so that you may believe.”

A friend of mine sent me an entry from H_loves_C blog where he posted a gravestone which read,

He goes on to say how it is up to religious people to provide proof for their belief.  He knows that we have many proofs that we use, the biblical accounts, design, etc.  but dismisses them all.  H_loves_C rails that Christians are mindless and afraid.  We don’t engage with Nietzsche, he accuses, all the arguments with God are long since exploded and so Christians have no reason to believe.  I have read Nihilistic authors, Naturalistic authors, Pluralistic authors …

I have argued a lot with people who discard the Bible as a flawed book, full of contradictions and errors.  There are some manuscript difficulties, we do not actually have the original autographs, it’s possible some people have added a word or two here or there over the years.  It contains accounts of some pretty strange things, but that is why it was written.  In its entirety it is an amazing historical document.  It reveals the works of a creator in sustaining and shaping the life of a living planet.  The understanding of the human authors is evidence of an inspiration beyond themselves.  I know that there are arguments against this.  They are largely inductive, stating something along the lines that ‘miracles don’t happen, so these stories are myth or plain fabrication.”  Rejecting the books of the Bible makes sense, but it just means that you don’t believe the evidence that God has chosen to reveal.  Why are people so proud that they insist God do miracles just for them?  The very idea of a miracle is that it is an uncommon sign from God.  If miracles happened with regularity and we all witnessed them, they would not be miracles.  They would cease to be indicators discernable as a special work of God.  They would just be indicators of His daily provision.

Nature does talk of a God.  The irreducable complexity of the eye is a hard one.  The order of the universe at large requires a cause that is not chaotic.  If we have a bang at the beginning, it must have been a very orderly bang.  As Moreland says, a Big Bang needs a Big Banger. 

Then H_loves_C goes on to say how dull the argument for the uncaused cause is.  I am sure that I would pause a little before accusing minds such as Aristotle of being dull.  You can have infinite regression in a material universe.  You can have no first cause – why then does the universe expand?  We believe in a God who flung stars into space … we see a purpose in the motion.  Objections through the centuries have been many – ‘why not a council of Gods?’  There is a unity in design that comes from a mind that has diversity and unity.  Yes, Christians do not think this deeply, and they should.  I know that we could go deeper again.

However, H_loves_C will not be swayed by a judicial presentation by God of reasons to believe.  God does not force the issue.  He is under no obligation.  It is a damned human being who shakes his fist at God and says,”You must show yourself to me.  You must reveal yourself in a way that science can accept.”  Of course, God has shown himself in and through the arena of science.  It is just that the godless say, “Ah!  There, it’s just science.”  We say, “Ah!  There, it’s all theology.”

Jesus Is Our Model Teacher

Jesus is our example of the perfect teacher.  Jesus taught the truth in many ways.  He told parables and used allegory to illustrate deep truths (Luke 15: 1-7).  Jesus entered into dialog with his disciples using questions like, “Who do people say I am?” (Mark 8: 27).  Jesus gave practical, hands-on experience when he sent his disciples out to put into practice what they had learned (Luke 9:2).  Jesus gave structured lectures like the Sermon on the Mount.  Most importantly, Jesus modeled behavior by living a life on earth devoted to the Father (John 1:14).  Following Jesus’ example, teachers at a Christian school should use a variety of teaching methods to reach children of varying learning styles.  We should use stories, audio-visuals, and modern technology to illustrate the truth we are teaching.  We must enter into debate with children to encourage them to think through the truth that they have received. We must give practical, hands-on experiences through workstations, field trips and classroom workshops.  Teachers should value structure and communicate through lecture at various times.  However, the most distinguishing factor of a good Christian school is the life modeled by its faculty.  Teachers walk in the Spirit before the children and are open to the Spirit for teachable moments (Romans 8:5).  A ‘teachable moment’ is the use of an unexpected event in the day to teach truth.

The following editorial was published in the Chicago tribune on November 29th.  John Kass explains that the reasons given for excluding advertising for The Nativity Story at the Christkindlmarket in Chicago:

I see a parallel between AC Grayling’s insistence (see article below) that Christians take their private beliefs out of the public sphere and what is happening here.  Do you see it, too?

Shh!  Don’t tell my mother, but I am planning to use her in an experiment with students at Northwest Christian Academy in Lake Zurich, Illinois. She’s coming to Chicago from Plymouth, UK this Thursday and I’m very excited. 

The experiment will involve working in collaboration with the students in one of the older grades to form rules for the two days that I will substitute there.  My mother, who is visiting America, will accompany me.  When the students have finished making the rules they must decide on the consequences.  I will try not to edit this process, especially since the students tend to be harder on each other than adults might be on them.

After we have rules and consequences, I will announce that my mother (because of her love for the students and the school) will take on herself all of the punishment that any child deserves.  The only condition on my mother’s taking the punishment is that the child appears to be sorry for what they have done.  It will be important to present that this is not a joke.  We will arrange something for the evening with my mother, like a trip to the Oberweis Ice-Cream parlour, that she will not get to do if she receives a phone call home.

Students can not mess around to get my mother in trouble.  That is a violation of her grace and shows no repentance on their part.  Students can not insist on taking the punishment on themselves.  This is a lesson on grace and not just punishment.

After two days of this, the students and I will debrief about what they have learned.  Hopefully we will be able to see something of the power of grace.  Too many Christian schools are typified by rules, legalism, stricture.  I want to see Christian children who know what it is to extend the grace that they have received.

Why Comcast chose a Buddhist Monk instead of a Christian Priest.

Embracing the Core Values of Comcast

Our company, reputation, and true success are founded on the following core values:

• Ethics – We will be true to the highest standards of honesty, fairness, and integrity.
• Quality – We will commit ourselves to excellence in our products and personal relationships.
• Diversity – We will respect and reflect the customers, communities, and cultures we serve.
• Employee Focus – We will invest in people with the belief that our company can only be as strong as its workforce.
• Flexibility – We will maintain our ability to adapt to an ever-changing world.
• Enthusiasm – We will work with an unbridled passion for our business.  (Comcast.com)

So, reading this, are these values that we can embrace?  I believe these are values that are compatible with Christianity and I would promote their use in a Christian company.

So, why does Comcast use a Buddhist Monk in its advertising to show the wisdom of choosing Comcast?  Are Christians known for the values above?  Are Buddhists more cool?  Are they known more for the values above?  I would argue that Christians value honesty, but that Buddhists are seen as having nothing to lose by being honest.  North American Christians would lose a lot if they were completely honest about what they do with their taxes, with how real they are with each other on a Sunday (Attending churches based on anonymity with little introspection).  Haggard is not a model for the honesty in Christianity, but he is well known.

What about fairness?  On a national scale, in the USA, Christians are known for making sure that our kids get the best medicine, schooling, and best paying jobs.  Evangelicals are known for trying to take away wellfare.  We are known for a patriotism that places America first.  Buddhists aren’t known for that.  Although the ying-yang is Daoist, we tend to equate that symbol of balance with all far-eastern faiths.  We Christians, we’re just black and white!

Integrity?  Does the month go by without a compramised pastor, Christian school teacher, or drunk film-maker getting publicity for Christianity that we could well do without?  How many Tibetan Buddhists do you see shaming their faith each month?  We seem to have tainted our public persona here, too.

Quality.  Megachurches pursue quality in their productions and they get mocked, or smaller churches sigh and say that quality is not what matters.  It’s the heart that matters.  However, didn’t the Bible say something about our works showing our faith?  If we are judged by our fruit, the majority of Christendom is shoddy and amateur with its attitude to drama, art, language …  We just don’t have time to dedicate to quality in the faith when we have worn ourselves out prostituting ourselves for the material possessions we accumulate.  Broken marriages, consumerist ‘MeChurch’, entitlement issues have given rise to the impression that we are bad at quality relationships and productions.  The prevelance of Buddhism in Hollywood, the presentation of a public persona of Buddhism that is at peace with everyone:  How do we respond to this?  Well, some retreat into their shell telling us Hollywood is of the devil and that their peace comes when there is a lack of integrity.  Hollywood can be redeemed and we are followers of the Prince of Peace.  I just don’t think many Christians have the quality to compete.

Diversity.  It is Christians who are known for wanting to send every last Spanish speaker back where they came from.  They are not so vehement about Polish speakers, but Bosnians are a bit suspect.  We’re known for defining our differences so clearly that we run off to found the 378th Baptist Church if our brethren differ on their opinion of which brand of bread we should use for communion.  We worship as Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and everything else we can segment ourselves into.  11:00 on a Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.  We have learned to work together, but not to worship together.  If a community changes its racial makeup we let the church die rather than change.  No, Comcast could not come to us to see how Greeks, Jews, Scythians, men and women could all worship as one.  They could read our Bible and find it, but not our churches.

Employee Focus.  It would seem that efficiency is what Protestantism known for and the value of the dollar.  We emply CEO’s who can update the workforce by slicing it in two.  Maximizing profits keeps shareholders happy.  We outsource to India.  We steal from the pension funds.  Do the CEO’s who do this attend Church or the Buddhist Temple?

Are Christians able to change with the ever-changing world?  Paul said something about becoming all things to all men.  He was able to change from culture to culture.  Paul used roads improved by Rome.  Rome improved communications and Paul used what he found.  Paul used the rhetorical training of the classical schools.  And Christians in churches like Saddleback and Willow Creek are seeking to stay current with the tools of the times and use them effectively.  Most of the churches I have visited though, stopped the clock ticking sometime in the past.  Of course, the message is always the same, but the wrapping can change.  A church that just prefers what its members prefer does not reach out to a world that is changing how it listens.  I am not sure that Buddhists are known for being cutting edge.  I do know that Christians are labeled conservative as opposed to liberal.  The interpretation of that is that we are afraid to embrace change.

Enthusiasm is something we so seldom see on the faces of our congregations.  I guess that charismatic and Pentecostal churches look enthusiastic to some, but Christianity is defined by the evangelical mainstream.  Is it true that the stallwart defence of the truth leads to a miserable facade?  Is it true that enthusiasm is shallow?  It seems that Christians are known for sour faces and a hatred of pleasure.  How did that happen?

So, why did Comcast choose a Buddhist to advertise rather than a Christian?  What foundations are we building on when the Buddhist is known for upholding our values better than we are?

I know that a lot of people in Christendom are careful about what they read.  I am, too.  I don’t pick up a copy of Playboy each week to understand how Hugh Hefner is influencing the world for Hedonism.  I don’t listen to Prince and the Revolution as much as I did when I was a teen.  I know that a lot of people in Christendom will not read Harry Potter, watch The Life of Brian, or shop at Starbucks or Walmart (Starbucks has alleged connection to the New Age and Walmart sends its profits to support the homosexual agenda).  I question whether being an ostrich in the world is what Christ meant when he told us to be ‘in the world but not of the world’. 

Some Christians have never learned to think, but just to swallow.  They have not developed discernment for themselves and rely on people like James Dobson to tell them what to think.  Some hand over trust to their pastors to do all the brain work for them, and if the pastor tells them not to watch something they won’t watch it.  Some Christian Art is accepted because it is Christian, but it doesn’t even merit the word Art.  Some beautiful representations of God’s universe are rejected because the artist is an atheist or homosexual. 

I know some Christians who will only read things that reinforce what they already think.  I wonder if they are afraid.  It does not seem like a powerful way to live.  You tend to notice over time that a pharisaical purity develops in communities that think this way.  They begin to thank God that they are not like other men.  They do not hold their views up for scrutiny or respect Christians whose views may be different from theirs.

One particular area where this has become apparent recently is politics.  I see a lot of shallow thinking by Christians in this area, but we should engage with our detractors and hear what they are saying about people of faith.  Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris published articles in Time and Newsweek this past week encouraging Christians once more to go away and shut up.  Harris points out that Christians believe the world will end with apocalyptic genocide and people who believe that can have little positive affect in the public sphere.  Dawkins argues an atheistic perspective on origins.  How do we then respond to people like this without losing our faith or giving the devil a foothold?

1. Law of Exposure

I believe that Christians should read Harry Potter, Friedrich Nietzsche and listen to Black Sabbath.  How can I say such a thing?  I believe that it is a simple question of ratios in terms of exposure.  I have read Harry Potter because I have read the Bible, Thomas a Kempis, C.S. Lewis and other Christian authors more.  I believe that the scales should be tipped heavily towards positive, edifying, Christian literature.  That foundation enables me to assess the evil or the twisted in other literature accurately.  Ironically, reading Nietzsche does help me with my spiritual growth.  Critiques by thinkers like Marx and Nietzsche are frequently accurate.  It is their solutions that are diabolical.  Watching a movie like Saved allows us to see what we are communicating to the world about Christian Education and to correct our behavior, the movie’s postmodern solution of a huge group hug does not satisfy. 

We equip ourselves through Biblical understanding to engage with the world and to be in it but not of it.  There is no legalistic quantifying of exposure to the godly and ungodly.  There is a discernment of how much of the truth I need to study to be able to engage with a lie.  I see too many Christians who are lazy with their study of truth or too afraid of lies.

1. Multiple Sources of the Same Issue

I like to read The Nation.  It is a left wing paper with pro-homosexual and pro-choice leanings.  I like to see how the other half interprets things like the “War on Terror” or “Drilling in Alaska”.  I also like to read the Washington Times which makes George W. Bush seem like a liberal.  When I visited Provincetown, the gay capital of America, I found that they grossly misrepresented the political right in their stance on social justice and compassion.  When I visit most churches I find that they grossly misrepresent Democrats as evil baby-killers who want nothing more than to crush a baby’s head and suck it out of the uterus.

This issue of misrepresentation has become apparent in my own household over Israel and God’s plans for the future.  I have friends and family who doubt the salvation of those who can say they are Christian and who do not support Israel.  I have other friends and family who wonder how any Christian can even try to justify Israel’s actions or existence.

How do we discern the truth?  We get the news from multiple sources.  Everyone who reports the news interprets and edits the news.  If you are a conservative Christian and only read conservative reports you only get half the picture.  It’s like watching Fox News and never watching CNN.  If you are a liberal who reads the nation, you should also read The Washington Times and ask, “How can rational people with better than average intelligence think so differently than me?” 

Conclusion

What galls me so much is when mindless accustaions are thrown around with poor thinking.  When I listen to conservative radio it is like listening to the agressive bravado of a disrespectful student at the front of the class who is so cock-sure that he knows you as the teacher are wrong.  When I listen to liberal radio, it is like listening to a snide student at the back of the class who is so sure of their intellectual superiority they don’t have to listen to the teacher but can criticize her on her choice of dress or hairstyle.  Both sides sound ugly to me.  Surely there is a way to deal with truth claims in a well-informed and gracious way.

I think the Smiths covered a song by Cilla Black about work being a four letter word:

Loving you is driving me crazy
People say that you were born lazy
‘Cause you say that
Work Is A Four-Letter Word

My Dad used to forbid the use of the “w” word around the house.  It really did offend him when he came home, laid out on the couch and had anyone talk about work.  The language that each person finds offensive can be loaded by our personal experience.  Kelli, my wife,  finds the word “Spaz” offensive.  It’s short for ‘spastic’ and Jack, my father-in-law, is a spastic.  We should watch what we say, but do we legislate or relate?

Let me explain.  In England you can use the English word for a female dog whilst referring to your mother.  Your mother would probably not wash your mouth out with soap, but would laugh – if it wasn’t meant as an insult.  In England, you wouldn’t go into a polite house, chase a pea around your plate at the end of dinner and say, “Come here you little bugger!” and be expected to be invited back. 

It seems that the politically correct crowd make a list of taboo words to refer to things (for example, no-one is fat anymore:  the Fat Controller in Thomas the Tank is now just Sir Topham Hat).  However, the list keeps changing.  For evidence of that look at our African American friends and Native Americans.  The Moral Majority have another list of words that can never be used because they are disgusting or sound harsh.  Yet, I hear many of the people who wouldn’t use a certain word substitute it with “Shoot!” (similar sound) or “Poop!” (Same meaning) – and by using those two words it’s an easy guess which word I am not saying.

The Fat Controller

The phonetics can’t be too important.  Every time you talk of fun, you are cussing in Japanese.  Those who spend all their time trying to work out what words they can get away with, or how they can get the French teacher to swear by asking her to say seal in French or asking what peter means are asking the wrong questions.

I think that the real question is why you chose to use a certain word and whether the motive was pure.  Pure motives do lead to purer language.  Happily, the fear of using the wrong word or the desire to offend with aceptable vocabulary diminish.  Blacks are not as concerned with the words they have been called as much as they are concerned with the neglect and hatred that have been maintained regardless of the words.  The words are said in a way that betrays the heart.  The words are updated, but the heart is left unchallenged.

How do we change a heart that wants to cuss, swear, and degrade into one that wants to edify, praise and worship?  How can we use Jesus and God in a way that shows those terms respect and develops honour in the community?

Only be worried about what comes out of a person’s mouth in so far as it shows their heart.  Do not be quick to judge why they used certain vocabulary – understand the motive and deal with that.  Especially if the one using clean words with nasty motives is yourself.

“Oh, bother!”