When I first became a believer in the early ‘90’s, I heard the term “evangelical” and tried to find out what it meant. I found it a very nebulous word that meant many things to many people. It’s definition has morphed again and again in my mind; when used as an adjective it’s heavily modified by the noun it attempts to modify as well as by the person applying the term, i.e., “Evangelical Christian”, “Evangelical Free Church” and “Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” have widely different meanings. When a news personality says “Evangelical” it means something quite different than when an “Evangelical” Christian says “Evangelical”, which means something quite different than when most of us here in BHT say “Evanglelical”.

I don’t like the word, it’s definitions and connotations are too emotion-laden. I don’t like the word “faith” either, I’ve come to prefer “trust”.

Phillip, you seem to prefer “Anglican” over “Episcopal”, any reasons why?

Jim, is it syncretism when various strains within “Christiandom” blend together? I think of syncretism as the adoption of the beliefs and practices of systems outside of Christianity.

Tom,

I don’t know why Baptists are concerned about gambling from a religious perspective, but from a social justice perspective it would be wise to oppose the measure. In every state that I’m familiar with which subsidizes education with gambling money, this is just a trick so the state government can stop funding education out of its regular budget. This doesn’t end up meaning more net money to schools, it ends up meaning the same money, just from a different source.

Legal gambling amounts to exploitation of people who aren’t good at math. It’s the poor sods who spend their pension and social security checks trying to get rich that frequent these places, not people with money to burn.

Tom, thanks for the reply. I wish I had time now to interact with it; I hope I can get a chance to dig a bit deeper. One of the things I’m processing at the moment is a recent re-read of John Warwick Montegomery’s refutation of “presuppositional apologetics”, where he takes on Van Til and Dooyeweerd (my spelling is probably wrong). If I understand what Montegomery is saying, the problem with presuppositional arguments is that ultimately they have to deal with the problem of epistemology. If the fallen affects man’s ability to perceive the truth in the way that (some of) Van Til’s writings (and those of his followers) say, then nobody outside the faith can ever “know” anything that is true, but worse, even believers can’t really be sure that their belief is true, since the only way to perceive of the truth is to adopt the presuppositions, and there’s no basis for determining which set of presuppositions are in fact correct. Or, as someone once said in a class I took when discussing Plantinga, if truth is really systemic consistency, but our understanding of the nature of the system we operate in is affected by our eternal state, then there really is no truth, because there are multiple systems and no basis for evaluating their consistency other than “we presuppose.”

Seeing as how (as Michael recently reminded me) I’m neo-orthodox, none of this really affects me directly, except that I’m trying to sort through all of this as best I can. From what I can tell, there are three views of epistemology within Christianity:

• The presuppositional view, which includes Van Til, Schaeffer, Dooyeweerd and many (but not all) reformed thinkers)
• The propositional view, which includes Montegomery, maybe R. C. Sproul, and I’m sure lots of other great minds before we get to the McDowells and Stroebel.
• The personal view, which seems to be the position of the neo-orthodox theologians, but also is the (perhaps subconscious) operating perspective of most American evangelical Christians, including P/C folks as well as those involved in what I call the “new syncretism” – people who believe that the church is converging (a la Richard Foster’s Streams of Living Water) into a unified body where doctrinal differences will matter less than an inclusive spirit, a respect for different experiences of faith, and common methodologies – Willow Creek™ism or Warrenism lurks in there too, to some extent.

I don’t have a problem with a leap either (Montegomery certainly does), but that’s because for the time being at least I’m operating from the belief that truth is ultimately personal. But I’m not foolish enough to never question that belief, because there are plenty of other Christians who don’t agree, and plenty of scripture to support their views.

Boundless on Harem Dating

I posted week three’s excuse for what I’m starting to call my “Epic Church Hunt Saga”. Which, to save you great suspense, is simply made up of my excuses for not going to a church. Basically I was up too late the evening before drinking beer at a cast/crew get-together.

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.)