Hoosiers, Hoops, and High School
Hoosiers, Hoops, and High School
Michael Sam and the Moral Superiority of Homosexuality
On Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and the Creation Debate
- Nye was concerned that creationism would stifle the next generation’s interest in scientific discovery and invention. Really? History tells us that such an assumption is ludicrous. One’s world view likely only shapes the motivation for such a process of discovery. Is it humanistic or for the glory of God?
- Building on the previous point, Nye practically “preached” a moral obligation for us to embrace his brand of science. He even suggested that the United States needs to lead in this endeavor for, among other reasons, even our economic health. But if there is no God and no eternal accountability, why are we motivated to make such an impact? And why does the US need to lead the way or be better off financially than other nations? Nye’s philosophical logic was highly contradictory. Indeed, scientists who reject the existence of God seem more intimidated by philosophical apologists, like Ravi Zacharias, who show them the amoral consequences to their belief system.
- Nye was very honest about having no answer for the first cause. Where did the first atoms that caused the “big bang” come from? The ex nihilo issue is directly addressed by Genesis 1:1. I think that’s awesome. The most difficult question for the twenty-first century evolutionist was the first question addressed by Scripture. Random selection? (Pun intended!)
- Ham was very comfortable discussing the creation science perspective. He also took the opportunity to openly share his faith in Christ with a clear presentation of the Gospel.
- Ham seemed to struggle a little to explain why he reads some of the Bible literally, but not all of it. He believes in the total inspiration of Scripture, but had difficulty when Nye interpreted his position as being one who tells others what parts of the Bible they should read literally.
- I also felt that Ken Ham, without intention, reminded us of the importance of Christological apologetics. Though he often argues that Genesis is the starting point for defending the faith, he admitted that it was his acceptance of Christ that led him to that point. Therefore, I would argue that it may be more fruitful to first defend the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Then, having established his supernatural intervention in this world, you have reestablished the presuppositions for considering the Genesis account of creation.
- So, who won the debate? Well, the subject given for the debate was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Though I felt Ham held his ground, it was the fact that Bill Nye had a debate on his hands at all, and debated so valiantly, that answered the question with a profound, “Yes.” If Bill Nye has to give it the time of day, though he rejects it, others should at least be presented with the same arguments.
Snow Day Devotion: Grace So Glorious
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”
Not Reformed, Not Upset
I will not pretend to be an expert on reformed theology. But I have studied the Scriptures long enough to arrive at a theological position from which I am very comfortable addressing various aspects of the movement.
Because I believe the Bible I also embrace a strong conviction that God is sovereign. I may disagree with some of my Calvinist friends on the “logical” implications of sovereignty, but I cannot deny the doctrine. While often mentioned as elements of reformed theology, these are truths embraced by most Baptists and many other evangelicals.
Though I do not use the “TULIP” acrostic to explain my soteriology, I could accept or reject each point depending on how it is interpreted. I will not go into each point here. But, for example, I believe in total depravity in regards to our complete inability to save ourselves, but I do believe that there is enough of the imago dei in sin fallen people who were “fearfully and wonderfully” knit together in their mother’s womb to volitionally respond to God’s grace or even do a good deed (like feed the hungry) in the unregenerate state.
I believe that God sovereignly made us free and responsible beings. I don’t have to figure out the extent to which sovereignty trumps free will or worry that the reverse could happen, but embrace the wonderful paradoxical truths of Scripture. I could make similar observations on each of the points of Calvinism.
While I prefer to teach those principles from the Bible, I have to admit that our children’s and student ministries and various discipleship programs do provide an informal catechism, if you will. We have a way of summarizing our biblical convictions and evaluating those of others. So as long as the creeds and confessions are not seen as inerrant Scripture and do not become the proverbial tail that wags the dog, I can see their benefits. Like a sermon, their authority rests in how closely they restate biblical principle.
However, my wife grew up in a liberal church that recites the creeds ritualistically, even though they did not embrace the theology behind them (virgin birth, literal resurrection, second coming, etc.). This became vain ritual for her. But I have no problem with a church being creedal if they rightly understand the nature of the creeds and confessions and use them as servants, not masters. Even the Baptist preacher who says, “No creed but the Bible,” has just embraced a five word creed. Those five words help him articulate a conviction. And that’s cool with me.
I see the redemptive hope of Scripture as Jesus Christ who is prophesied in the Old Testament, incarnate in the Gospels, and the foundation of the church in Acts and the Epistles. While salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, I believe baptism is an act of obedience for the believer following spiritual rebirth. I reject the idea that the Abrahamic covenant’s sign of circumcision provides grounds for the baptism of infants and children who can’t understand and articulate the gospel under the New Covenant.
Someone might think that these convictions should cause me to be more upset with the current reformed movement in Baptist life. I have discovered, however, through conversations with those who embrace the “Reformed Baptist” label that most of them reject or do not even understand covenant theology and have opted for more of a modified Baptist version or “New Covenant Theology” that isn’t so far from my semi-dispensational approach. Again, when I lay those labels aside and discuss the Bible with the Baptist reformed I do not find that our differences concern me as long as they believe in believer’s baptism by immersion following salvation.
By the way, I DO use these words because they are in Scripture. I point out to my Calvinist friends that these words often refer to sanctification as much as they do salvation. This implies that a lost person has as much of a choice to respond to the gospel as a saved person has a choice to live holy. From the other side of that coin, to assume that anyone is predestined for hell, and that nothing can be done about it, would be to assume that the saved who commit immoral acts were predestined to that adultery, dishonesty, or whatever sin they committed. Why? Because we were not just predestined for salvation, but to be conformed to the image of Christ, positionally at salvation and practically through spiritual growth.
But, to get back on topic, most of the Baptists I have met who embrace the reformed label are so committed to the obedience of Scripture that they are characterized by a passionate commitment to consecrated living and obedience to the Great Commission.
In the same way, reformed theology can be a step into the direction of hyper-Calvinism by those who struggle with understanding the paradoxical truths of sovereignty and free will. Indeed, many Calvinists attempt to teach these doctrines with balance, but the balance is often lost somewhere between the preacher and the hearer. And so the hearers begin to question whether they should pray, witness, or give to missions. They may even question their own salvation in the midst of the confusion.
Some attempt to relay the message but only trend further down the slope into fatalism. They are frustrated, not because their preacher was hyper-Calvinist, but because a form of hyper-Calvinism was all they could process when the preacher or teacher failed to clearly articulate the deep paradoxical concepts they sought to tackle.
The preacher perhaps embraced something short of hyper-Calvinist, but was weak in articulation and confused the doggie dung out of the congregation. This may be the biggest reason I believe pastors more Calvinist than me should consider rejecting the “reformed” label as well, simply to avoid division and confusion. I will continue to teach the Bible from the Bible. This means I will proclaim the truths of grace, election, sovereignty, depravity, free will, and responsibility with the same balance and frequency that the Scriptures bring to the table.
Articulating reformed theology takes a lot of study, and can involve a lot of hard work defending. Most evangelical church members are relatively lazy in their study of theology and apologetics. So the well-studied Calvinist can come across as a bit of a “know it all” to the non-Calvinists who have not delved so deeply. Indeed they may sometimes assume that everyone would be reformed if they would dig a little deeper.
What comes across in their tone is kind of a “if you were as smart as me and able to grasp the deep things of God, you would get this” attitude. That’s why I joke that more of my reformed friends want to be professors in the college and seminary instead of pastors (Actually, as I think about it, that is a true statement). Calvinism seems to work better for them in the classroom than in the pulpit.
Well, I grew up Southern Baptist. I attended a Pentecostal Holiness college and dug deep into Wesleyan and Charismatic theology. I have attended a couple of Southern Baptist seminaries where I’ve had Calvinist and non-Calvinist professors. By the Way, the non-Calvinist Baptist professors could have been considered hyper-Calvinist at the Pentecostal college I attended. Maybe that’s why I realize we are not that far apart.
My experience forced me to dig deeper and know why I believe what I believe. Honestly, I’m convinced that I am right. When I drive, everyone who passes me is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot. Really, I often feel that way.
And on this subject, I personally struggle with the arrogance of thinking that I must be more intelligent than those who can’t escape the full embrace of reformed theology. And that same arrogance says, “But I’m intelligent enough and secure enough in my beliefs to not feel threatened, bothered, worried, or intimidated because the latest theological fad is to embrace the ‘reformed’ label.”
I know. I know. It is more than a fad. But like I said, I struggle with arrogance, too. I often use passive-aggressive, sarcastic remarks when debating with those predestined to be reformed. Oops, see? If both sides of the argument were as spiritual and intelligent as me, they would quit being so angry with each other. Oops, again! See what I mean? ARROGANT! The fact that I find few who stand with me in this “not exactly Calvinist, but not mad at Calvinists, position” makes me feel intellectually superior or more spiritually mature sometimes. Okay, that’s a little tongue-in-cheek and over the top. But, just ask my wife, I struggle with the “I know I’m right” attitude enough to be forgiving of a little of that showing up in my Calvinist friends. I bet most of you do, too.
Zimmerman/Martin Case, Jackie Robinson, and the Elusiveness of Objectivity and Sympathy
I went to see the movie, 42, with my son on a rainy stormy night this week. The Jackie Robinson story appeals to me for a couple of reasons. First, I love baseball… with a passion. My sandlot days are over, but I still get jazzed slinging the ball around the yard and catching a great baseball movie or game with my son. Second, I hate racism. The portrayal of ignorant racists, white’s who were learning to change, and a black baseball player who worked to present himself as a gentleman in an environment that would have crushed most men provided a most inspirational true story.
It just so happened that I was watching this movie at a time that our nation was debating the verdict of the Zimmerman trial. I have been slow to comment on this trial because I have felt that I would be speaking out of ignorance. As much as I have followed the case (or have had the media plaster it in my face), I simply felt that I would be arrogant to say that I know what happened on that tragic night. I’ve been frustrated with the fact that Zimmerman didn’t just let the police handle the situation, and that Martin didn’t just jog on out of the neighborhood. I have been in both situations, and it usually (not always) takes two to make things go bad. I’ve been frustrated that one side argues that Zimmerman simply “stood his ground”, a right I support in theory. I’ve been equally put off by those who try to portray Martin as a ninety pound thirteen year old on the way home from Sunday School. Let’s face it, both men were stronger than their representatives made them out to be. And evidence was allowed that Martin had marijuana in his system. So, I was surprised that the prosecution did not come up with some lesser charges that were sure to stick. But as much as I hate racism, I was not surprised that the jury found reasonable doubt with the charges they were deliberating.
The difficulty in all of this – the verdict and public response, I reasoned, was remaining objective. Can conservative, 2nd Amendment-supporting, white men like me lay aside our preconceived notions and think objectively as we respond? Can we simply look at the facts of the case? Objectivity is the goal in getting a fair verdict and offering a fair public response, right? Can African Americans who have heard the slurs, heard the car doors lock as white people drive past them down the street, and who have heard much more horrific true stories from their parents and grandparents… can they lay aside their fears and preconceived notions and also look at the simple facts and evidence of the case objectively? Or will emotions influence their interpretation of the evidence? Can liberals respond without an agenda in mind? And, forgive me ladies (this might do me in!), can a jury of all women think objectively and logically without allowing their emotions to cause them to vote by how they feel rather than by looking at the evidence alone? This was my angle. Can any of us be objective? We can’t do away with our past, our experiences, our core convictions, our passions, or even our cultural baggage. But can we possibly be aware of these things and not allow them to blind us from an objective response? Objectivity!! That’s what we lack… right?
Back to the movie. There was an insightful scene in 42 in which Branch Rickey’s (Dodgers’ owner played by Harrison Ford) assistant, Harold, came into the owner’s office irate and nearly violent, which was out of character. He was angry about the way Jackie Robinson was being treated (watch the movie for the details – PG-13). Rickey responded by giving him a lesson in etymology. Specifically, he explained to him that he was feeling “sympathy.” Sympathy is the transliteration of a Greek compound word, literally meaning “to suffer with.” As this scene unfolded, I realized what I may have been personally missing in all of my frustration. Indeed, it’s something most of us may be lacking. Certainly the role of the jury requires and demands objectivity. However, lawyers will continue to do jury selection by eliminating those who cannot sympathize with their side of the case, which may ironically eliminate objectivity from many verdicts. Objectivity is so elusive.
But what I’ve seen lacking more than objectivity in our nation, and in my own heart, is the ability to sympathize and suffer with the ones with whom we disagree. Even if I believe the verdict was consistent with the evidence presented, can I sympathize with a dissenter who will march for what they perceive is a lack of justice? Can those who disagree with the verdict sympathize with a jury that was given a job description and sought and swore to do it to the best of their ability? Will those who march be able to sympathize with those who believe justice was served, without considering them to be racist? Can we sympathize with a mother who lost a son? Can we sympathize with a man who wanted to make his neighborhood safer and never thought his actions could result in someone’s death, regardless of how it happened?
Let’s carry this into other hot zones. Can I be staunchly and objectively pro-life and still sympathize with a young lady who had an abortion when she simply did not know what to do? Can someone be pro-choice and sympathize with the core conviction pro-lifers have, not to rob a woman of a choice, but to protect what they are convinced is an innocent life in the womb? Can I believe with all my heart that God has provided standards for sex, marriage, and holiness and still sympathize with those whose minds, hearts, and emotions tell them it is OK, even a must, to behave differently? I’m not saying I must agree with everyone. By no means am I suggesting we all compromise our beliefs to shout with Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” I’m just saying that I am going to try to show some sympathy and understanding. And I pray that it will open doors of opportunity and build bridges for me to be able to explain why I believe what I believe, hopefully correcting the preconceived notions others might have about this conservative, white, evangelical Christian who wants to love and point everyone, regardless of race, to Jesus Christ, His Infallible Word, and life abundant and everlasting in Him!
“We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with the feelings of our infirmities…” – Hebrews 4:15a
Attend Church While on Vacation?
Summer is a crazy, chaotic, wonderful, and sometimes inconsistent season for churches. On the one hand, VBS, kids camps, youth retreats, and mission trips can make summer a very fruitful time of the year for both evangelism and discipleship. On the other hand, family vacations, trips to the lake, and baseball tournaments can lead to the dreaded “summer slump.” The down side of the summer slump is not the deflated egos of pastors because of low church attendance. Nor is it the inconsistency with various ministries because the leaders are getting a much needed break. It’s not necessarily even the dip in offerings. At Trinity we have learned to go with the flow during the summer. We have meaningful camps, mission trips, and special services that we rally around. We realize that everyone simply will not be available for each of the activities. And that’s OK.