Welcome, Dave! Now there is more than one Anglican in the bar—we’re taking over!

On Evangelicalism: ‘sfunny how labels are so laden with baggage. How did the word “evangelical” became a negative, for example? After all, as Christians, I think we probably all agree that we should evangelize—the primary disagreements would generally come over “when” and “how,” not “if.” And so the dictionary definition seems like it should apply to all of us, and yet most of us would call ourselves escapees from Evangelicalism (note the capital).

In my case, my Anglican church is proud to call themselves evangelical, since that serves as a single-word representation of their commitment to Christ and the Gospel. It was a mental shift for me to see the word in that light, after having had it associated with negative thoughts for years.

Joell: Speaking of labels, I note that at my evangelical Anglican church, the pastors do indeed wear dorky collars and robes—though admittedly, not at the evening or mid-week gatherings. Tithing is also not an Anglican norm.

And smoking? My senior pastor smokes a pipe, while the assistant pastor is partial to cigars. But I’ll admit, not outside the church doors after service. {:)}

Didn’t realize that this didn’t post earlier… From Frank J of “Nuke the Moon Fame”...

Frank Advice for the Republican National Convention
Now that the Republican National Convention has started, everyone is looking to me saying, “What are we going to do, Frank J.?” Well, I’ll tell you what to do to make it a successful convention:

• To show compassionate conservatism, let the orphans out of the orphanage before you do your ceremonial orphanage burning.

• To keep there from being inter-party squabbling, give every delegate a turn at the high-powered hose aimed at the hippies.

• Make sure Arnold doesn’t use his mighty muscles to crush the head of anyone you may need later.

• Terrorists are planning to attack, so make sure everyone has guns.

• If someone says you shouldn’t have guns in NYC, remind him that everyone has guns so SHUT UP!

• Make sure to pledge to cut taxes, because I hate paying taxes.

• Remember: If anyone says he likes paying taxes, he’s a terrorist! Kill him!

• Disputes about the party platform should be settled by kung fu!

• When Bush gives his speech, have him seated at a throne atop a pile of the skulls of our defeated enemies.

• You might have to adjust the teleprompter for that last one.

• Between speeches, have Saddam come out on stage and dance for your entertainment. Yes, dance, you little monkey! Dance!

• Fire is cool. Have fire somewhere.

• If anything goes wrong, blame it on Hagel and publicly beat him. I hate Hagel.

• His name rhymes with bagel.

• If the protestors get too loud, drown them out by throwing them in the river so they drown.

• Make sure to have motion detectors up in the rafters so ninjas can’t sneak in. Ninjas can ruin any party.

• Have the NRA keep bugging Bloomberg with “Can we shoot the hippies?” until he caves in and says yes.

• To send protestors elsewhere, put up signs saying “NYC That-a-way!” and point it to the barren wastelands of Jersey where they shall surely die.

• Democrats are always saying Republicans are for polluted air and water. To prove them wrong, publicly beat them.

• Make sure no one says anything bad about the Yankees because Giuliani will beat him to death with a tire iron.

• Caution: Hillary Clinton lives in New York, and her gaze can turn a man to stone just like the beast of legends old – Dukakis!

• To keep anyone from speaking past his or her allotted time, have Rumsfeld ready in the sidelines, hands tense for a strangling.

• Remind the American people that the true measure of a president’s worth can be counted in dead for’ners.

• Put the swift boat vets to good use sailing the harbor and strafing protestors.

• Try to spot Democrat infiltrators. Look towards the press room.

• The networks are limiting convention coverage, so try disguising some speeches as popular sitcoms to trick the networks into airing them.

• To show patriotism, unveil new robotic flag that burns protestors.

• Balloons! Politics needs lots of red, white, and blue balloons!

• No, you’re not understanding me! More balloons! More! Muh ha ha ha!

BTW: I have updated 5minutewebs.com with a response to a letter written by Mr. Moore to Mr. Bush. Since Mr. Bush is busy, I wrote his response for him…

10. Pastors don’t have to wear dorky collars or robes (but they can if they want to)

True

9. They actually believe the Bible is authoritative

True-ish, but most still woefully ignorant of the bible.

8. They actually think tithing is a good thing

?? Perhaps a few. You couldn’t prove it by my church.

7. They don’t have a Pope or reasonalbe facsimile thereof

Henry Blackaby

6. They actually get people to volunteer for stuff

You must be joking. Perhaps 10%, tops.

5. Pot luck dinners are 2nd to none

Very True

4. Dying churches don’t get propped up for long

True

3. People actually get challenged to have a personal faith in Christ

True, although the message as to how to come to that faith is obscured in invitationalism and churchspeak.

2. There will undoubtedly be one in town that will fit your personal church “style”

True

1. No smoking outside the church doors after service!

True, in the north at least.

It got overlooked in the stampede:

What would go on your list of “Too Much of a Good Thing?”

And Joell.....”No smoking outside the church doors after service!” Whoever wrote this, needs to visit the American South. Esp Ky, W.Va., Va., N.C.. S.C., etc.

Someone in the comments asked me about rootbeer.

I have delved deep into my soul and tried to express my feelings on the issue here.

10. Pastors don’t have to wear dorky collars or robes (but they can if they want to)
9. They actually believe the Bible is authoritative
8. They actually think tithing is a good thing
7. They don’t have a Pope or reasonalbe facsimile thereof
6. They actually get people to volunteer for stuff
5. Pot luck dinners are 2nd to none
4. Dying churches don’t get propped up for long
3. People actually get challenged to have a personal faith in Christ
2. There will undoubtedly be one in town that will fit your personal church “style”
1. No smoking outside the church doors after service!

PS. Hi Dave!

Jim,
I don’t know if what I say will be helpful at all, and I hesitate to get involved in this conversation since I’m knee-deep in seminary studies right now, but here goes. The study of history may be correllated to the study of science. Science may tell you there was a big bang, for example. But it is outside the realm of science to say that a supreme being, AKA God caused that big bang. Science may be adequate to determine what is happening and what happened in the past in the natural realm. But it would be “cheating” for a scientist to say that God stepped in and did thus and such—a scientist, by the nature of secular scientific philosophy, must look for natural causes. It is up to the theologian to find the meaning and possibly the ultimate cause of existence.

The study of history is similar. Take someone who fancies himself a historian who studies the life of Jesus, such as John Dominic Crossan. Crossan looks at the life of Jesus through the study of the typical Mediterranean peasant and makes determinations about who he thinks Jesus LIKELY was, apart from the strict Biblical record. A historian will consider it outside the realm of history to make faith claims about what Jesus means to people in history. He just considers the evidence of who he thinks Jesus was, which, to Crossan, is a Mediterranean Jewish peasant cynic who was executed by the Roman authorities, buried in a shallow grave, and eaten by dogs, not literally resurrected. Crossan’s is not the only opinion out there, of course, just one of the more radical ones. History, like science, draws the line at any form of supernaturalism, any mention of God’s actions in history, because God, to them, is not a character in history.

When you think of history and science in the academic world, you have to realize that those are areas divorced from any faith claim. I, for one, unlike Francis Schaeffer, don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking a “leap in the dark.” Contrary to folks like Josh McDowell, I believe there is only so much that can be historically verified. I think it’s foolish to look for evidence of Noah’s Ark, for example. I don’t need to see the wood of Noah’s Ark to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and God the father of Jesus. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, is a faith statement that is beyond the realm of history or science. I choose to confess that, indeed, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I choose to open my eyes and see that God is indeed active in history. But you would have a hard time convincing a secular historian of that. Science and history have their limitations, and that is where faith steps in. Otherwise, how could it be faith?

On one hand, we have the neo-orthodox, who are saying, “these things may have happened, but they happened in a special kind of history that doesn’t follow the rules of normal historicity, so we can’t base their significance on their historicity; we have to base it on their impact.” On the other hand, we have Ladd saying, “No, these things happened in history. The problem with their historicity is that the tools that historians use are tainted in ways that preclude their investigating these events, so we need not concern ourselves with the troubling failure of secular historical methods to detect, understand or interprete the events.”

I’m lost. Why is Ladd’s view not a leap into the dark? Someone explain why it’s not gnostic, while we’re at it.

Dave: Start pumping mom for information. What makes YP so great, obviously, is that is essentially a repository for gravy, which in my opinion should be elevated to a food group. I’m a little disappointed about the cricket thing. I think I may actually know more than that, though not much.

You may not have root beer, but you must have some great ginger beer there. So much snappier than ginger ale.

Thanks for the welcome, ya’ll.

Bill: My Mom makes the world’s best Yorkshire Pudding, but I’ll be damned if I have a clue how she does it. Cricket: A bunch of guys gather on the village green on a Sunday to hit a red ball around with a bat, and then run back and forth between these stick things to score points. That’s cricket in my understanding. Oh, and if that ball gets you in the wrong place, you’re done for, ‘cause those things are hard as rocks. Ouch

Michael: Might NT Wright beg to differ with George Eldon Ladd?

Ardel Canaday, from a list I monitor:

“Systematic theology entails the abstraction of Scripture’s teachings from one another for the sake of learning the various doctrinal strands of the Bible so that we become properly aware of Scripture’s diverse teachings. However, what so easily happens is that young theologians get in the habit of making real these abstractions. Diversity trumps unity. Making real these abstractions eventuates in separation. But Scripture does not present its teachings this way. Scripture entangles the various strands together in such a way that to unravel them into individual strands, separating them from one another, turns Scriptures’ teachings into an entirely different form. The multiform, multi chromatic, and multi-textured teachings of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, takes on monoform, monochromatic, and mono-textured qualities when we unravel the strands from one another and present them isolated and separated from one another.”

George Eldon Ladd. Simple. Brilliant.:

The secular historian feels bound to interpret all ancient records, sacred and secular, in terms of known observable human experience, historical causality and analogy. In history as thus defined, there is no room for the acting of God, for God belongs to the theological category, not to that of observable human experience. However, the biblical records bear witness that God has acted in history, especially in Jesus of Nazareth, that in him God has disclosed his kingly rule. If this is a true claim, the secular historian has no critical tools for recognizing it, for his very presuppositions eliminate the possibility of God acting in history. Therefore, the secular approach cannot understand the Bible. A method must be employed which allows the interpreter to understand the New Testament as the record of God’s act in the Jesus of history.

Perfect.

An interesting WSJ piece on bloggers at the RNC. Nice use of acronyms eh?

All, my wife and I have this silly little thing we do when we’re really having a lot of fun or say something that underscores our deep friendship and love, we look at each other and say: “I love us!”. Kinda silly, but I’m sure you all and your wives (and wives to be) have (will have) similar pet sayings.

Essays like Michael’s, comments like these to my post, the deep honesty of Jim’s post; are all reasons for me to say the same about the fellows and lurkers of this Tavern. The church so seldom has this much compassion for the hurt and wounded, IOW “us”. I love “us”!

All this talk of mental illness spurred a memory of “this guy” that I blogged about…

Dave, so happy to have you as a fellow, I’ve really enjoyed your story and your blog. We’ve much in common…my British-Catholic ancestors fled England for Maryland in the mid 17th century; much the same way you and I have fled pente-fundamentalism in the 21st. Can you say “Toronto”?

Jim, congratulations on 43-hood. I just made it to 44 a few weeks ago. Forty three was a very important age for me, it’s how old my father was when he decided that living was not worth the effort. He didn’t survive his journey to “The Edge”, I did.

Pearls Before Swine remains my current favorite strip.

Has Jim redeemed himself from my charge that he is a deconstructionist antinomian anarchist by discovering I had enthusiastically linked the site of a major heretic (just because she flattered me)? It’s before the committee, but don’t get to excited. Though there is hope. I mean, face it- one doesn’t have to believe much to be an evangelical star these days :-)

Speaking of Evangelical Outpost, here’s a good discussion on Beer and Baptists. If you want to know why Kurt is no longer a Baptist, don’t talk theology. Talk beer.

Dave: We also rely upon you to supply us with bootleg videos of Dr. Who and Fawlty Towers.

Dave: I’d enjoy a rootbeer over a real beer any day,

Ah, a man after my own heart. Now, if you can post a good recipe for Yorkshire pudding and explain Cricket, you’ll be all set.

Alex: Many thanks for the welcome. I’d enjoy a rootbeer over a real beer any day, especially in this country, where you can’t get a rootbeer anywhere.

You wrote:

Although I find it difficult to come up with an example of something where a command is the apparent grammatical form while the matter of the statement is something else. Perhaps you can think of something?

If you mean a biblical example, I can’t think of any offhand, unless you interpret Paul’s Rejoice! as an encouragement rather than an imperative. If you meant an everyday example, Get well soon seems to fit the bill.

Another question: I was wondering if you could clarify what exactly you mean by “inclusive.”

I know the minute you claim to be “inclusive”, you open yourself to the charge of hypocrisy, since it is an ideal that is very hard to live up to, if not logically impossible. So, when I say my faith is “inclusive”, I mean that I always strive to include rather than exclude.

When I went to the PCUSA’s General Assembly some two months ago, this word (in my opinion a horribly self-conscious word) was bandied about with such flair and aplomb as a shibboleth for some radical liberal agenda. What I found ironic was the thinking that went thusly: we are inclusive and those people aren’t, so we’ll exclude them.

Hmm, there’s a lot of truth in that. It is a great irony that liberals, who claim to be the most tolerant, can at times be the least tolerant of all people. On the other hand, if a group of people are going to be inclusive, doesn’t that necessarily exclude those who are unwilling to be inclusive, i.e. entirely aside from a conscious decision to exclude x, y or z persons? But I hear you, certainly.

For more on why I think my fairly liberal faith is inclusive enough to make me want to hang out at BHT with a bunch of (mainly) evangelicals, read here.

I kinda hate to do this, and I’ve made some further comments on the post where it was linked, but I’ve been browsing deeper into the BibleToday site, and there’s much to be concerned about.

“To assume that God accepts the sinner while still living a life of sin would be a mistake.”

It gets worse. Denies the trinity. Justification by works. You can “violate God’s grace” and lose your salvation.

This is bad dope, kids. Stay away.

[Ed: Thanks Jim. Links removed.]

Boys boys. Piper has a degree in New Testament from one of them high powered German universities. He ain’t just proof-textin’. For goodness sake, how many times and in how many ways does scripture say “rejoice in God?” He starts with the first chapter of the WSC, so he’s not alone or in bad company. “Glorify God (by) enjoy(ing) Him forever.” Read chapters one and two of Desiring God please! Summarized as:

The happiness of God in God
is the foundation of our happiness in God.

If God did not joyfully uphold and display his glory
the ground of our joy would be gone.

God’s pursuit of praise from us
and our pursuit of pleasure in him
are in perfect harmony.

For God is most glorified in us
when we are most satisfied in him.

Dave Rattigan: Welcome to the bar. Have a root beer on me, since I’m not old enough to drink (yet, but give it two weeks). Your last name reminds me of a Disney villain from one of their animated features “The Great Mouse Detective.” Not that that is material to anything at all.

With respect to your musings about a statement being grammatically an imperative while in the flow of language conveying something else, I was reminded of Luther’s analysis of Erasmus’ points concerning human ability in Bondage of the Will. “An imperative does not also imply the ability to perform what the command says.” Erasmus read the various commands of Scripture as being imperative with a shadow of some indicative sense as well, since the imperative presupposes the ability to perform it.

Anyway, I think the answer to the question is more exegetical than linguistic. When Paul says “rejoice” in various places, one needs to take into account contextual clues in order to find out if Paul is commanding something or doing something else. Although I find it difficult to come up with an example of something where a command is the apparent grammatical form while the matter of the statement is something else. Perhaps you can think of something?

The problem is that the subjunctive (the mood under which an imperative subsides) mood conveys some anticipated or desired reality, rather than indicating some reality “out there,” so maybe no examples are forthcoming (though I could be wrong).

Another question: I was wondering if you could clarify what exactly you mean by “inclusive.” When I went to the PCUSA’s General Assembly some two months ago, this word (in my opinion a horribly self-conscious word) was bandied about with such flair and aplomb as a shibboleth for some radical liberal agenda. What I found ironic was the thinking that went thusly: we are inclusive and those people aren’t, so we’ll exclude them.

Russell: In response to your question emailed to me, yes I do tend to think of the doctrine of Original Sin and the doctrine of Total Depravity along the same lines. I think there is siginificant overlap, though there are some distinctions to be had as well.

I am loathe to drag everyone back to that discussion last week about whether God commands us to be happy, but I really did want to chime in with just one thought.

What I found surprising was that no one questioned whether the fact something is a grammatical imperative automatically makes it a “command” (a very loaded word). The function of an utterance does not always equal its grammatical form. For example, Could you pass the salt? is formally a request, but it functions as an imperative (Pass the salt); That’s poison! takes the grammatical form of a declaration, but that too is an imperative (Don’t drink that!).

Anyway, I put the question (about form = meaning in general, rather than the specifics of our discussion) to a bunch of academics at Ask a Linguist, an excellent resource for armchair linguists like myself, and you can read their responses here.

I’m not really trying to prove a point, just opening up a possible angle. I wasn’t hoping to re-ignite the discussion—seems to me you chewed that meat long enough.

I am a British-Canadian currently living in the Northwest of England.

I spent most of my teenage years in Pentecostalism, and got my theology degree from a Pentecostal seminary in the UK in 2001. After a couple of years pastoring in British Columbia, I am now back in England teaching secondary-level Religious Education.

I’ve recovered from my Pentecostal youth, and no longer see myself as charismatic or evangelical. Staunch conservatives would probably see me as a bit of a heretic. I have been a confirmed Anglican since 2003, and am actively involved in the ministry of my local parish church. I see my future career somewhere between academia and pastoral ministry in the Anglican context.

My faith in five words: Trinitarian, love-based, inclusive, down-to-earth, open-ended.

Outside of theology and biblical scholarship, I count film, music and linguistics among my main interests. I love to write, and much of my writing on life, theology and the God of grace can be found at the Grace Pages.

Finishing my Intro to the Gospel of John at 8 a.m. tomorrow. I’ve got about 20 adult students. That’s exciting. Then I continue in Galatians tomorrow at church. 1:13-2:14. I came up with a good outline to all this bio stuff so I can handle it at once and relate it to the rest of the book. Galatians is great, but illustrating so the situation relates to the audience is harder than a lot of texts.

I’m using two great books on John: D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Pillar series, and Robert Kysar’s dynamite introduction, “John, The Maverick Gospel.” These two are above the crowd for a working preacher type like me. Not too common, and not way over the head of my concerns.

Next week is…...>>>>REVIVAL WEEK AT OBI. Long time BHT readers know that revival week always reduces me to a mass of mumbling, muttering hostility and incoherence. It also has produced some good IM material, like last year’s “Christless Preaching” essay, written after 3 consecutive sermons that never mentioned Jesus. (At all. Ever. Nothing. But we still had an invitation.)

This year the pastor who plans these things has brought in the hottest Charismatic disguised as a Baptist in our county, but the big gun is that he’s bringing along his own “KICKIN’ WORSHIP BAND.” So prepare for me to melt down faster than usual. (Actually, I want to be impressed and encouraged, but I am preparing for a combination of concert stunts, charismatic worship lessons, and our kids acting like kids. Dirty dancing may be a highlight of the altar call if things get going right.)

To deal with this I have two plans. One involves going to Lexington twice for baseball games and to a high school football game somewhere on another night. The other plan is to write an essay that I’ve toyed with for a while relating an incident in the life of Thomas Merton (The Walnut Street Revelation, for you fans) to our current obsession with worship services. So who knows? I may emerge a sucessful author. Either way, I plan to be gone A LOT :-)

Michael, a few quick things:

• Despite what you might think, you are far and away more of the solution than you are the problem.
• The piece over on my blog was posted partially in response to the sanctification discussion here at BHT, but it was not written as a response. In fact, it existed first as a (handwritten) journal entry I made one night after a confrontation with someone in my “real life” circle who in essence told me they doubted my salvation because I hadn’t been able to overcome a particular issue in my life completely, because if I “really feared God”, I’d never do that.
• It’s not the end of the story.
• My blog is probably going to shift a bit in the next few days, and the link may change.

Your piece on your father’s depression was far and away the best thing I’ve read on that topic from a Christian perspective. Ever.

I have a prayer request. Remember that scene in Animal House where Belushi gives all the pledges a “secret Indian name”? Well, if I had one of those, mine would be “He-Who-Craps-On-Everything-Good-That-Happens-To-Him.” I’m going to be 43 tomorrow, and I’ve celebrated by providing my family with a demonstration of how jerky I can be. Please, pray that they don’t just kill me, even though I deserve it.

And as a side comment on the meds/counseling/psych topic, if any of you (and I’m sure it’s the majority by now) were thinking about what an a%%@#*! I often can be, you haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen me off my meds.

Welcome to Dave and aaron, who should be joining us shortly.

Michael, I never received an implication from your essay that your father’s (or anyone else’s) depression was a result of “skipping” church or “backsliding”. Personally I find a direct relationship between church and depression…I’ll leave it to the reader to skew that however they’d like.

The medical model of treatment has gone almost entirely over to medication. Primary care physicians are more often the gateway to psychiatry than are therapists, and the entire medical profession is quite jealous of it’s slice of the insurance pie. The reality is that unless there is some sort of DSM-IVR diagnosis there is no insurance money, and only a psychiatrist (MD) can diagnose. The medications are effective, but not completely so, a multi-pronged approach works best.

When I started in human services I met my first kid and wanted to beat the hell out of his parents; then I got to meet the parents and hear their story and I wanted to beat the hell out of the grandparents. I eventually figured out that if I kept this up pretty soon I’d be going off on Adam and Eve. Our fallen state is indeed the culprit, our solutions, though at times helpful are conceived by sinners and executed by sinners; not to mention received by sinners.

Believers haven’t dealt at all well with mental illness. When my dad shot himself there was a big stink as to whether he could be buried in “consecrated” ground and whether or not we could actually have his funeral in the church. This sort of stuff was the kind of thing I struggled with for a long time. Six years of psych work taught me that one of the biggest struggles faced by people with depression, bipolar disorder and all of the other mental illnesses is isolation. Somehow they think they are the only person in the world facing such struggles.

I always thought it would be fun to have a Bible Study with people suffering from schizophrenia; of course they’d want to spend all of their time in Revelation, it’s their favorite book…

Jim has blogged a long piece responding to the issues brought up in the sanctification debate. Since I am proven to be more problem than solution, I won’t be commenting on the essay. It’s a fine piece, with much wisdom and authenticity.

I am struck by one statement: ”...anger directed at (God) for not removing my compulsion to sin.” Certainly, that’s an existential desire we can all identify with. Why doesn’t God just uproot ONE major sin? Just one?

From time to time, my counseling will present me with someone who says something like this. That God should remove our desire to sin. I find a lot of this sort of thing among those very influenced by spiritual warfarism, and who credit Satan with most temptiation. God should, in their view, respond to their prayers for delieverance with…..deliverance from these struggles.

Christianity, at least to me, presents a truthful admission that my desire to sin is not going to be removed in this life, and God loves me, forgives and is there with me anyway. I can experience progress and change, but “removing” sinful desires doesn’t come into my prayer life for the simple reason that they are so deeply wound up with who I am, and those (guilt inducing) commands seem to send me to Christ and the Gospel for forgiveness and acceptance not glorification…yet. Sanctiifcation seems to be about realizing the truth about God and experiencing the results of that truth increasingly, but imperfectly in my experience. (Romans 7-8)

[Don’t let me wake a sleeping Arminian, but I associate that sort of “deliverance” paradigm more with Catholicism’s approach to holiness through ascetism and Wesleyanism’s sinless perfection (whether in motive or actuality.)]

All that to say this: If I thought God was on record promising to remove my desire to sin, and he hadn’t, I’d be more than angry. I would have abandoned the whole faith as a sham.

IM is updated with the new essay.

(Thanks Bill for telling me about the formatting issue. It doesn’t appear in any of my four browsers. :-( But I was able to find and fix it. If there are still problems, tell me.)

Thanks Kent. I’m still tinkering with that essay. It’s released so many memories, I can’t stop adding sentences.

I wanted to make clear that I totally agree with you. I never in any way wanted to imply that someone skips church and God sends depression as a punishment for backsliding. My father’s genetics, biochemistry, choices, actions, relationships and many other things combined into depression. Sin- as defined in Christian theology- is wound tightly throughout the whole experience. I want to emphasize again that I believe that if I REMOVE the element of our own decisions, choices and actions from the mix, I am removing one of the key elements of recovery. Let me use an example.

We have a friend who is a classic case of manic depression. No doubt, genetics and biochemistry are the foundation of this problem. But at every turn, treatment for this person has emphasized MEDICATION ONLY. Not counseling. Not personal responses. Not self-understanding. Not rational therapy. Not spiritual issues. Because of this “one dimensional” approach, this person takes meds and sees some rather dramatic improvements, followed by the predictable and discouraging return to manic symptoms and behaviors. But at least so far, to my knowledge, counseling has been almost totally avoided. No books read. No spiritual paths pursued. No support groups joined. No personal engagement with issues like responsibility for living with a problem, patterns of relating and repeated mistakes in relationships that result in a return to depressed feelings.

I really fear the American, therapeutic idea that those with “disease” model problems (i.e, alcoholism, rage, depression, etc.) are not “sinners.” Think about it. Not from the aspect of “these are rotten sinners and that’s why they have these problems.” NO!! Rather, we are fallen, and that’s why we have these problems. But we are sinners, and that’s why we deal with them so poorly. We need the grace, love and acceptance of God in the Gospel to deal with aspects of these problems that aren’t part of the “biochemical” explanation.

Can I be blunt? That I am depressed, have an anger problem and a weight problem may not be things that are ultimately my responsibility. What I say and do to my wife, children, co-workers and neighbors as a result of these issues may (may)- and usually are- very much be my responsibility. Once I have some understanding of these problems, and the path of living with them, I have an increased responsibility. This is why I deal with students who have diagnosis like Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as responsible people. Responsible to take their meds (we discipline if they don’t.) Responsible to get up, show up and do what’s right. So far, the overwhelming evidence I have from my experience is that this works far more effectively than telling that student, “You’re ODD. You won’t be punished for verbally abusing teachers.”

My dad never got counseling for his problem. He never- to my knowledge- had even a rudimentary understanding of it. I could see him constantly interpreting his problems as the curse of God because he was divorced. (This “curse of God” thinking is very much part of mountain culture, and I have it running around in my head as well.) So dad did a lot of thinks that were hurtful, and knew they were wrong, and sank deeper into his depression.

He needed more knowledge. Compassion. And responsibility. He needed the dignity and humanity of understanding what was not his responsibility, and what was his responsibility.

Michael, thanks for the IM essay about your father. If your father and eric’s father were combined into one person you’d have my father. Intertwine that with my father’s mother, who’s care we manage and I too think a lot about the mysteries of the biochemical and genetics of depression (and everything else).

The fall affected everything, the chemistry of our bodies and our minds, our DNA, even the salamander groans.

My story is in the works, likely I’ll be done in my seventies. I really connected with your experience of watching your father go through psych treatment in the late sixties/early seventies. That’s the same time that my father was in and out of psych units. My own metaphor for my father’s condition was one of those copper foil art bass relief craft thingies that where you spread the foil over a mold, rub on it with a stick and then attach it to a piece of wood. My dad proudly gave me one of those that he made in a craft group on a psych unit when I was around 13 or so.

My dad, holder of a law degree, the bank vice president, the smartest, most powerful man I’d ever known at that point in my life; that man was reduced to being proud of tacky dime store art.

If I’m ever able to put together whatever it is that I need to become a writer, it will come out of those thoughts, feelings and experiences.

Michael Card’s written a song called The Edge:

I promise I will always leave the darkness for the light,
I swear by all that’s holy, I will not give up the fight,
I’ll drink down death like water, before I ever come again,
To that dark place, where I might make, the choice for life to end.

If any of you don’t have a copy of this song, buy it. My dad didn’t come back from that “dark place”, he made the “choice for life to end” on May 28, 1975.

It’s interesting how things work out, here’s Jollyblogger on depresssion.

My new IM essay on a father’s depression, and a boy who finally understands.

If you read it and like it, pass it on to someone else.

I’ll just tell you to click it, look and draw your own conclusions about our culture.

And now for something completely different, Newsforge has run an article talking about (gasp) Christians using Open Source software and solutions.

I guess I find this kind of interesting, because it always seems like the Free Software hackers are young, liberal, anarchist types who detest organized religion. Maybe there’s more of us Geeks 4 Jesus out there than we think. :)

At times I hate being on the left coast. Ya’ll go away…..I miss the conversation until 9am PST :-/

More fun stuff from my vacation last month…

We met some friends from Texas at Lake Tahoe. They were staying at the parsonage at Fallen Leaf Lake because her brother-in-law the Episcopal priest was filling his two-week obligation at the local chapel. So I was sitting on the porch, talking with said priest, (his name is Rich), and we were talking about things theological. He was telling me about a problem in his diocese, and then made the following comment:

I’ve often wished there was a church that combined Reformed theology with the beauty of liturgical worship. And then I realize, “hey, that’s what we’re supposed to be.”

We both laughed, because it is so true. The English Reformation gave birth to the expression of the church I love the most. Here I am, a PCA Presbyterian by membership but an Anglican at heart. I love Anglican worship, but stumble a little bit over the episcopal form of church government. I affirm the presbyterian form of government, but grow weary of the generally bland, loosey-goosey, neo-Southern Baptist-type worship.

So, Phillip, even though you are the only official Episcopalian here in the bar, I stand with you in spirit.

I’ve been invited to move to Kansas City:

“When his kids are out of the house, he would love to move to a little reformed church near a good pub and a minor league ball park, work with university students and cook Italian food for the mob. ”

You might like to live near Kansas City on the Kansas side. There is at least one reformed church in Johnson County, just south of KC, pubs in the Westport section of KCMO, and the a (sort of) minor league – well, independent league at least – KC T-Bones park in Wyandotte County: http://www.tbonesbaseball.com/ They are doing better than the KC Royals, for sure.

There are colleges in Kansas City KS, and you could become a Jayhawk with less than an hours drive.

Italian ingredients are surely available, along with other ethnical dishes, if you ever feel like expanding your food interests. Just a thought.”

Nancy http://todaysbible.lifewithchrist.org

Danny: I wonder what the percentage is of MTV viewers/readers who understand Moby’s comment. It’s probably a negative number.

I am not a fan of “laws”. I don’t like rules or any of that restrictive stuff. I see the government, as per the US Constitution, to allow the people to govern the government so that the government protects it’s citizens. I am really indifferent when it comes to legalizing drugs. I’d like to try some shrooms personally but haven’t been anywhere that permits such use. Oh well.

Many people, including Neo-Zionist Xians Evanjellyfish, believe that more laws will increase peace. This is absurd. I am not providing a solution but I figure the more people out of jail means more people paying taxes, making money, feeding the economy.

Anyone else find it odd that the best “citizen” is the Believer? We are commanded to pay our taxes and follow the laws of the land. Some countries make Christianity illegal but why? WHY!? We’ll pay taxes and feed people. I don’t get it.

The “government” has never been the answer to humanity’s problem. It goes deeper than that. We know it.

eric: If I said something you agree with, it must be right.

“All I like to do is work. Perhaps it’s lingering Calvinist guilt?” — Moby

LDS conversions in my city is on the rise. Just a culture note, the crossing arms is poor body language and I’m sure some theological observation could be made.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Not sure if ya’ll knew about the slain Xian campers. Really sad.

I was especially interested in your view on the comment that we need a “ruined” government and the church should actively be ruining it. With the “gospel” sword, whatever that means. What are they talking about?

Michael: I cannot pretend to know what anyone else thinks. But I can respond with what I think about the comment quoted here.

The Federal Government is like a fruit tree that has grown wildly out of control. It was planted for a specific purpose, (to provide a particular kind of fruit in a particular season), but it has grown bigger and bigger till it crowds every other plant out of the garden, sucks up all the water, blocks all the sunlight, and has become a haven for every sort of foul beast. It has tentacles extending into virtually every realm of life and commerce – places it was never meant to be, doing things it was never meant to do. More »« Less

Oklahoma also has the “click it or ticket” law. On the news they showed where the next two weeks the Tulsa PD is going to be watching closely for ALL traffic violations, including not wearing your seat belt, with the pretext of trying to catch drunk drivers.

Now, the Tulsa PD is short about 100 cops due to various reasons, like they require a college degree (why I don’t know) and low pay. Plus, the murder and violent crime rate has skyrocketed in the past couple of years. But they are going to spend their time and energy looking to see if someone has their seatbelt buckled. Where are the priorities here, people?

Now, as far as churches getting involved in legal issues, we have a state question coming up in November to approve (or not) a lottery for the state of Oklahoma. The proceeds from the lottery would go to benefit education in the state. Oklahoma allows betting on horse racing, and even though casino gambling is not allowed by the state, various Indian tribes run casinos on tribal land, some right within the city limits of Tulsa. But the Baptists, in particular, and other churches I’m sure are gearing up to denounce the lottery from the pulpit so their people will be sure to vote against it. My question is why is the church expending its energy on this when there is not ONE WORD ABOUT GAMBLING IN THE BIBLE, at least that I have seen?

Jack, thank you for two of the best comments I’ve read regarding our government’s “war” on drugs:

If the government didn’t making drug trafficking so profitable, then fewer people would be trying to make money dealing drugs.

and

Why is it so stinking hard to understand that in the same way Prohibition created and sustained the Gang culture and the Mafia, The Drug War has created and sustained the drug culture?

Bravo!

Jack, you said, “If being stupid is a crime…we should ticket people..that… don’t snap their seatbelts in the car.” Well, it seems that Indiana is doing just that! Read a little about it here.

Glad to see my tax money going toward a great cause! (BIG JN)

Does anyone else have a problem with this little gem on evangelism I found in some Sunday School literature? Or am I just too cynical?

“Statistics show that June is the number one month for families relocating. Form search teams to look for moving vans in the neighborhoods around your church.”

The few, the proud,...

John at Monergism sends along this link to a pdf version of Sproul’s 100 Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. This is a great little book that profiles an entire systematic theology in 100 1-2 page summaries. Very useful with classes and new believers. (Thanks John.)

I’m fishing on Pipertalk and elsewhere to see if I can get some takers on this web project. Not going to disturb you boys with it. Don’t want anyone to have an accident and have to go home and change clothes. :-)

Jack: I was especially interested in your view on the comment that we need a “ruined” government and the church should actively be ruining it. With the “gospel” sword, whatever that means. What are they talking about?

Yesterday’s Clay County newspaper had a huge picture of our congressman, Republican Hal Rogers, standing elbow to elbow with the pastors of two large churches, all beaming. (One of them authored this.) It was a real visual reminder that the church has invited the state to do its thing and is blessing all the state’s efforts and methods. Also, the local sheriff’s office (not highly regarded by Christian conservatives in our area) is saying the 8 million is just creating political jobs and making a lot of publicity. (They are also funding a private, faith based treatment program, which totally scares me to death.) From what I can tell in the 24 who were arrested, they were going after the “street” guys at this point. I assume they know about the big dogs. So we will see. I’m still very, very ambiguous. This is the church involved in the drug war up to its ears, and libertarians ought to be down here signing people up. They just might get me.

(To any Clay Countians reading this: I join you in wanting the plague removed, and I believe government has a role. I want bad people stopped and hurting people helped. I am struggling with the federal government’s role as our savior in this, but I know our financial realities here. It’s their money/help or virtually no money/help, I’m sure.)

Jack, first thanks for the blog comment, it’s such an encouragment.

Second, (and probably third) I tend toward agreeing with you related to the Drug War/Prohibition comparison; I’ve worked with addicts and have come to the belief that many would keep hitting themselves over the head with insert drug of choice no matter what happens…why criminalize something that’s impossible to stop? I did say tend, meaning I’m not fully convinced and I have to acknowledge that I’m not fully versed on the subject.

Third (yep, went there), at it’s simplist, local form, “government”, especially in a Republic, is, well, us. I agree that we have crossed a line in our country, most people around here want to work for the Feds, the State, the County or the local Municipalities…in that order. It’s where the money is. I think some people think it would be great if everybody could work for the government. The simple logic of “who pays taxes” escapes them, they’d simply say, well, “government workers pay taxes”. For the benefit of those who don’t see the difficulty with that, please remember that the government, by definition, does not produce anything.

But at some level, what “government” can be, especially if more are involved at a local level, is “people working together to solve problems”. Some of that actually happens despite opinions to the contrary. Children are educated in our county…of course the school districts are always trying to get more “federal money”, thinking perhaps that “federal money” poofs into existance without anyone having to pay taxes…but the education does take place. Problem (imperfectly) solved. The same with hospitals, the same with law enforcement. Our officers just last winter shot and killed someone for the first time in years, and this guy needed killing. Problem (imperfectly) solved.

I see that there’s a line between solving problems and becoming a Big Brother, and I’m concerned that we’ve crossed it in many ways and in many places. But I’m not willing to toss out “government”, I don’t think it would be better if the “government” fell to pieces as the writer of the letter Michael posted prophesied. I believe “government” is good and instituted by God; Rutherford’s Lex Rex has a lot to say about government’s rightful place, much of it I didn’t understand but much of it I did. Our founding fathers knew Rutherford’s work, and knew that men needed government, and that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed. Good stuff; to the extent that we can move back to that, good. To the extent that we move toward anarchy, not good.

I also agree that many believers have lifted politics to the level of an idol, but I believe that’s another subject.

Bill: I love hot sauce, but I have found very few that I think are worth the effort. I keep coming back to the Original and Reigning Champion – Tabasco Sauce. It is pure, simple and nearly perfect. Red peppers, salt & vinegar, aged in oak casks in the salt-marsh air of Avery Island. I love to eat it on popcorn.

While my wife & I were on vacation last month, we drove through Napa Valley, (talk about a surreal experience…) , and I tried something called Napa Hot Sauce. It takes the basic idea of Tabasco, adds a little cilantro and uses chiles instead of red peppers, but it is aged in oak casks just like Tabasco, (and just like that other product that made Napa Valley famous). It is the first Hot Sauce I’ve tasted that comes close to Tabasco.

There was a little greasy spoon Mexican restaurant in the town I used to live in back in Texas. They made the hottest, best salsa I have ever put in my mouth. I despise sauces that are hot just for the sake of hotness, but when a man can pack a headful of flavor AND hotness into a sauce – ay-yi-yi-yi-yi. I used to eat his tacos with one hand and keep a towel in the other hand to wipe the sweat off my face. Great stuff.

One of the most pleasant culinary surprises of the last couple of years is a chain called Chipotle. It’s the Subway concept with burritos, and they have the best mass-market hot sauce I’ve ever tasted. I love it. I wish I could take some home and put it on my eggs in the morning.

(Man, I’m getting hungry…)

I think your writer is right. God has established spheres of authority for the Church, the Magistrate, the Family. Somewhere in the last 150 years, (I believe it happened when the South lost The War to Prevent Southern Independence), Americans of all stripes have come to believe that if a problem exists, the government should fix it.

And that is wrong wrong wrong.

Would Clay County be any different today if the Feds hadn’t criminalized the sale and distribution of marijuana and meth-amphetamines? I assume that the amount of money that a drug grower/dealer can make far exceeds any income he could earn legally. But if that is true, then we have an economics problem, not a crime problem. If the government didn’t making drug trafficking so profitable, then fewer people would be trying to make money dealing drugs.

Legalize drugs. Declare victory in The War on Drugs and go home. License the sale of drugs. License the manufacture of drugs. Fine the bejeebers out of anyone who makes or sells them without a license from the state. Tax the sale of drugs. Instead of spending money locking up non-violent drug offenders, (to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner per year)< how about making a little everytime Ricky wants to get high? We do the exact same thing with liquor and society has somehow managed to survive in spite of it all.

Won’t more people use drugs if they are legal? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But as your writer said, if there is anything wrong with getting high, its b ecause it is a sin, not a crime. Therefore, it is an activity that falls within the sphere of authority of the church, not the state.

If Christ is the Lord of every square inch of this planet and every minute of time, (and He is), then the state violation God’s law when it assumes powers not granted to it by God. Furthermore, it is idolatrous for Christians to look to the state for deliverance from the negative effects of drugs. The government – and out attitudes toward it – needs to shrunk back into its rightful sphere.—————————————————————————————————————————-
Why is it so stinking hard to understand that in the same way Prohibition created and sustained the Gang culture and the Mafia, The Drug War has created and sustained the drug culture?

Man has always always always found ways to anesthetize his pain – legal or illegal – and there is nothing the state can do to stop it. Using drugs is stupid. But if being stupid is a crime, then we should prosecute cigarette manufacturers and fast food restaurants, we should ticket people who don’t wear helmets on their motorcycles and don’t snap their seatbelts in the car.

Oh wait…

When stupidity is outlawed, only outlaws will be stupid.

An outstanding sermon over at Monergism on the Sheep and Goat judgement. You don’t hear preaching like this these days. Don’t give up on this one….stick with it. It will reward you.

Quote of the Day: “The fact that “Dr.” Phil has the number 1 cookbook on Amazon.com makes me want to end it all.” – Alton Brown of “Good Eats”

We’ve been reflecting a bit on how we’ve changed since our penta-evangelical days, sometimes we don’t know exactly where we are, but it’s becoming pretty clear where we are not.

I didn’t realize how cathartic blogging can be…

Michael: Per your A Rebuilt Church and a Ruined Government? post; there’s a lot of disturbing stuff to think about on that one. I find the letter quite frightening, sort of the logical fringe outcome of separatism and a hyper-politicism (is that a word?) of Christianity.

I syched it to my PPC and want to read it through a couple of times. Frankly, on first perusal, it reads like something I’d expect from Al Qaeda.

Play performance tonight, we’re half way through!

[apologies for the formatting problems. our net burped.]

Michael: Maybe it’s just a knee-jerk response that comes out of over-exposure to Brennan Manning, but whenever I hear the “The Christian response is…” or “The Christian answer is …”, I think, “there they go, shoulding all over me again.”

From what I can see in scripture, how I should respond is as follows:

• I am to have respect for the government and its laws, and obey them except where they clearly violate the principles of morality set down by Jesus. (Romans 13, 1 Thess. 3, Titus 4)
• I am to have compassion on those victimized by the situation, and that extends to just about everyone involved: the users of the substance, those involved in trafficking (who often are compelled by unjust economic practices or blackmailed by organized crime into such endevours), the agents obligated to enforce the unjust laws, and the officials who promote them while ignoring the unintended consequences (willfully or otherwise.) (Galatians 5)
• I am to work within the limits of the above to address injustice and promote mercy. (Micah 6:8)

More »« Less

www.corruptworld.com is about to expire and wondered if anyone here would like it. That means you have to register (read: cost you $) but you’d have a pretty cool name’d site that use to be a pr0n site (still getting residual traffic). My latest post is a short story about Jesus playing poker with Peter. Didn’t end the way I wanted but I think it works. Currently you can get a good deal at www.bloghosts.com

I’d like some feedback if you don’t mind on the story. The thought of putting words into Jesus’ mouth is frightening and this is the first time I have done so. WWJS? Dunno, but I tried.

For some time, I’ve had a piece at Razormouth and ms.us dealing with the drug war here in our county. Read it if you haven’t. It’s short and has nothing to do with Dr. Piper :-)

Background: Our county is drug infested. It’s awful. We are among the worst in the country. The violence and death increases every year. It is a real challenge to libertarian notions. Recently, Christians have really gotten visible, and the local politicians and pastors have joined together to get an $8 million dollar federal program in place. Lots of DEA. A treatment center in the works. Lots of court help. $8 mil. The local officials can hardly keep the sheriff’s office open, so this money is really big news. The pastors and the politicians are all over the local paper today, which is led off with the pictures of 24 folks arrested. All minor to mid-level street dealers and growers. No big dogs yet. Lots of hot tip lines. Cleaning up the mess is at a fever pitch here. My essay captures my ambiguity.

SO….today I get this letter. It was so interesting I wanted your reaction, particularly to the BOLDFACE type. Please blog your longer reactions, and comment thread the short stuff.

The human race somehow muddled through without goons in copters until very recently. While marijuana is improperly used as an intoxicant, the sin is not a crime. Sins are to be addressed by the Church, not by the sword of the magistrate. That said, legalization without careful groundwork laid by the church would be a disaster. Massive use of government force has ironically accomplished the glamorization of the drug anti-culture.

Your “conservative Christians” are not extending the Lordship of Christ by petitioning the government for more interference, intrusion and accompanying tax hikes. They are “praying” to the government for their salvation, and those illegitimate powers are more than happy to fill the void left by a God the Church itself has largely abandoned. The hotter the drug war, the more the problem is exacerbated. Whenever government enters a sphere in which it does not properly belong, the only possible outcome is failure. Lack of success is always used by out of control government as a reason for redoubled efforts to address the failure, which only results in a bigger problem, and the cycle continues.

The Christian answer (in my opinion) is a rebuilt church and a wrecked government. A church militant assault on America with the gospel sword, resulting in the emasculation of centralized socialist government and a return to civilization and freedom is the ultimate solution. Your thinking is perhaps tentative because we are all easily confused by the overwhelming societal message that our only hope is more and more of the same thing that works less and less well even as it grows bigger and stronger: government.

Until the church repents, the only path that is humane and compassionate is the patient presentation of basic truths in the nooks and crannies. Truth leads to freedom.

So….whaddaythink? Especially Jack.

On a completely unrelated, and less controversial topic: Anyone collect hot sauces? What’s the best?

I don’t particularly like the stupid ones that have pure capsaicin in them that are inedibly hot. I like them to have flavor also.

Talk to the pastor about his sermons? The gall! He is the Lord’s anointed. He is given his messages directly from God. If he preaches about money management, then that is what God wants you to hear. He is the undershepherd, you are the sheep. Remember your place. Be obedient, be submissive. More »« Less

Proposed Addendum to QotD:

I’m wondering if anyone has had success in confrontations such as we’re describing, i.e., have you spoken to church leadership regarding some issue or another and seen a positive change as a result?

Statement of Record:

Looking back at some of my recent posts and comments I realize that I’m sounding pretty tough on pastors. Actually I’m pretty tough on the pastoral profession as it’s practiced in many churches. I want it on record that I’ve had two relationships with men who’ve pastored me (us) that have been so wonderful as to overshadow any of the bad experiences I’ve had.

I truly believe that some awesome men (and women) are out there pastoring the flock, but I also believe that in many cases they are doing what they are doing despite the burdens of the “organization”.

One great point that McLaren made in A New Kind of Christian was that pastors of liturgical churches had much more time to spend with their people because they were able to teach from the lectionary, and didn’t have to spend so much time preparing an “event” each week.

I’d love to be pastored by Thomas Wingfold (Geo MacDonald character), but I believe that the two men who God has placed in my life have been wonderful substitutes.

So how many of you would go and talk to someone else (like the elder mentioned) before talking to the pastor? If so, how does that jive with Matt 18?

I would definitely talk to him, probably after the first time he preached like that. But I am very non-confrontational, in the sense that I will avoid making someone angry or hurt almost at any cost (which can be detremental to me at times),