More on doubt

From a review of Blue Like Jazz:

About those doubts ("Every year or so I start pondering how silly the whole God thing is"), Miller writes this: "At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know the chances of any of our theology being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay." At the end of the day, if many of us would be as honest as Miller, that's also what we have. And that, of course, is all we need.

---------------

This is where our Christianity is headed, towards a Holy Lack of Assurance--a unassurance of salvation. Do you see that it is a simple step from doubt of orthodoxy to heterodoxy? And it all comes from an attack on the perspicuity of the Word, or at least, a misunderstanding regarding the perspicuity of the Word. Is there indeed a "million to one" chance that "our theology" is correct? Do we all have our own theologies?

This is a profound misunderstanding of the role of the Word in our life. Donald Miller does not understand elementary things about the Word, namely, that God has communicated to us in a way that is understandable! We can receive from the Word a clarity that will safely guide us. His Word communicates! And this dude's book is on every other Christian's facebook profile under favorite books. And he doesn't understand the role the Word plays in our life! My conclusion is that most Christians don't understand either. Perhaps my prophecy is not so pessimistic, eh Jane?

For the record, she told me she was being facetious.

For the other record, I was to think that word was pronounced face-tious. Like face, followed by shuss.

A Prophetic Word

Christianity will be attacked from three locations...the attacks are beginning to coalesce...these will eventually overwhelm American Christianity, leaving it with a bloated and empty faith that will collapse at the first sign of suffering...China will be the world leader in sending missionaries by 2030...

These locations...

1. The Word will be undermined in its perspicuity and sufficiency as a rule for Christian life.

2. The heart of the gospel will be torn out by the redefinition of justification.

3. Active and disciplined holiness will gradually give way to a vague moralism.

That's my prophetic word. The attack is underway my friends.

Text Message Transcription

Steven: Dude, have you ever heard the expression, that's the pot calling the kettle black?

Tim: Yeah, I learned that in my esl class a few years ago.

Steven: Before or after the class on turning a watch into a computer?

Tim: Oh yeah, professor white? I heard he passed away. Too bad, what a nice man.

Steven: I'll never forget his lessons on how to make a lot of money.

Context of joke:

Some statements Reggie White made a few years back that have been a running joke between me and Tim for a while now.

On an expression

"That's the pot calling the kettle black."

So, the other day I was talking to my friend, and I casually threw out the above expression. I actually didn't even say the full expression, just "pot and kettle." I thought the expression was so common that it didn't even merit the full effort of saying the exact words, just an allusion would be fine.

Much to my surprise, she had never heard the expression before. So I asked my roommates. Neither of them had ever heard the expression either. Confused, I decided to take an informal text message poll. I asked about 15 people via text message. It came back that about one-third had heard it before. One-third! Quite a shock.

A yearly tradition!

This is the third annual Steven Crawford Christmas List. In fact, I started this blog to post my Christmas list, way back in 2006. Remember those times? Our economy was humming, no one had yet been invited to "make love in this club," Hilary was a shoe-in for president, and Heroes was still watchable. Also, Jim was dating Karen.

How innocent we were then! I remember holding my Lehman Brothers stock with pride and joy, wondering when the Dow would hit 16,000, secure that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. At the time, my high-powered job at Starbucks made me feel like I was invincible. I laughed at all who questioned the price of coffee, secure in my weekly mark-outs.

What a difference two years makes!

Anyways, here's my list for this year.

1. The Wire, seasons 2-5

2. I would like the complete works of Richard Sibbes and Richard Baxter.

3. I would love some new clothes...maybe gift certificates or something.

That's all I got this year. Pretty simple really.

Some Ministerial Thoughts

I read about Abraham Lincoln. He was a humble man with a sad, sad face, who was renowned for his folksy humor, unfailingly gracious to all.

One night he came to see his general, George McClellan. The general, a brilliant young man of 31, was not at home. Lincoln resolved to wait. When McClellan got home, he gave barely a glance at his waiting guest, walked up to his room. Lincoln, assuming he was changing and would come back, waited some more. About a quarter of an hour later, the maid announced to Lincoln that McClellan had gone to bed. It was a deliberate snub to the president, a man chronically underestimated.

Lincoln responded not with anger or bitterness. When his aide, who had accompanied him, bristled with indignation, Lincoln said, "I will put up with many more snubs from Gen. McClellan, if it would but restore the Union."

I tell this story only because tonight, a guy I have been working with gave me the serious snuberooski! I knocked on his door tonight, hoping to say hi really fast, because he had backed out of Bible study, saying he was swamped with homework. I happened to be in his suite so I thought I would stop by. The doors have peepholes, and of course if the lights are on you can always tell when someone looks into the peephole. After I knocked, he looked into the peephole, but did not open the door!

Ah, I love the kid, and I have been praying for him a lot. He's been swaying back and forth between the world and the Lord lately, and I hope this isn't a sign that he's chosen the world...

Offense comes from my sense of my rights. If I have a high sense of my own rights, than I will find myself easily offended. But what am I, anyways? Paul has some thoughts for me here:

We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are honored, we are dishonored. To this very hour, we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless. When we are persecuted, we endure it. When we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment, we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.

Elsewhere, he speaks boldly of his rights:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

I won't try to apply this generally, but I know that it applies to me as a minister of the gospel. Therefore, I will endure this and much more, but only for the sake of the gospel, that I might share in its benefits. I beat my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself may not be disqualified for the prize.

On words

How about we never say things that we don't mean, or that we can't define. As in, as Christians, let's not say things that are obviously meaningless. If you say something, and someone says, what do you mean, and you can't answer him, game over.

For example, I ask guys sometimes what it means to live with Christ as the center of their lives. Those raised in the church will probably try to pawn of some bogus answer on me, something like "do everything for God's glory." So then I say, what does it mean to do something for God's glory. And then they start to sweat, because of course they don't know what the heck that means, and there is a good chance that the youth pastor who told them that probably doesn't have the greatest idea what it means either.

Platitudes, Jane told me, are the bane of literature. Well, for Christians, platitudes are more dangerous. They allow the uncircumcised heart to fit in well with the circumcised heart. They disguise unmortified sin, and obscure the hardened heart.

Therefore, I propose that you make no pronouncements on spiritual things without knowing what the heck you are saying. If you say grow in faith, then be able to define what that means, both to yourself and others. If you say live for Christ, then freaking be able to work that out in practice, or don't say it.

Words have to mean something, unless you want to be like those babblers Paul warns about in II Timothy...

Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Define your words, that we may know the thing behind them, that which God communicates in them, and therefore not be like those arguing and quarreling about this and that, or worse, wandering from the truth, tossed about by the waves of every false teaching and foolish opinion.

Some thoughts from when I was praying today

1. Why wouldn't I ask God that the guys I meet with should be not just followers of God, but passionate followers of God? If passionate followers of God, why not zealous in prayer and the Word? And if zealous in prayer and the Word, why not hungry for the nations to know him? And if hungry for the nations to know him, why not eager for his return?

2. Our prayers are limited by two things, one positive and one negative. The positive limitation is God's will. We are not to pray outside of it as revealed to us in the Scriptures. The negative limitation is our own faith, or my own confidence in God's power. As that grows, the scope of my prayers grows.

3. Do we limit God's power? Do we decided what God can and cannot do? Surely only God can decide what he will and will not do! It is God's desire that his church be zealous. Let me pray then for zeal for the men I meet with! It is God's desire that the nations become our possession. Let me pray for such a vision as well in the men I meet with! It is God's will that we should be sanctified. Let me pray for holiness in the men I meet with!

Really? Ok.

How, as a Christian, should you define yourself? How should you define your mission? Let's hear from Paul:

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

"May I never boast except in the cross of Christ"

"Remember Jesus Christ, descended from David, raised from the dead. This is my gospel."

Emerging Churches define themselves as those:
1. Who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live

What does this mean?

I agree, this does not sound bad. I also want to be like Jesus, I want my life to reflect his, etc. But when we look at what controls and motivates us as Christians, is it really an attempt to "live as Jesus lived?" Is our faith and spirituality about no more than a vague following of Jesus's teachings? Self-definition needs to be a bit more rigorous. If this is what emerging churches mean, than there is a much better word for them--legalists.

We don't just take the life of Jesus as a model way to live. We do this, certainly, but this is far from the heart of the Christian experience. In fact, this is what faith produces, a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, which is "in conflict with the sinful nature."

Now this is based on a very charitable interpretation of what is meant by "taking the life of Jesus as a model way to live."

2. Who transform the secular realm
3. As they live highly communal lives.

This part is great as well, and certainly, the Christians are called to "transform" the secular realm (not again that curse of the Emerging churches lack of faith in language...a deadening vagueness). But from what does this power of communal living and transformation of the secular realm come? Is it no more than simply living in this model way? Was that Jesus's purpose in coming, to simply lay out a model way that would somehow destroy whatever had prevented us from living wonderful communal lives?

Can you live communal lives apart from the power of the Holy Spirit? Can you receive the Spirit if you are not clean? Can you be clean apart from the blood of Christ? Do you have an interest in the blood of Christ except by faith?

Ay.

Why so many want to exchange the blood of Christ for stew of legalism, I do not know.

Because of these three activities, emerging churches
4. Welcome those who are outside
5. Share generously
6. Participate
7. Create
8. Lead without control and
9. Function together in spiritual activities.

As for the rest of this, I do not know how any of it is different from any other church, except that it is more obnoxious and vague in its presentation of it.

I'm a bit tired, back from a long trip, so my thinking is somewhat scattered, but maybe that will spark some thought. Comments?

Would you like some information on the Emerging Church?

Dear Faithful Readers:

Here is some self-defined emergent-speak. See what you like!

Emerging Churches define themselves as those:
1. Who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live
2. Who transform the secular realm
3. As they live highly communal lives.
Because of these three activities, emerging churches
4. Welcome those who are outside
5. Share generously
6. Participate
7. Create
8. Lead without control and
9. Function together in spiritual activities.

See if you can detect the bias

From a New York Times article on the recent gay marriage ban in California:

The losses devastated supporters of same-sex marriage and ignited a debate about whether the movement to expand the rights of same-sex couples had hit a cultural brick wall, even at a time of another civil rights success, the election of a black president.

Observations:

1. The "rights" of same-sex couples are equated with the rights of black Americans. This is done without a hint of the world-view that lies beneath it. It is the unquestioning nature of this statement that is galling to me. It would be one thing if such a direct decision were made in the opinion pages. But this was in a news article. I do not have any trouble when I read this in the Economist, because they are very upfront about where they stand on issues. But New York Times is not; the implication is not that this newspaper considers gay rights to be equivalent to other civil rights, but that it is in the nature of things and patently obvious to anyone with a brain. Disagreement, as evidence by the rejection of gay marriage in three states, is mysterious to them.

2. Now, the state I'm living in is commonly considered one of the most liberal and loose with regard to social morals. The ballot measure (proposition 8) was even worded so as to discourage people from supporting it. The wording of it was "take away the right" of same-sex couples to marry, as if this was a self-evident right that the measure was restricting. And in fact, that is how the advertising went, with commercials talking about how it "is wrong to restrict the rights of anyone, even if you disagree with them," etc.

3. Nonetheless, it passed, roughly 52-48. It seems that many liberals are not yet ready to support gay marriage. Neither Obama nor Biden does. Most big-time liberals do not. Yet...the NYTimes knows it is only a matter of time until all right-thinking individuals have come around, or at least, until they get past their ridiculous religious hang-ups, or have been educated out of it.

The Election

Jane thinks that Michael Crichton was the greatest writer ever, even better than Thorton Wilder. I disagree, but only because I could never figure out how to pronounce his name. Here are my favorite books that I read by him:

1. Jurassic Park (awesome!)
2. The Lost World (still pretty awesome!)
3. Sphere
4. Jurassic Park 3
5. Timeline

If I were to rank him on a list of authors who wrote books about living dinosaurs, he would be number one, and Sir Arthur Conan Dolye would be third. Second place? Jules Verne.

Thoughts on male headship (originally written up for some friends)

1. God is a God of order.

This is central to his character. In fact, it is his character. The trinity is the perfect display of the divine order. Think for a minute about the relationship between Jesus and his Father.

John 5:19-20

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.

John 8:28

I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 12:26

My Father will honor the one who serves me

We see that in his relationship to the Father, Jesus in all things submits. He speaks no words but the ones the Father has given him. He does nothing except that which he sees his Father doing. The Father fully supports and protects him in all that he does. The relationship is one of perfect obedience and perfect protection. The submission of Jesus is seen most clearly in Phil. 2.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Christ submitted fully and willingly to the Father.

2. There is order in human relationships that is reflective of the divine order.

Man was created first. Woman was made from man. This is reflective of the eternal order of the Father and the Son--the Father is always first, and the Son always his reflection, his image.

Man was created to be head. Woman was created to be under his headship. This is reflective of the eternal order of the Father and the Son--the Father is head, and the Son is in all things under Him.

Man was created to be the initiator. Woman was created to be the responder. This is reflective of the eternal order of the Father and the Son--the Father is the initiator, and the Son in all things responds.

Man was created to be the lover. Woman was created to be the beloved. This is reflective of the eternal order of the Father and the Son--the Father loves the Son, and the Son is exalted by it.

Man was created to be the protector. Woman was created to be the protected. The Father always protects the Son, and the Son entrusts himself to the Father.

Headship is a reflection of the divine order.

Note: It would be helpful if we examined for a minute the notion of worth and value.

Jesus says: I and the Father are one. The Godhead is three in one, perfect in unity. Is the Father of greater value because he is the head? Is the Son of lesser value because he is under the Father? They are one, perfect in unity. There roles are simply different, not varying in worth.

So it is with mankind. The head is not a position of higher value or worth.

Why, then, does the world consider the head to be a position of greater worth?

Because we, unlike Christ, "consider equality with God something to be grasped." The position with power is to be desired because we want to have power. We want to be Gods, masters of our own souls, powerful and dominant over others.

3. The reflective order of man-woman relationships was destroyed with sin.

Both failed equally, sinning against the order God had established. The man failed to protect the woman from the serpent, but stood passively by while she sinned. The woman failed to submit to the headship of her husband, but spoke and acted. This was a sin against the created order, and an attempt for each to set themselves up as Gods.

4. Redemption is about the restoration of the created order.

In Christ, we are new creations. We must resubmit to the order that God created, both men and women each. For each, this means to act against the sinful nature. What does this look like?

For men, it means to submit to the role of headship. Men must take the woman upon himself. This is laid out in Eph. 5, with Christ as our model (as in all things). He is to love her as Christ loves the Church; that is, he must give himself for her. He is to "love his wife as he loves himself," that is, to regard her needs as his own, in everything. His sin tells him to be passive, to reject the responsibility of the woman who is under him.

For women, she must submit to submission. She, like Christ, is not to grasp after the position God has placed another in, but to submit to the order as God has created it. She is under man, he is her head.

Man's role is hard. True headship is not dominance. Woman's role is hard. True submission does not control.