Category: regular

Posted on

The Reason for God.

The Reason for God by Tim Keller is a must-read for anyone looking for a pastoral, thoughtful, and compelling defense of the Christian faith.

I call it pastoral because, unlike some theological works (even those by such great minds as CS Lewis), this book doesn’t at any point talk down to it’s reader.  It is a defense, to be sure, of the Christian faith.  But it feels like Pastor Tim is talking to you over a cup of coffee, not a podium and his reading glasses.  He is respectful of, and even encouraging to, those who enter into the discussion with doubts.

The real strength of this book, (and what I’d like to see skeptics like Dawkins respond to) is when (in the chapter called “Intermission”) Keller points out the differences between “strong rationalism” and “critical rationalism.”  His basic point is that not even atheistic naturalists have to give proofs that will satisfy people from every conceivable perspective, yet that is precisely what those same atheists require of Christians.  This is the only point at which I think those atheists and skeptics could find reason to be offended by this book.

All things considered, I’d highly recommend this book to anyone searching, or any Christian looking for a model of how to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation with skeptics.  My word of caution to those Christians would be to replicate the tone of the book (caring more for the person than the philosophical debate), and avoid weaponizing the very compelling truths contained in the book.

Posted on

The Terrifying thought of Christ-centered Laborers.

Thanks to the power of Twitter, and my ever-running search for “campus crusade” I saw this tweet yesterday:

A terrifying description of the Campus Crusade for Christ Club: “We are here to help turn lost students into Christ-centered laborers.” —@gogocosmonaut

To which I responded:

you and I must have a different view of Christ. It’s terrifying that anyone would not want to be a Christ-centered laborer.

To which he responded:

If your life is centered on labor for someone you’ve never met and that has a chance of not being real… That’s terrifying.

At which point, I felt the 140 character-at-a-time limit on our perspectives needed lifting.  Hence, this post. (to which I welcome a response either in the comments or on some other platform—even email)

I don’t know anything more about Nick Wood (@gogocosmonaut) than is revealed online, but from what I can tell about him through a brief perusal of his tweets, He and I share a lot of the same interests.  This isn’t a blog post where I slam the guy.  From his perspective, I’ve never met Jesus, and Jesus has a “chance of not being real.”

I could write a long defense of why I believe in God, but he’s heard it before, and probably has convincing arguments against even my best philosophical positions.  Ontological proofs are not what he wants or needs.  What he needs is to meet a Christian who actually finds their ultimate purpose, identity, and joy in Christ.

Because Nick is absolutely right.  If I’ve never met someone, and don’t know anything about that person, and then proceed to devote my life to them, and call that devotion “labor,” I’ve either lost my mind, or worse.  But, if I were to devote my life to someone like President Obama, or Billy Graham, or my pastor, or even my wife or child, and call that devotion “labor” it would lead to disastrous results as well.

Why? Because, at the end of the day, and at their most basic level, those men and women are flawed, as well. Ever met a parent who hinges all their hopes in life on the success/fame/competence of their child?  More often than not those are crushing expectations for flawed people to live up to.

That’s what’s different about Jesus.  The Jesus I meet in the Bible is perfect. Not swayed by human opinion, not selfish, not greedy, full of integrity, perfect. The type of guy that finds 100 bucks on the subway and gives it to lost and found.  Whether or not the Bible is true (different topic for a different day), the picture you get from the Bible is of a Jesus who never stopped giving himself away.  Devoting my life to a completely (and perfectly) selfless person would lead to me becoming the type of person who increasingly gives myself away.

There are countless examples in the history of Christianity of this principle coming true, from Mother Teresa to Jim Elliot to Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Martin Luther (King and otherwise).  People who saw it as a small thing to stand up against the Nazis, the bigotry of early 20th century America or 15th century Europe, and the horrors of poverty and disease.

If we have this view of Christ—selfless, sacrificial giver—there is nothing terrifying about an army of people walking behind Him and modeling their lives after him.  This world could stand to have a few more Martin Luther Kings who stand up against tyranny, even when there’s nothing but death in it for them.  Even if Jesus weren’t real, as Nick posits, to have a big group of people live like that imaginary man would actually benefit the world.

My fear is that many Christians in general and Campus Crusade staff and students in particular are not living in light of this Jesus, giving guys like Nick every reason to dismiss Christ without a second look.

I would beg folks like Nick to consider Christ.  You’ll always find more than enough Christians to ridicule, and find fault with.  After all, being a Christian means surrendering in the fight to be perfect, and admitting we can’t save ourselves.  But look at Christ long enough, and you’ll find an amazing truth worth devoting your life to.  In light of Christ’s perfect, selfless love, grace, and ultimate control over all the earth, it would be far more terrifying to center your life on fleeting counterfeits like self-actualization, money, sex, fame, power, or control.

Posted on

Grading Parents might take more than Originality.

Lately a trend on the facebook is folks taking a quiz that grades their parents on originality in naming them.  The only metric (as far as I can tell) to factor into the grade is how many other folks were named what you are named during your birthyear.  Making it easy to simultaneously grade highly and win an award for a terrible parenting decision.

Here’s a few of the names Jacqueline and I came up with that we think would grade highly:

(and, by way of disclaimer, if this is your name or the name of a loved one, I mean no disrespect.  All in good fun.)

Festus.  I doubt there were many other Festuses during your child’s birth year.  That’s a guaranteed A.  It’s also a guarantee of the nickname “Fetus” at some point during your child’s seventh grade year, or whenever sex-ed first takes place.

Basil.  This name means “Kingly” according to some baby naming websites.  It also means “condiment,” according to my spice rack, though.  So while you get an A+ for originality, you also get a certainty that your child will hate you by age 20.

Xanthus. This name gets an A, because it has to have a middle name that serves as a pronunciation key.  It means “Golden haired” which means you either have to wait until puberty to name your child, or risk the significant chance that your kid will grow up to be named something that they aren’t.  This also applies to naming your child “Christian,” or “Buddhist,” or “Cable Repair Guy.”

Manville. This name means, as you might surmise, “Men’s village” and thus gives you an A for originality and and a low F for a name that sounds like (and means) “testosterone filled neighborhood.”  Naming your child after a group of people=not cool.

Vanity. In my brief online “research” for this post, I came across this little girl’s name that means “stuck up brat.” You’d get an A for originality, and a strong chance you’d spend way to much on this little jewel when it comes time for prom, sweet 16, and nuptials.  That’s assuming you could find a guy named “Codependent” to marry sweet Vanity off to.

Butthole. (pronounced Buh-Thole) OK, so this one wasn’t an actual name from a baby-naming site, but it is one that Jacqueline wants me to make sure I give her the credit for coming up with. (unless you’re offended, then it was all me.) This name would get you the highest possible A, given that (unless there are other cultures where “Butthole” comes across more like “Stanley”) nobody in the world has named their child this, ever.  You’d have some fun times at, say, the nursery when you drop them off and sign them in, as well as more than one chance at an awkward role-call experience on the first day of class, for the rest of his (or her!) life.  “Hello my Name is” name tags would also be a hit.

Posted on

Pat Robertson and I, the Temanites.

I just got done reading Job 4 and 5, and was struck by the parallels between Pat Robertson’s comments yesterday and Eliphaz the Temanite’s comments to Job.

The major lesson? In the face of tragedy, responding with theological truisms (or conjecture) is not only insensitive, it’s the exact opposite of the Christian message, even if those truisms and conjecture are correct.

What strikes me is how many people, like myself, heard about both the tragedy and Robertson’s response and reacted by being mad about the response, not by actually doing something to help the tragedy.  I’m no different than Pat Robertson.

Here’s a way that you can respond in a more biblical way. I’ll go first-we’ll be donating to what CCC is doing in Haiti.

Posted on

I Got an Award!

Don’t get too excited, mom.

My virtual friend Beth got an award from her virtual friend Elaine, and then she virtually gave one to me.  It’s called the “Versatile Blogger Award” and I think I am honored, or at least, as Beth put it, I don’t think it’s totally lame.

The rules involved with this award are that I have to declare 7 things that you don’t know about me, and then give up to 15 of the “awards” away.  Here’s the problem: I am an extroverted verbal processor.  If there is a lull in conversation, you can expect me to have it filled up in no time.  Anything that there is to know about me has already been said.  By me.  It took me a solid day to come up with all 25 things (remember those?).

So, with that in mind, I have changed the rules (and I’m not all together certain that’s a bad thing) and allowed for people to post 3 things.

Here we go:

  1. I’ve been to the “Ice Bar” in Stockholm, that is totally constructed out of ice, and even the bar and cups are made of ice.  I’ve been twice.
  2. Historically, I am extremely against having my hands dirty, and in the event that they get dirty, I hold them out to my side and don’t make a fist, because I hate the way it feels.  I don’t do it as much anymore, but I’ve noticed that my son does.
  3. If I could do any job in the world, and money were no object, I would do what I do with Campus Crusade for Christ.  I’d like to think that means I’ve already retired, at age 30.

And here’s some folks whose blog you need to read:

Bryan Allain

Jayson Whelpley

Beth Hopkins

What are you still reading for?  Those links are clickable.  Go on now.

Proudly powered by WordPress